My initial reaction was to agree with you, but based on my reading of the law I actually have to support the majority opinion: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscod

My initial reaction was to agree with you, but based on my reading of the law I actually have to support the majority opinion: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030#e_6 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030#e_6 (6) the term “exceeds authorized access” means to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter; The language here is relatively narrow. Nathan did "access a computer with authorization", and he didn't obtain information that he was "not entitled so to obtain or alter". He may have obtained it for a purpose that was expressly forbidden by the department policy, but he was permitted to obtain the information in and of itself. To qualify as being "under circumstances that were expressly forbidden", I think it would have to be a situation wherein he wasn't allowed to obtain the information in general, e.g. if he were only allowed to access it within certain hours or with a superior present. It's like the difference between giving someone your phone (which, for the sake of argument, qualifies as a "protected computer" in this scenario) and telling them that they can go through your photos so long as they don't take out their own phone and photograph any of them, and telling them that they can only open your photos while you're watching. It would be extremely rude in either case to secretly take your phone and exfiltrate your photos — and may even still be a crime in and of itself (and/or lead to follow-on crimes) — but I wouldn't consider the former to violate this particular law.