[ceejayoz]

The Amazon employee accessing the data would be "exceeding authorized access".

> The difference in Aaron's case is huge: he didn't own the computers that hosted JSTOR.

His access was authorized, though. They still threw CFAA at him.

[kube-system]

"exceeding authorized access" is not enough to violate the CFAA.

You have to "exceed authorized access to a protected computer"

The CFAA is not a data protection law. It is a computer protection law.

[ceejayoz]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act

> In practice, any ordinary computer has come under the jurisdiction of the law, including cellphones, due to the interstate nature of most Internet communication.

[kube-system]

Sure. The question I am alluding to is: can someone defraud their own computer?

Maybe it is possible, but the consequences to answering 'yes' to this is pretty scary.

[ceejayoz]

If I buy my spouse a phone, and secretly bug it, I'm still violating wiretap laws, even if it's technically mine.

If I'm renting an apartment, my landlord can't install a camera in the bathroom, even if they're the owner of the building.

Ownership doesn't change the fact that the law says "exceeds authorized access". Amazon agrees to only access the computer I'm renting from them in very specific scenarios. If they violate that, it looks like a pretty clear CFAA violation.

[kube-system]

Neither of your two examples have anything to do with the CFAA.

> Amazon agrees to only access the computer I'm renting from them in very specific scenarios.

AWS provides compute services, they do not rent computers. They make this clear in their terms.

[ceejayoz]

> Neither of your two examples have anything to do with the CFAA.

They demonstrate that legal ownership is not the same as the legal right to do whatever you want with what you own.

> AWS provides compute services, they do not rent computers. They make this clear in their terms.

Good luck hoodwinking a judge with that argument.