states that “[w]hoever knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value ... shall be punished.... ” 18 U.S.C.A. § 1030(a)(4) (West 2000); EF Cultural Travel BV v. Explorica, Inc., 274 F.3d 577, 581 (1st Cir.2011). In the CFAA, Congress defines a “protected computer” as a computer that “is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication....” 18 U.S.C.A. § 1030(e)(2)(B) (West Supp. 2012). Pleading specific facts that the defendant accessed a computer connected to the internet is sufficient to establish that the accessed computer was “protected.” See United States v. Trotter, 478 F.3d 918, 921 (8th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); Becker v. Toca, No. 07-7202, 2008 WL 4443050,
holding that a roommate with shared access to anothers computer has common authority over the computer and can grant consent to search holding that the accessed computer was protected because defendant admitted the computers were connected to the internet holding improperly admitted testimony was cumulative to the other properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless holding that posting defamatory information on the internet is not sufficient to subject the poster to jurisdiction in each state in which the information is accessed holding search of probationers computer by probation officers was reasonable even in absence of a search provision when conditions on probationers computer use reduced his expectation of privacy in his computer