The CFAA requires you to have effective security measures, or something of the sort. I'm dubious a User-Agent filter qualifies, especially so if it's only filt

The CFAA requires you to have effective security measures, or something of the sort. I'm dubious a User-Agent filter qualifies, especially so if it's only filtering for the largest browser by market share. Fwiw, from my readings of similar cases, this seems similar to how the courts read the law. Any access you can achieve without material deception is valid. There was a case on here a while back where a couple of reporters filed a FOIA request and the city accidentally put records not meant for release in the Dropbox folder. Reporters downloaded the accidentally-added files, city sued. The city ended up settling because it looked like the court was going to rule against them. The court's logic was basically that by allowing access to the information, you have de facto authorized the user to access it. It would be impossible to tell whether you can legally access any information if the counterparty can give you access and then decide you shouldn't have seen it when you do access it.