I'm more interested in how the rewording from "unauthorized access" to "the circumvention of technological access barriers" holds any substantial practical diff

I'm more interested in how the rewording from "unauthorized access" to "the circumvention of technological access barriers" holds any substantial practical difference. It gives the defense a leg to stand on by specifying "technological" access barriers and their "circumvention," and the amendments also exclude ToS violations as barriers. But what's to stop a prosecutor from arguing that unrelated technological barriers were in place elsewhere, and the fact that a defendant didn't encounter these (technological) barriers still constitutes circumvention? I guess there'd be a big fight over "circumvention," but IANAL so perhaps it's all moot. I also don't understand how "changing one's MAC or IP address [in order to circumvent] 'technological access measures'" doesn't constitute a violation in principle, even if their proposed bill decides to whitelist those two behaviours notwithstanding other portions of the bill.