He didn't access a computer, he requested information from the computer, over a public channel, which was given. This is a semantic difference so it doesn't ma

He didn't access a computer, he requested information from the computer, over a public channel, which was given. This is a semantic difference so it doesn't matter that the CFAA that they consider the crime "intentionally accessing a computer without authorization" - he didn't remote desktop to the machine and log in and access the file system and get information. He used the OAuth protocol which is afforded over public channels exactly as prescribed to say "This user has granted me access to this information, please give it to me" and Facebook has said "here you go"... This is akin to asking for the information, being issued a cease and desist to prevent you from asking for it again and then using the Freedom of Information Act to request information and subsequently being arrested for being in possession of that information on the grounds that you illegally obtained that information by breaking and entering and accessing files you weren't authorized to access... which you can see is clearly not true.