[Edi]

Frankly, he got off with reasonably lenient consequences. It also happens that when you use technical equipment, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO KNOW THE RELEVANT LAWS. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. In this case, it is even less of an excuse given how hacking networks has been in the news for the past TEN YEARS and all of those news reports and whatnot stress terms like "intrusion", "unauthorized access" etc. Sure, he could have been let off with a warning, but apparently the prosecutor was not feeling generous. In cases like this, the decision to prosecute or not rests with the prosecutor, IF he has been given such leeway, which he may not have had. He'd not have been prosecuted here in Finland, in all likelihood, just warned, but the relevant state or federal laws in this case may not grant that option.

It's no different than basically finding somebody's house unlocked, going inside and using their microwave to cook food you brought with you and then using their toilet afterward, all without permission.

This guy really has nobody but himself to blame for his straits and the little tidbit that the lawyers and no idea of it is no excuse either. This is such a basic issue that it is nothing but a demonstration of their own incompetence if they have had anything to do with computer related legislation at all.

The only surprising thing about this case is that the relevant legislation is as old as it was, from 1979. Unless the impression I've gotten is totally wrong, there are more recent US federal laws that criminalize unauthorized access to computer networks. I don't know about the US in general, but here at least stuff like this has been in the news enough that most people should know and it has been enshrined in our laws about telecommunications confidentiality that unauthorized access to wireless networks is a crime. Most people understand that without even being told.

So what we have here is a clueless moron who got into trouble for not using his brains. My sympathy meter is firmly lodged very, very near zero. If he'd just got a warning from the prosecutor, it WOULD be at zero. He acted in a suspicious manner that gave people with legitimate concerns reason to suspect he was up to something that might cause danger to them, so no use trying to use that as an excuse either.

The problem with police departments being entitled to the proceedings from fines is another issue entirely that deserves its own separate thread. Having that kind of conflict of interest encourages corruption and all kinds of other unpleasant stuff.