> "in order to cause loss or damage to a legal, financial, or property right". It would be a stretch, but perhaps an imaginative prosecutor could claim that th

> "in order to cause loss or damage to a legal, financial, or property right". It would be a stretch, but perhaps an imaginative prosecutor could claim that the user is trying to diminish Facebook's finances/property by generating web responses (using CPU time and electricity) which it otherwise wouldn't. That's discounting all the expansive interpretations of the CFAA which would deem any breach of Facebook's terms of service to be an act of illegal hacking, not to mention an interpretation of copyright law that asserted that the user was receiving unlicensed copies of Facebook's intellectual property (e.g. their HTML).