> rather than going down this weird path of trying to warp the definition of "authorized". I don't think they are. I think SCOTUS is looking at this, as is th

> rather than going down this weird path of trying to warp the definition of "authorized". I don't think they are. I think SCOTUS is looking at this, as is their wont, from a legal perspective. We have two legal systems: civil and criminal. Both of them have the concept of "authorized." What SCOTUS has said here is that whether or not something is unauthorized may be a civil tort claim--you broke a contract--versus a criminal offense--you broke the law. That seems to be the knot everyone is trying to untie here. It's not illegal for me to break a contract with someone. It is illegal for me to break the law.