If you read the opinions, the dissent reads the CFAA as if it were just importing common law property-based rules to the electronic realm. As it applies to prop

If you read the opinions, the dissent reads the CFAA as if it were just importing common law property-based rules to the electronic realm. As it applies to property, authorization is absolutely contextual. If I give a key to a housecleaner and they use it one afternoon intending to steal something, that's trespass. If they just happen to steal something on the spur of the moment, that's not trespass. However, the CFAA has additional language ("exceeds authorized access") that would capture such behavior. As the dissent notes, you can absolutely be charged with criminal trespass if you, for example, enter a National Park to remove a grain of sand in violation of park rules; it's the intent to do something in violation of the terms of access that makes it trespass. The majority opinion says that applying common law property-based meanings is not the right approach. Rather, the CFAA makes far more sense if you understand authorization and similar terms in the sense they're more often used in computer science, which turn on the design of the authentication and authorization system itself, and are agnostic to external policy, agent intent, etc.