After quitting his job at Korn/Ferry, an executive search firm, David Nosal decided to start a competing business. To help get his new business off the ground, Mr. Nosal convinced some of his former coworkers at Korn/Ferry to use their employee credentials to log into the Korn/Ferry system and download confidential names and addresses from the Korn/Ferry files. The coworkers then sent this information to Mr. Nosal. In addition to being charged with various counts of trade secret theft and mail fraud, Mr. Nosal was charged with violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) by “aiding and abetting the Korn/Ferry employees in exceeding their authorized access with intent to defraud.” The CFAA defines “exceeds authorized access” as “to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled to so obtain or alter.” This language can be read in two ways. Mr. Nosal believes that this should refer to someone who is authorized to access only certain data or files but who accesses unauthorized data or files. The government’s position in the case is that this refers to someone who has unrestricted physical access to a computer but is limited in how he is allowed to use the information. Which interpretation do you find more convincing? Has Mr. Nosal aided and abetted in a violation of the CFAA?