Did we read the same article, mpyne? I'd say this is a textbook example of deceptive wall-of-text style concern trolling, and at the very least is not a very ho

Did we read the same article, mpyne? I'd say this is a textbook example of deceptive wall-of-text style concern trolling, and at the very least is not a very honest discussion of the topic or the article. You say, "But I worry about articles like this that have popped up in the aftermath, especially when they are so full of inaccuracies as this." Yet you introduce so many inaccuracies yourself. Your response seems to misconstrue many things. Stamos specifically states he is correcting erroneous information being spread, but you try to disagree with these facts. You also suggest they are not relevant, even if they are in fact correcting a lot of bad information that is floating around. You say it is irrelevant that "MIT runs an open network," but if exaggerated charges are being made, and he is being accused of maliciously hacking into this network, then it is relevant. "MIT could have locked the network down, but didn't." you quote, though I couldn't find this quote, as a "poor excuse". Poor excuse to what? How can you even compare locking your car doors to a university library network in any way? This case seems rather far from grand theft auto, except maybe the similarly named game, because it's as equally over the top as the charges. Then you "quote" another part: "MIT doesn't specifically tell its users not to do dickwad things to its network." I put quote in quotes because I failed to find the word dickwad. Did I miss this part? You take a lot of liberties rephrasing and restating what the author wrote. It seems almost certain we didn't read the same article, or you are concern trolling. To suggest he's engaging in victim-blaming here is ridiculous. The "victims" didn't even pursue charges, even though the government made it easy for them to do so. It is challenging to even try to claim there are "victims" here at all. Then you employ more false quotations: "But he wasn't trespassing!". And in the next sentence, "the Federal government isn't charging him with such". Uh, OK? I also failed to find the quoted parts. But to point out that trespassing charges were dropped seems relevant when there are people out there claiming trespassing---correcting erroneous information. Your car door suggestion, or definitely other people talking about "walking through an unlocked door", suggest trespassing. You go on to say: I wonder also why Aaron was so worried about being termed a 'felon'. Which seems to trivialize the situation, and suggests there are no consequences. Maybe you weren't aware that felons commonly have their voting rights denied? And that's just the start. This is just outright stupid on your part. Are you even being serious?: Roman Polanski is still making movies; Aaron would have been just fine. But that was his choice to make. :( You do realize Roman Polanski fled the USA at the prospect of serving MORE jail time than originally agreed to, and has not returned, and charges have not been dropped, and more information is available on his Wikipedia page. The USA is still pursuing him even though he has settled with the victim.