I think the parent comment's first sentence makes sense -- simply accessing that information shouldn't be a crime. But if you then make a copy and either use or distribute that information illegally, that's something different.
To be clear, that's exactly what Weev did -- accessing AND keeping a copy for himself. But I think the parent comment's argument is talking specifically about access.
Creating a precedent where a "reasonable person" is expected to "understand" that the exposure was a mistake would create a huge legal gray area. Anything that's available on the public internet should be perfectly legal to access. What people do with that content is a different matter.
The law is full of judgements based on the actions of a "reasonable person". And, I agree with your first paragraph, but then, so does the CFAA; CFAA doesn't define a strict-liability crime.
To be clear, that's exactly what Weev did -- accessing AND keeping a copy for himself. But I think the parent comment's argument is talking specifically about access.
Creating a precedent where a "reasonable person" is expected to "understand" that the exposure was a mistake would create a huge legal gray area. Anything that's available on the public internet should be perfectly legal to access. What people do with that content is a different matter.