They have to show intent and damages. Unless I'm misunderstanding, he didn't delete or disrupt any data nor did he capture anything except photos of people in a

They have to show intent and damages. Unless I'm misunderstanding, he didn't delete or disrupt any data nor did he capture anything except photos of people in a public place. The computers he accessed were unlocked and on public display (again, unless I'm misunderstanding this). Though he may not have had explicit permission to install anything, I don't think there are any statements posted in Apple stores that tell you not to install anything. (I've personally installed apps on display iOS devices a number of times to try them out.) It could be hard to show the damages. These are display models in a store that I would suspect are regularly wiped clean anyways. If it really is 100 computers, that could approach the $5,000 figure though. But they still need to consider his intent. A judge wouldn't even be able to accept a guilty plea from him if he didn't include his intent to cause damage in his allocution. He's made it pretty clear that his intent was to create some form of art. (Unless there's something more to the story.) It's not a case I'd want to bring before a judge or jury, based on my understanding of the facts. That doesn't mean that they won't push for a plea deal or try the case just for the experience. I think section 1030 cases are still relatively rare.