In your example, the information you sell would still be illegal, it just wouldn't have the added crime of hacking aka "unauthorized access" attached to it. Pe

In your example, the information you sell would still be illegal, it just wouldn't have the added crime of hacking aka "unauthorized access" attached to it. People are calling this a win because the CFAA, as it used to be interpreted, would have had you potentially charged for changing the url of this post from 'https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27389500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27389500' to this 'https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=waffles https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=waffles'. This allowed cops/feds to charge you with crazy high penalties if they really wanted to make you sweat, see Aaron Schwartz Some of the most memorable SCOTUS cases had less than noble test cases (ever hear of Miranda rights? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona). SCOTUS isn't deciding if the defendant is a dirt bag or not, just if the very specific law is valid/applied correctly