That indictment doesn't really provide much information other than what's in your third paragraph ("Ad Min" and "Dallas Smith"). It doesn't really serve as a r

That indictment doesn't really provide much information other than what's in your third paragraph ("Ad Min" and "Dallas Smith"). It doesn't really serve as a refutation of anything in the petition, either, as there is no context, only a generalized description of a DDoS--no description of precisely how Miller conducted such an attack--and an assertion that Miller DDoSed Hacker Dojo. The indictment is just Prosecutorspeak for the same events described in the petition, lacking any potentially mitigating detail that would make them seem like they are abusing the law or asserting charges wildly out of proportion to any potential damages. In fact, it supports the petition's remarks about pre-trial detention, as the indictment clearly says "no bail, arrest warrant"--I would think that's a red flag given the charge . So, to paraphrase, I've read this indictment three times and I still have no idea what happened. So it's not really an authoritative narrative of events, either, and doesn't put any of the questions raised in the petition to rest. In another comment you asked someone if they would say the same thing after reading the indictment, and my answer would be absolutely, if not more so. I'm not sure why it would make you feel any more like this is a reasonable application of computer laws instead of, say, evidence that the San Jose US Attorney's office has too many lawyers and needs to be down-sized.