I do understand what you mean. By your own words you admit to not understanding the legal (not colloquial) definition of “authorization”, which was my whole point. You interpret the law in a manner which supports a status quo defense of a public agency as being wronged, and hence, by doing so, would criminalize any Citizen who in due course chooses to legally surf the net using a valid and legitimate anonymous proxy server. I have been very clear (perhaps you missed that point with the red herrings you've thrown into the mix), about acting lawfully. I've taken the time to understand the technical and legal aspects of this matter. You've offered advice to the contrary that is ill researched (from your own response) and seems to rest on you credentials as a state-licensed attorney. Just as an additonal reality check, even giving you the smallest benefit of some tiny doubt in return (I don't know why I should, but let's visit that alternate reality anyway), are you truly making the case for every code or statute on the books as valid and inviolate? If so, then Rosa Parks was a malicious criminal for sitting in front of the bus and should be reviled as a horrible lawbreaker rather than as a civil rights hero.  Back to the issue at hand:  my recommendation is STILL unchanged in that people should look into this option on their own and make their own decisions as it is an option that they might not have otherwise thought to contemplate.  I don't feel from researching this carefully that there is a true legal issue, and I certainly feel the civic duty and  pride to resist a bad law or misapplication of a good law if some jackbooted jackasses decide to waste our tax money in wrongful actions.