As the article explains, the concern is that they violated a law originally designed to prevent malicious "hacking" and that carries penalties that may be stronger than are warranted for something that's a lot closer to trespassing.

If you scroll past the first few pages, you can read the EFF explain in detail why this is a problem http://ia601209.us.archive.org/33/items/gov.uscourts.cand.25...

I don't think anyone disagrees that CFAA reform is needed.

But this doesn't show a misapplication of the law as it's currently written, either.

If I walk back into a Walmart I'm banned from, I don't face felony charges. That's a very significant difference.

You face trespassing charges which can be felonies in certain cases. So really there isn't a very significant difference.

I don't think you are trespassing anybody's property by accessing a publicly available website.

It's more analogous to having something on your property you want everybody walking by the street to see. Then you put a tarp to block your annoying neighbor from viewing it but anyone else is still welcome to it.

Would the neighbor be trespassing every time he walks by the street and looks at it?

Actually it's just so.

They say "no shirt no service". You show up with a shirt and get service.

You get blocked from one ip, you show up from another you get service.

You didn't understand what he wrote did you?

> They say "no shirt no service". You show up with a shirt and get service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent