> operationalizing fairly simple moral principles into forms suitable for enforcement as laws is inherently messy Assuming that I agree with this (at least for

> operationalizing fairly simple moral principles into forms suitable for enforcement as laws is inherently messy Assuming that I agree with this (at least for the sake of argument), it still misses my point. My point is that most laws--and the CFAA is an example--are not "operationalizing fairly simple moral principles into forms suitable for enforcement as laws". As I have pointed out several times now at various points in this overall discussion thread, we already have laws against fraud. Why should fraud that is committed with a computer be any different from fraud commmitted by other means? Having a separate law that makes committing fraud with a computer different from committing fraud some other way is not operationalizing a fairly simple moral principle against fraud. It's making the legal system more byzantine and complex for no good reason. That is what I am arguing against.