I think regardless of the circuit split on the meaning of "authorization", it seems fairly well settled that the meaning is not "what the computer system allows you to do".
e.g. Van Buren is about resolving the question of whether someone who is given access to a computer system for their job can be considered to have used it in an "unauthorized" way if they use that system in ways that are unrelated to that job.
The circuit-level decisions both start from the position "authorized" means something like "the owner of the computer has decided to grant access", which is more rather than less.
i.e. X intended to give Y access (this is the part of "authorized" on which there is consensus) but Y used it for purposes that X did not approve of (this is the subject matter of the disagreement)
