> even if the conditions they violated were spelled out only in a contract or terms of use. Is that correct? In https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/

> even if the conditions they violated were spelled out only in a contract or terms of use. Is that correct? In https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1507126/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1507126/downl..., I see: > that division is established in a computational sense, that is, through computer code or configuration, rather than through contracts, terms of service agreements, or employee policies and later > A CFAA prosecution may not be brought on the theory that a defendant exceeds authorized access solely by violating an access restriction contained in a contractual agreement or term of service with an Internet service provider or web service available to the general public and > the Department will not take the position that a mere contractual violation caused the user’s previous authorization to be automatically withdrawn However, any previous authorization is withdrawn if you receive something that you should understand as a C&D. It seems to me that this new policy says that to reach the threshold for CFAA prosecution you must now do more than "just" violate the terms of service. Am I misreading?