The case you're referring to is an entirely different set of circumstances. From the text:
"The panel held that the defendant, a former employee
whose computer access credentials were revoked, acted
“without authorization” in violation of the CFAA when he or his former employee co-conspirators used the login
credentials of a current employee to gain access to computer data owned by the former employer and to circumvent the revocation of access. "
I think that case is unambiguous - this guy was using someone else's credentials to access secured systems after having been explicitly told that he could not. I was referring to the MySpace case.
I don't think these two cases are in conflict; IMO they are very different. Additionally, for our purposes in this comment thread, we're talking about scraping of publicly available websites by outside parties, not by former employees whose access has been explicitly revoked. That is different than either of these cases.
"The panel held that the defendant, a former employee whose computer access credentials were revoked, acted “without authorization” in violation of the CFAA when he or his former employee co-conspirators used the login credentials of a current employee to gain access to computer data owned by the former employer and to circumvent the revocation of access. "
I think that case is unambiguous - this guy was using someone else's credentials to access secured systems after having been explicitly told that he could not. I was referring to the MySpace case.
I don't think these two cases are in conflict; IMO they are very different. Additionally, for our purposes in this comment thread, we're talking about scraping of publicly available websites by outside parties, not by former employees whose access has been explicitly revoked. That is different than either of these cases.