Opening Arguments Does OA Owe Amy Coney Barrett An Apology?
10 snips
Jan 12, 2026 Janessa (Dr. Janessa Seymour), a skilled legal analyst specializing in criminal and tech law, joins to dissect the implications of Van Buren v. United States. They explore the nuanced debate on 'exceeds authorized access' under the CFAA. The conversation highlights the role of statutory language, especially the conjunction 'so,' and its impact on legal interpretations. Janessa shares real-world examples of insider misuse, while examining the tension between legislative intent and practicality in prosecutions. They're left pondering the ambiguities and future implications of tech-related legal interpretations.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
'So' Refers To Manner, Not Purpose
- Van Buren turned on how "so to obtain" is read and whether purpose can be imported into authorization.
- Amy Coney Barrett concluded "so" refers back to the manner of access, not purpose.
Authorized Access: Technical Or Purposeful?
- The core dispute is whether "authorized" includes a purpose or only technical access.
- Barrett and Thomas favored a narrow, technical meaning to avoid arbitrary prosecutions tied to employer policies.
Statutory Wording Shows Different Offenses
- The CFAA contains multiple distinct offenses using "without authorization" and "exceeds authorized access."
- That separate wording suggests Congress meant different conduct for outsiders versus insiders.