I would compare a website to an answering machine; it is a lot closer to what is happening. I dial your number, I get your answering machine, and now I can int

I would compare a website to an answering machine; it is a lot closer to what is happening. I dial your number, I get your answering machine, and now I can interact with that answering machine. Same with a website -- I direct my browser to it, and I get to ask it for information, and it is your responsibility to ensure that nothing I send will cause information to be leaked. See, the problem with laws like CFAA is that they are based on the premise that there is "nothing" a bank could do to prevent hackers from accessing their computers without permission. At no point did anyone stop to say, "Maybe computers that process billions of dollars in transactions every day should not be plugged into the public phone network or Internet until we have some good reason to think those computers cannot be manipulated by hackers;" instead, the thinking was, "Hackers are evil wizards, nobody could possibly protect themselves from hackers, so we should make a law that allows us to throw the evil wizards in prison!" The idea that AT&T should be blamed for leaving customer data out in the open like that is not even on the table (strangely, if AT&T left a binder full of personal information unattended on a table in a public park, and labeled the binder "DO NOT OPEN," they would probably be the target of a successful lawsuit).