"For example, hacking is much more prevalent now than it was even nine years ago, and the rise of computer hacking viathe Internet has changed the public's reasonable expectations of privacy. Cf Lee Raine, How Americans balance privacy concerns with sharing personal information: 5 key findings, PewResearchCenter (January 14, 2016), http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/14/key-findings... (reporting that members of a focus group "worried about hackers," though "some accept that [privacy tradeoffs are] a part of modern life"). Now, it seems unreasonable to think that a computer connected to the Web is immune from invasion. Indeed, the opposite holds true: in today's digital world, it appears to be a virtual certainty that computers accessing the Internet can - and eventually will - be hacked."

"Thus, hacking resembles the broken blinds in Carter. 525 U.S. at 85. Just as Justice Breyer wrote in concurrence that a police officer who peers through broken blinds does not violate anyone's Fourth Amendment rights, jd. at 103 (Breyer, J., concurring), FBI agents who exploit a vulnerability in an online network do not violate the Fourth Amendment. Just as the area into which the officer in Carter peered - an apartment - usually is afforded Fourth Amendment protection, a computer afforded Fourth Amendment protection in other circumstances is not protected from Government actors who take advantage of an easily broken system to peer into a user's computer. People who traverse the Internet ordinarily understand the risk associated with doing so. Thus, the deployment of the NIT to capture identifying information found on Defendant's computer does not represent a search under the Fourth Amendment, and no warrant was needed."

The section of interest starts on page 47 of the linked Opinion and Order. http://mobile.eweek.com/security/home-computers-connected-to...

The judge conveniently disregards the difference between passive observation and active intrusion. Breaking into someone's computer is no different than if the officer had broken the blinds themself, which clearly would not meet the test described by Justice Breyer.

So, that judge just stuck down CFAA for civilians too? Or only for Law Enforcement

CFAA is about exceeding authorised access, not violating expectations of privacy.