> so long as you're OK to access a system for some purpose, you're fine so far as the CFAA is concerned This is a pretty gross simplification of the position b

> so long as you're OK to access a system for some purpose, you're fine so far as the CFAA is concerned This is a pretty gross simplification of the position by the majority. I get it was an example and maybe a bit exaggerated, but wanted to point this out. They even specifically said that you have to have the specific access to the information you are retrieving - the example (paraphrased) was if you have access to folder X, but not folder Y, and you then access folder Y, you are now in violation. If anything, the minority was basically being, IMO, too trusting that people with the authority to bring these charges would be reasonable and exercise it in an unbiased and even manner.