I think 18USC1030 is pretty broad in its definition of a "computer". Back in the MBTA hacking case, MBTA claimed a magnetized piece of paper was a computer unde

I think 18USC1030 is pretty broad in its definition of a "computer". Back in the MBTA hacking case, MBTA claimed a magnetized piece of paper was a computer under this clause, and the first judge that looked at it bought that (sanity prevailed and that decision was later over-ruled). I wouldn't be surprised if they are considering the MIT network or at least the routers that were configured to prevent his access the protected computer in this case.