WTF does "not entitled" mean? Does it mean you have to have written permission to "access" a computer. In which case how is it legal to connect to a web site?
Lawyers love to use negatives, and then define things in a circular way.
You are "entitled" to do something when you are permitted so to do by a permission that is:
express,
implied, or
imputed (inferred).
A programmer would simply use the generic term "permission". Express is as the name implies: You can play with the files on my computer. I wouldn't mind betting that ISPs have somewhere in their small print a written permission to delete offensive files: such a provision (which is contained in a contract) would be "express".
An implied permission is one where it is unstated but clearly necessary: A web site maintainer might not have any written or oral contract at all but he/she clearly needs to be able to get in to fix stuffups; such a maintainer would have an implied permission.
Imputed or inferred is a wonderful expression used by lawyers usually to mean where the parties (or one of them) didn't bloody well want to give permission at all but the courts say that it should exist. It's almost impossible to spell this out any further, but it usually arises when one party adopts sharp practices and the injured party indulges in a bit of self-help (often against the express provisions of the contract). The court says something like: Clearly, the actions of Robber Baron so transcended the contract that they impliedly permitted Innocent Victim to do (what Innocent Victim actually did).
There are three caveats to all this.
First, a right conferred (or ordered) by law -- e.g., in law enforcement agencies, watchdog committees etc. -- always gives rise to a "permission", even if the other party flat out refuses it. Let the lawyers argues whether in any given instance a right conferred by the law is "express" or "implied".
Secondly, a little known (but well documented) point of law is that a right, power, authority or privilege may be so abused that it no longer exists (and, in the particular case, never existed at all). The Americans have stuffed up this simple principle (at least in TV shows) by their "probable cause" rulings in search warrants -- but the principle in the rest of the Westminster system may be stated as: If you so exceeded your legal powers that you upset the court then you had NO legal power to do what you did.
Thirdly, when anyone writes in a legal context and uses the word "clearly" or similar it means that by the time it gets to the High Court at least nine senior judges will have decided (n+1):n for 2n+1 different reasons (all of which usually conflict with the other judgements on the same side). In which event at least one of them will have said: Clearly, ... .
HTH, Robert Thorsby -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
