Ostensibly "ethical considerations" are a precursor to a law being ratified, and will also be used when a law is not sufficiently specified as to obviate the decision. If a party is not denying their activity in court, but rather claiming that it doesn't match existing laws, this would come into play.

But if you contest that or have an issue with the specific terminology I used, perhaps you'd prefer this terminology instead: "I don't think this is a good framework for interpreting the CFAA and establishing legal precedent."