It's not illegal per cfaa, the individual who signed up did not own the email or have a reasonable/any entitlement to it. Above poster deleting the account is accessed through fully legal and intended means by service provider. The law would treat poster's deletion as fraud protection, which arguably it is. That data you claim its not theirs isn't true.
In case law studies it is debated whether or not something that is erroneously made available to you can still be construed as fraud or theft when you take advantage of it.
Think of it like an ATM that suddenly thinks your balance is 5 quadrillion dollars, and you empty it because if their system says you have it, then it's your prerogative to appropriate those funds, according to your assertion. Unfortunately, this is not how the courts have decided this should be handled. In US v Auernheimer the question is whether publicly accessible and sequential (read: guessable) routes being accessed by those they're not intended for is criminal. The improper venue appeal has nothing to do with the essence and spirit of this segment of case law, it means that the suit was brought forward improperly. That act itself was deemed criminal, otherwise Auernheimer would have remained safely in Arkansas rather than absconding to the then-stateless Republic of Abkhazia.
Saying all of this, it is important to me that I communicate to you Ethbr0, that I'm responding objectively and not at all trying to tell you that I feel one way or the other, or that I am judging you as criminal. If that's how this was taken, I wholeheartedly apologize. You are free to do what you want, and you're granted the right to speak freely publicly. To me it doesn't seem like a good idea to say what you said, and I would not act similarly, but I will not judge you for doing what you feel is right.
I'm honestly curious, because my reading of US v Auernheimer was that the majority of the penalties were linked with sharing the records obtained.
Which stands to reason and is in line with my understanding of the CFAA: that circumventing and breaching security is a crime, but the severe penalties kick in when one shares the results of those actions.
What precedent? You linked a case where the defendant '...began to write a program that he called an “accountslurper” '. Hard disagree with your statements as protecting your identify is no where similar to maliciously accessing and manipulating data.
