I blame anyone for not opposing it on principle. If you're ok with some trumped up bullshit because you don't like the person, fuck you (not aimed at your personally).
Seriously, save the reaching argument for people who aren't complete scumbags.
Security researchers in general wouldn't run afoul of even the current version IMO, though it's certainly prudent for security researches to re-emphasize how key some of those techniques are for them, so that we don't end up in a surreal situation where even altering a URL, cookie, etc. one time would subject one to conviction under CFAA.
That's the whole point of the Mencken quote squeak posted. Another favourite: "Bad cases make bad laws" - if bad principles get enshrined in the precedents made by convictions of bad people, those bad principles will hurt good people or good activity down the line. That's precisely why the EFF, Schneier, Felten, et al., are devoting their precious time to this case.
I'd still want you to have a fair hearing if you ended up in the shit however, as I hold the quaint notion that the criminal justice system should at least attempt to be more than a popularity contest if it wants to retain any kind of legitimacy.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." —H. L. Mencken
If a person is a criminal in general I don't really care if hasn't done the one particular crime he is nailed for if he is clearly guilty of others, but just being an ass should not be criminal.