Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

6 

VAN BUREN v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

lish Dictionary 887 (2d ed. 1989).  The disputed phrase “en-
titled so to obtain” thus asks whether one has the right, in
“the same manner as has been stated,” to obtain the rele-
vant information.  And the only manner of obtaining infor-
mation already stated in the definitional provision is “via a 
computer  [one]  is  otherwise  authorized  to  access.”    Reply
Brief 3.  Putting that together, Van Buren contends that the 
disputed phrase—“is not entitled so to obtain”—plainly re-
fers to information one is not allowed to obtain by using a 
computer that he is authorized to access.  On this reading, if
a person has access to information stored in a computer— 
e.g., in “Folder Y,” from which the person could permissibly 
pull information—then he does not violate the CFAA by ob-
taining such information, regardless of whether he pulled
the information for a prohibited purpose.  But if the infor-
mation is instead located in prohibited “Folder X,” to which
the person lacks access, he violates the CFAA by obtaining 
such information. 

The Government agrees that the statute uses “so” in the 
word’s  term-of-reference  sense,  but  it  argues  that  “so” 
sweeps more broadly.  It reads the phrase “is not entitled so 
to obtain” to refer to information one was not allowed to ob-
tain in the particular manner or circumstances in which he 
obtained it.  The manner or circumstances in which one has 
a right to obtain information, the Government says, are de-
fined by any “specifically and explicitly” communicated lim-
its  on  one’s  right  to  access  information.    Brief  for  United 
States 19.  As the Government sees it, an employee might
lawfully pull information from Folder Y in the morning for 
a permissible purpose—say, to prepare for a business meet-
ing—but unlawfully pull the same information from Folder 
Y  in  the  afternoon  for  a  prohibited  purpose—say,  to  help 
draft a resume to submit to a competitor employer. 

The Government’s interpretation has surface appeal but
proves to be a sleight of hand.  While highlighting that “so”