>"This domain accepts GET and POST requests over standard HTTP ports (TCP 80 and TCP 443) via strictly web based traffic originating from browsers"
lol
lol
1) Find a young eager numbers driven federal prosecutor near 'US District Court Of Wyoming'
2) Offer plea deals. Explain to the users of said 'hacker plugins' they can choose to take the 'risk' of a (confused local residence) jury or take the generous plea of 2 years of federal prison.
>From those cases, we distill two general rules in analyzing authorization under the CFAA. ... Second, a violation of the terms of use of a website--without more--cannot be the basis for liability under the CFAA.
They say this because (Id. at 1076):
>"Not only are the terms of service vague and generally unknown . . . but website owners retain the right to change the terms at any time and without notice." [676 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2012)] at 862. As a result, imposing criminal liability for violations of the terms of use of a website could criminalize many daily activities. Accordingly, "the phrase 'exceeds authorized access' in the CFAA does not extend to violations of use restrictions. If Congress wants to incorporate misappropriation liability into the CFAA, it must speak more clearly." Id. at 863.
http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/1265-...
The article links to a copy of the image: https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5947035/29184514-2...