Prof. Kerr doesn't explicitly mention it, but this amended version of the statute would likely have made Aaron Swarz's conduct in the MIT/JSTOR case not chargea

Prof. Kerr doesn't explicitly mention it, but this amended version of the statute would likely have made Aaron Swarz's conduct in the MIT/JSTOR case not chargeable as a felony by removing or raising the bar for many of the felony enhancements. (The federal definition of a felony is a crime that carries a maximum penalty of more than a year so this is a little obscure.) It would likely restore sanity to many other questions of computer crime law as well by requiring circumvention of a technological measure to count as unauthorized access, rather than merely exceeding the TOS. Supporting reforms like this seems like a potentially very meaningful way to channel the anger at Aaron's treatment.