Silly kids... (Score 1)

The examples I am seeing of how a violation of the CFAA might occur, and the idea that whole sections of the internet might be "unauthorized" are just plain silly. Especially the GrokLaw example outlining a possible violation of law because at the time of your access to information you had violated your ISP argeement in some way.

1. I access the internet pursuant to my Terms and Service Agreement with my ISP (that I agreed to but given that there are only 48 hours in a weekend, did not read]. This is the contractual instrument that allows my "access" to be "authorized".

This inaccurate. Your ISP does not own the internet nor have they been assign the task of policing or collecting funds for the internet, nor is your contract with them what "allows you to be authorized" to access the internet. Your contract with your ISP allow you to access the internet through their service...period. Imagine Microsoft suing millions of hotmail users because they found out that they were accessing their hotmail accounts from a friends computer and did not have an ISP account. GrokLaws assumptions go beyond absurd and are only worth mentioning to shed some common sense and law on the subject so innocent web users are not thrown into a panic by such amateur hysteria.

2. Then I violate this instrument's conditions, and my access, is, at the very moment of the violation, "unauthorized".

What color is the sky is this guys world? If you violate your ISP's conditions of use you might be unauthorized to access the internet using there service and might also be in breach of contract, however that does not mean the broad "unauthorized to access the internet" implied by the above. It simply means using their service to do so. There is nothing to prevent your accessing the internet by some other means as long as you do not violate someone elses terms of use.

3. And since, given that I'm probably staring at the screen, I am therefore "obtaining"... (viewing) "information from a protected computer..."

This guys website should more appropriatly be called "GrokUninformedLayman". Violation of your ISP's agreement does not suddenly make Microsoft's Hotmail servers "protected computers" with regard to authorized access. If accessing your hotmail account before you violated your ISP's service agreement was authorized it is still so even after the violation. One has nothing to do with the other. You might be unauthorized to use your ISP's service however that does not mean Microsoft can make a case for criminal charges or a lawsuit. Of course anyone can sue.

4. In theory, we have, a violation of the CFAA.

I cannot wait to meet him in court. Anyone want to take odds? Oh wait that might be interpreted as an offer for gambling and in violation of my ISP's service agreement which according to Groklaw means that I am now unauthorized to acces the internet, which means that Slashdot is now part of a criminal conspiracy to defraud that gods of the internet and we are all doomed to burn in the firey pits of hell. Merry Christmas!

Please people, go for a walk and infuse your brains with oxygen. Sitting at a computer to long has been known to leed to severe cases of paranoia, madness and hysteria. You are not in danger of loosing the internet because SCO makes some dumbass claim and GrokLaw hypes everything to an all time high. I see a parallel here. SCO rides the coattails of Linux --> GrokLaw rides the coattails of SCO...

Everything contains its opposite.