US Supreme Court Restricts Scope of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act [pdf]
I guess this is the part that matters most?<p>&quot;We must decide whether Van Buren also violated
the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA), which
makes it illegal “to access a computer with authorization
and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the
computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or
alter.”
He did not. This provision covers those who obtain information from particular areas in the computer—such as
files, folders, or databases—to which their computer access
does not extend. It does not cover those who, like Van Buren, have improper motives for obtaining information that
is otherwise available to them&quot;<p>Thomas, Alito and Roberts dissented, and I hate to say it, but I agree with them.<p>&quot;The question here is straightforward: Would an ordinary
reader of the English language understand Van Buren to
have “exceed[ed] authorized access” to the database when
he used it under circumstances that were expressly forbidden? In my view, the answer is yes. The necessary precondition that permitted him to obtain that data was absent.&quot;<p>That&#x27;s Thomas dissenting.