Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf
Page Number: 22.0

18 

VAN BUREN v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

from 

“information” 

otherwise  law-abiding  citizens  are  criminals.  Take  the 
workplace.  Employers commonly state that computers and 
electronic devices can be used only for business purposes. 
So on the Government’s reading of the statute, an employee
who  sends  a  personal  e-mail  or  reads  the  news  using  her 
work computer has violated the CFAA.  Or consider the In-
ternet.  Many  websites,  services,  and  databases—which 
provide 
“protected  computer[s],”
§1030(a)(2)(C)—authorize  a  user’s  access  only  upon  his 
agreement to follow specified terms of service.  If the “ex-
ceeds  authorized  access”  clause  encompasses  violations  of 
circumstance-based access restrictions on employers’ com-
puters, it is difficult to see why it would not also encompass
violations of such restrictions on website providers’ comput-
ers.  And indeed, numerous amici explain why the Govern-
ment’s  reading  of  subsection  (a)(2)  would  do  just  that—
criminalize everything from embellishing an online-dating 
profile  to  using  a  pseudonym  on  Facebook.    See  Brief  for 
Orin  Kerr  as  Amicus  Curiae  10–11;  Brief  for  Technology 
Companies  as  Amici  Curiae  6,  n. 3,  11;  see  also  Brief  for 
Reporters  Committee  for  Freedom  of  the  Press  et al.  as 
Amici Curiae 10–13 (journalism activity); Brief for Kyratso 
Karahalios et al. as Amici Curiae 11–17 (online civil-rights 
testing and research).

In response to these points, the Government posits that
other terms in the statute—specifically “authorization” and 
“use”—“may  well”  serve  to  cabin  its  prosecutorial  power.
Brief for United States 35; see Tr. of Oral Arg. 38, 40, 58
(“instrumental”  use;  “individualized”  and  “fairly  specific”
authorization).  Yet the Government stops far short of en-
dorsing  such  limitations.  Cf.  Brief  for  United  States  37 
(concept of “authorization” “may not logically apply”); id., at 
38 (“ ‘use’ ” might be read in a more “limited” fashion, even
though  it  “often  has  a  broader  definition”);  see  also,  e.g., 
post, at 11–12 (mens rea requirement “might” preclude lia-
bility in some cases).  Nor does it cite any prior instance in