[anigbrowl]

We desperately need a law

Why not just have a law against subverting the intent of existing laws, or against making bad-faith arguments? Laws are only as good as people's willingness to accept impartial assessment thereof. Absent that, they will just be exploited selectively for strategic leverage.

Aristotle observed that laws tend to multiply under tyrannical regimes, as rulers impose ever more onerous conditions upon their subjects; I think it's also true that an excess of laws creates opportunity for tyranny in the sense of creating a much larger attack surface for a malicious or cynical actor to exploit. To my mind, the growth of the US and state codes* is a bug rather than a feature, and pruning such complexity highly desirable.

* https://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.4146.pdf

[fivre]

This approach is inherently unclear. Intent is never completely recorded because doing so is fundamentally impossible--there's far too much minutiae and unwritten context to guarantee that jurists are following intent, and consistency is important in law (ideally, anyway--this ignores the real and present issues in US jurisprudence where consistency is thrown out the window for partisan benefit).

You can't have laws whose interpretation is "don't do things you shouldn't" because parties in legal disputes clearly disagree about what "shouldn't" means, else they wouldn't fucking be resolving them through expensive and lengthy legal action.

There's a meaningful distinction between clarification of and expansion of the law. Legislators are responsible for both. OP may not have phrased it precisely, but they're saying the CFAA needs to be _clarified_. This doesn't mean it expands in scope--if anything, its scope would be narrowed.