did the court clarify what "authorized" means? seems that the opinion hinges on that definition. does it mean just knowing the right user name and password? wh

did the court clarify what "authorized" means? seems that the opinion hinges on that definition. does it mean just knowing the right user name and password? what if the login page also had a check box "I agree to use this system only to perform my job". if the cop lies and checks this box, does it mean he's not authorized? if lying about the check box is OK, what if he had used a colleague's user name and password for the criminal activity? he's still authorized just he didn't use his own password to commit the crime. would that still not make it CFAA?