> A well-known legal phrase is “ignorance of the law is no defense”. But that doesn’t really apply here. You know the law exists. You may have read it in detail

> A well-known legal phrase is “ignorance of the law is no defense”. But that doesn’t really apply here. You know the law exists. You may have read it in detail. You may have even consulted your lawyer. It’s just that nobody can tell precisely whether this act as crossed the line between “authorized” and “unauthorized” access. We won’t know until if and when somebody tries to prosecute you. This is a GOOD thing. The whole point is, there's no clear line between reasonable access and hacking. It's something which the courts have to figure out. The Common Law is largely based on common sense, and precedent; and precedent is based on a previous judge's common sense. The three big rules for interpreting laws are the plain meaning rule (use the literal meaning), the "golden rule" (ignore the plain meaning rule if it's obviously stupid), and the mischief rule (figure out what mischief the lawmakers were trying to prevent). A vaguely written law lets judges use their common sense. While I'm sure there'll be people who disagree with their interpretations, it's either that or black and white statues which simply won't work.