can anyone interpret the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act(CFAA) to include everyday mistakes in good faith?
<p>For example can the statement "Intentionally access without authorization/exceed authorization" be interpreted to mean something like a strict liability for accidental mistakes? </p>

<p>Like can a plantiff/prosecutor say something like "ya i know you made an accidental mistake in good faith but because this law is stated in just this way , I can also interpret this law as only needing intent to actually want to just access this particular thing even though you didn't know you don't have access or you believed you have proper access from authority. So i'm holding you strictly liable for an accidental mistake that everyday people can make." Can people interpret this law whichever way they like?? If no or yes then why? I'm not a law student /lawyer so trying to understand this law  as a typical person.</p>

<p>The courts have to have established the scope of the word "intentionally" in "intentionally access without authorization". The narrow reading is "intentionally access" meaning that the state does not have to establish intent with respect to authorization. The first step therefore is to determine exactly what law is applicable. <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2701" rel="nofollow noreferrer">18 USC 2701</a> refers to one who</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>intentionally accesses without authorization a facility</p>
  
  <p>intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030" rel="nofollow noreferrer">18 USC 1030</a> says:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(a)(1) knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or
  exceeding authorized access...</p>
  
  <p>(2) Intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds
  authorized access...</p>
  
  <p>(3) intentionally, without authorization to access</p>
</blockquote>

<p>See <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/468/63/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">US v. Yermian</a> for analogous discussion of "knowingly and willfully" in the false statement law <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001" rel="nofollow noreferrer">18 USC 1001</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive,
  legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United
  States, knowingly and willfully...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>(where the issue is whether a person must <em>know</em> that the false statement is in a matter within federal jurisdiction). </p>

<p>The prosecutor is not allowed to argue what the law says, nor is the defense allowed to make such an argument. The practical tool for translating statutory language to human-decidable question is the jury instruction. There is no single jury instruction for all federal computer access laws. The Dept. of Justice has some draft <a href="https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-ccips/legacy/2015/01/14/ccmanual.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">jury instructions here</a> starting p. 157, with no explanation of their authority. In the particular circuit, there may be an instruction which eliminates ambiguity, if it exists in the statutory language. If so, the judge will read that instruction. However, the judge is not allowed to make stuff up if the pattern instructions are not clear enough (or don't exist on the particular point).</p>

internet interpretation cfaa