Just because someone did something wrong and should be punished doesn't mean they committed murder. Just because a computer was used doesn't mean it was "hacki

Just because someone did something wrong and should be punished doesn't mean they committed murder. Just because a computer was used doesn't mean it was "hacking". The Supreme Court essentially limited the scope of the CFAA to unauthorized access of a computer system. That is a good thing. The alternative is your employer could institute a policy change in what you can use internal systems for and you could find yourself on the wrong end of a CFAA "hacking" criminal prosecution. That's not hyperbole. On a side note, we once again find Thomas on the wrong side of history. The dissenters have gone well beyond what they might argue is strict textualism to simply supporting broad authoritarianism. Aaron Swartz is frequently brought up here as a prime example of prosecutorial overreach. For example, he was charged with "hacking" with the (then) interpretation of the CFAA, which then compounded to other charges, like breaking and entering to commit a felony (CFAA "hacking" was that felony). We need less not more overbroad legislation.