In similar situations charges could include vandalism, losses resulting from disruption of service, etc, but in the example you have given most likely reckless/

In similar situations charges could include vandalism, losses resulting from disruption of service, etc, but in the example you have given most likely reckless/public endangerment and direct damages associated with creating or repairing the state of the system; the specific statutes would vary by jurisdiction and case details, but the CFAA doesn't say anything important that hasn't already been accounted for. At the moment people are saying "you can't do this to my data," when they should be saying "you can't do this to my body and my physical property," independent of how. The Internet is just one more way of reaching out and touching someone. People already know the effects that are worth preventing and admonishing. Copyright infringement is one effect being discouraged, not because the data are holy but because of hypothetical financial damages. Whether hypothetical damages are or aren't valid should be discussed directly, without vacuous TOS wrappers and ministrations about the moral uses of data within a network.