As explained in the article the Justice Department uses fierce interpretation of the law.
While the law stands in its current unclear state people are still at risk of prosecution. Conviction might be improbable, but it's still an unpleasant situation to be in.
Note that the Nosal case was a person who was permitted to access to computer, but who then misused information got from it, and not someone who was prevented from accessing the computer.
While the law stands in its current unclear state people are still at risk of prosecution. Conviction might be improbable, but it's still an unpleasant situation to be in.
Courts show that judges are not unanimous about this. (https://www.eff.org/cases/u-s-v-nosal)
Note that the Nosal case was a person who was permitted to access to computer, but who then misused information got from it, and not someone who was prevented from accessing the computer.
(https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/rebooting-computer-cri...)