The best synopsis I could find for the dubiousness of the government's approach is from bradleymanning.org [1]:
"The government says that Bradley Manning used the automated downloading program Wget to retrieve hundreds of thousands of State Department cables from the Net-Centric Diplomacy database, and that use of Wget alone constitutes exceeding his authorized access to data, a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act."
...
"The Government has not introduced any evidence to suggest that PFC Manning was not permitted to view the cables in question. The Government has not introduced any evidence to suggest that PFC Manning was not permitted to download the cables in question. The Government simply asserts that PFC Manning was not permitted to download them using a certain program, Wget. (Sec. 6)
The Government is simply incorrect in asserting that the use of an unauthorized program to download information automatically converts what would otherwise be authorized access to that information into “exceeding authorized access.” Whether or not PFC Manning used Wget to download the information he had access to is irrelevant; under the language of Section 1030, as well as this Court’s ruling and all legal authorities, PFC Manning could not have exceeded his authorized access because he was authorized to obtain the information he obtained. That is, “exceeds authorized access” is not concerned with the manner in which information to which one has access is downloaded; it is rather concerned with whether the accused was authorized to obtain or alter the information that was obtained or altered. (Sec. 8)"
This is surely one of the more bizarre arguments. Does the law draw a distinction between different client applications used to make HTTP requests? Are web browsers somehow privileged because they both fetch resources from web servers and attempt to render them visually in a frame? Is the issue that it's easier to script wget or curl than a browser, so it becomes possible to download more resources more quickly? The argument seems prima facie nonsensical.
You could make an argument that the government can direct usage of a certain end-user app (which is why I'm sitting here on f'in IE 7 instead of something decent).
However in this case I think it would be more equivalent to charging Manning with using a handtruck to move paper files instead of carrying them one-by-one; i.e. a pretty lame excuse for a charge.
No, because in a browser you are expected (or forced) to do lots of clicking and double-clicking, and that limits how much info you can access in a given amount of time.
"The government says that Bradley Manning used the automated downloading program Wget to retrieve hundreds of thousands of State Department cables from the Net-Centric Diplomacy database, and that use of Wget alone constitutes exceeding his authorized access to data, a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act."
...
"The Government has not introduced any evidence to suggest that PFC Manning was not permitted to view the cables in question. The Government has not introduced any evidence to suggest that PFC Manning was not permitted to download the cables in question. The Government simply asserts that PFC Manning was not permitted to download them using a certain program, Wget. (Sec. 6)
The Government is simply incorrect in asserting that the use of an unauthorized program to download information automatically converts what would otherwise be authorized access to that information into “exceeding authorized access.” Whether or not PFC Manning used Wget to download the information he had access to is irrelevant; under the language of Section 1030, as well as this Court’s ruling and all legal authorities, PFC Manning could not have exceeded his authorized access because he was authorized to obtain the information he obtained. That is, “exceeds authorized access” is not concerned with the manner in which information to which one has access is downloaded; it is rather concerned with whether the accused was authorized to obtain or alter the information that was obtained or altered. (Sec. 8)"
[1] http://www.bradleymanning.org/featured/incompetent-overprose...
EDIT: clarified