I too must disagree in kindm and note that you view is equally flawed.  Public access to public records predates the various Public Records Acts of the many states.  It is a fundamental part of our Republican system of governance.  It is part and parcel to the citizens of each state being sovereign and free.  The Public Records Act is akin, in this way to the Bill of Rights:  no "new" rights were established by either, as the rights inhering thereunder are fundamental to all free men. 

The passage of these various Acts and their anacedent legislation was based on the principle that people (We the taxpayers) have the right to access the government (and in this case, more particularly the instrumentalities of the state) that we pay for.

Your analysis takes into  view a contemporary and narrow view of the colloquial wording of the code, without understanding its meaning.  It also fails to take into account the various innocent ways by which any firm can subcontract pieces of such work out to a dozen subcontractors or other firms, or in which innocent citizens might use anonymous proxy servers in their private lives every day and unknowingly circumvent their alleged "authorization".  Thousands of citizens might be unknowingly violating the law daily in this manner.  I'm hoping ofr a witch hunt to track down and imprison such hardened criminals.

I, like you, "dare" to interpret the words others use, whether  yours or those of the various codes.  When you came back with both a code and an interpretation of that code it certainly seemed like you "looked into" the matter.  Just for shits and giggles, I'm familiar with the various pubic records acts.  Since you seem to like to make cheap parting shots, I will oblige you back:  I do disagree that prior constraint against the rights of Citizens is not only bad, but mostly illegal.  It's not about government interfering in my wants, but the rights of the Citizens.  You have consistently fallen on the side of government power over the People.  I've called you on being a lover of the state and you seem to agree.

  Thank you for the (flawed) explaination of your interpretation too.  It's been entertaining. 

  William