[macchina]

He actually does have a point based on the text.

1030(a)(2)(C) Whoever intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains information from any protected computer; shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

Under the statute, a "protected computer" generally means any computer connected to the internet.

Also, based on the legislative history, "obtains information" has been read to mean "merely observing" information.

The only issue is "without authorization." Based on its plain meaning, the law could mean that you need affirmative authorization to access any website.

Obviously, that's a real stretch, but there was a case decided by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals [1] that held a company liable for using a web scraper - where the court said the defendants exceeded authorized access based on the website's boilerplate copyright notice.

[1]http://openjurist.org/274/f3d/577/ef-cultural-travel-bv-v-ex...

[Tloewald]

IANAl but putting up a website implies granting certain kinds of access. This is common knowledge and common practice. The foundation of Common Law (the basis of our legal system) is "what would a reasonable man do?"

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

You can't parse sentences out of context and apply programmer logic to them, that's not how laws work.

[macchina]

The federal government has plenary authority to regulate interstate commerce. Federal law generally overrides common law to the extent its unambiguous.

It's true that Judge Kozinski in the 9th Circuit said he would not "apply a badly drafted piece of legislation to lead to [an] absurd result."

But the issue is not cut and dry.

Kozinski essentially acknowledged he was interpreting the statute in a manner possibly at odds with its very language. These courts get reversed all the time (over 70% of their cases) - and other circuits have read the law more narrowly.

And the government itself supports a narrow reading of the law.

OP's article is over the top. My point is, the "authorization" part of the law appears extremely broad and as the DOJ puts it: "the case law on this issue is muddy."

[Tloewald]

Federal law itself resides on common law. (It's more fundamental than the constitution. Ever heard of habeas corpus? Due process? Rules of evidence? Trial by jury? Precedent? Think Magna Carta.) In earlier the linked article Oliver Wendell Holmes is quoted on the importance and nature of the reasonable man.

As for common law:

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

I am still not a lawyer.

[macchina]

I'm not a lawyer either, but I am in my 3rd year of law school - so yes I've heard of all those things. I've also studied the CFAA.

Common law is judge-made and only governs in the absence of statutory authority. (Due process and trial by jury are constitutional laws). The reasonable man is primarily a negligence standard.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405311190406060457657...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594035229/