I don't think you have the pattern of facts correct (unless you have access to more information than what is in linked the Stanford Daily article). > At the ti

I don't think you have the pattern of facts correct (unless you have access to more information than what is in linked the Stanford Daily article). > At the time, Fizz used Google’s Firestore database product to store data including user information and posts. Firestore can be configured to use a set of security rules in order to prevent users from accessing data they should not have access to. However, Fizz did not have the necessary security rules set up, making it possible for anyone to query the database directly and access a significant amount of sensitive user data. > We found that phone numbers and/or email addresses for all users were fully accessible, and that posts and upvotes were directly linkable to this identifiable information. It was possible to identify the author of any post on the platform. So AFAICT there is no indication they created any admin accounts to access the data. This is yet another example of an essentially publicly accessible database that holds what was supposed to be private information. This seems like a far less clear application of the CFAA than the pattern of facts you describe.