Obviously. But I was responding to a particular argument. Why is "knowingly accessing records that you know you shouldn't have access to" so different in this case? There's no trespassing or equivalent; the computer itself was set up for public access.
And "protected computer" is basically all computers. Imagine if the records were on a kindle; that shouldn't change the legality and if the CFAA does so that's a bad thing.
A phone is a personal device and I'd like that to be treated differently in many ways.
A public web server doesn't have such direct privacy issues.
When it comes to records on a bench vs. a non-personal kindle on a bench, I think they should have equal and low protection. Abusing the data should face penalties, but not poking around.
Why should you have any right to “poke around” a kindle you find on a park bench? Beyond any general rights you might have permitting you to take ownership of lost property, that is.
I don’t see any obvious reason as to why this should be allowed, but it’s trivial to come up with a whole plethora of reasons for why you shouldn’t be allowed to poke around such devices.
And "protected computer" is basically all computers. Imagine if the records were on a kindle; that shouldn't change the legality and if the CFAA does so that's a bad thing.