While in theory a ruling 'fixing' CFAA is exactly what we've been waiting for I have two problems with it: The first is a principled objection (and thus in som

While in theory a ruling 'fixing' CFAA is exactly what we've been waiting for I have two problems with it: The first is a principled objection (and thus in some ways less important): the rulings below were probably correct applications of a terribly drafted law. The way to fix the law in a functioning government would be legislative. But anyways I really want to share the second objection which is entirely pragmatic: if the only time we ever limit the scope of laws which are badly drafted like this is when we're trying to find some excuse to let bad cops get away with their behavior, then this will have two outcomes: first, bad cops will get away with their bad behavior more often; second, we will find that these precedents don't actually stick when it comes to protecting actual innocents. These are related problems because judges can always find some way to distinguish bad cop cases from innocent private citizen cases to ensure that precedents need not apply. People talk about the first and second and fourth (... and fifth, sixth, tenth, etc.) Amendments to the US Constitution as being under attack, and the interstate commerce clause as being long dead. But like all stillbirths, no one likes to talk about the equal protection clause.