Argument:
I. The CFAA does not criminalize accessing a computer by using a
shared password
A. This Court has held that the CFAA’s “unauthorized
access” element prohibits computer hacking, not mere badfaith
access
B. Interpreting the CFAA to criminalize shared-password
access would yield absurd results
C. Interpreting the CFAA to criminalize shared-password
access would render the statute void for vagueness as
applied in this case
D. As in WEC Carolina, the rule of lenity dictates a narrow
interpretation of the CFAA
Full document here..........http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2015/03/SharedPassword.pdf
I. The CFAA does not criminalize accessing a computer by using a
shared password
A. This Court has held that the CFAA’s “unauthorized
access” element prohibits computer hacking, not mere badfaith
access
B. Interpreting the CFAA to criminalize shared-password
access would yield absurd results
C. Interpreting the CFAA to criminalize shared-password
access would render the statute void for vagueness as
applied in this case
D. As in WEC Carolina, the rule of lenity dictates a narrow
interpretation of the CFAA
Full document here..........http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2015/03/SharedPassword.pdf