Re:Van Buren is a victory against overbroad interpretations ...
by LocalPCGuy on Friday June 04, 2021 @05:40PM
(#27399392)
> so long as you're OK to access a system for some purpose, you're fine so far as the CFAA is concerned
This is a pretty gross simplification of the position by the majority. I get it was an example and maybe a bit exaggerated, but wanted to point this out. They even specifically said that you have to have the specific access to the information you are retrieving - the example (paraphrased) was if you have access to folder X, but not folder Y, and you then access folder Y, you are now in violation.
If anything, the minority was basically being, IMO, too trusting that people with the authority to bring these charges would be reasonable and exercise it in an unbiased and even manner.
Re:Van Buren is a victory against overbroad interpretations ...
by ghaff on Friday June 04, 2021 @06:12PM
(#27399672)
Fair enough. I was using "system" in the sense of collection of resources/information--not necessarily everything connected to it in some manner.
I'm not unhappy with the result. I also think it draws a very narrow line that doesn't really exist in the law (which is why you see Thomas et al dissenting).
That said, I have sympathy for the dissent as well which essentially argues that the majority is drawing an awful fine distinction here. i.e. so long as you're OK to access a system for some purpose, you're fine so far as the CFAA is concerned.