I was wondering the same thing, and I don't think it would. I am not a lawyer, and I guess we can't know why the jury voted guilty, but I think the arguments we

I was wondering the same thing, and I don't think it would. I am not a lawyer, and I guess we can't know why the jury voted guilty, but I think the arguments were that weev didn't have authorization. They argued that there was several "gates" weev had to go through to access AT&T's data. 1) User agent. He changed the user agent to that of an iPad. 2) The ID themselves. He only had to increment them to get to a new one, but they argued these were like a password. 3) Going to a URL that wasn't linked from somewhere. I'm not kidding. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130929/15371724695/dojs-insane-argument-against-weev-hes-felon-because-he-broke-rules-we-made-up.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130929/15371724695/dojs-... So I think in weev's case, they argued he never had authorization at all. Whereas, in Van Buren's case, "The parties agree that Van Buren “access[ed] a computer with authorization”. So the problem was whether or not he exceeded authorization, not if he had it in the first place.