> It's an open-and-shut case.

Why was it dropped then?

Little public interest in the secret service pursing a 25yo megalomaniac moron, who thinks installing spyware makes him the hero against the forces of institutional evil.

I imagine apple contacted the secret service in the first place because they weren't sure what else he'd done, other than, installing spyware across NY's apple stores.

Once they realised it was just an art project, I imagine they backed off to be kind, not because he couldnt be prosecuted. He clearly violated the CFAA

So you have it all figured out, including motivations not expressed in the piece.

Of course they're not expressed. I did however go and read articles from 2011, which give a clear account consistent with my interpretation.

Your descriptions of a mustache-twirling villain are overstated to say the least.

my impression was that apple initiated contact based on an assumption that i was running a keylogger or other information that could be used for identity theft. they quickly learned it was an art project but decided to apply force via the secret service to keep it from gaining too much publicity. after that caused a bit of a streisand effect, they decided not pursue a civil case. i would guess that the judge decided not to pursue a criminal case because it would have been an obvious waste of resources.

The illegality of it might be clear cut, but the immorality of it is not.

And why should the store owner be furious, and not amused, or embarrassed? It's just things, nobody got hurt. It is a very libertarian idea that violence against property is morally the same as violence against a person.

Right... but who's interest should the law here represent? There is no single common interest: this guy wants to install spyware and hijack pictures of customers for his own ends; apple doenst want that; customers dont want that (or even, of course, know about it!).

So "immorality"-wise, who here are you empathising with?

I, as a customer entering a store, do NOT want any burden to go and google whether that store has been hijacked by spyware and my data shared, etc.

I want ZERO such burden. And i would expect the police to seriously deter any such "stunts".

This guy has a sob story in which he's the hero... are you just going to take his framing?

Empathise with the random guy in the store.

A better question to start with is "where does the law fit into this?"

What is the material consequence of this action? How does this affect people's lives? Why is that something that needs legislation?

I'm not implying that there are no consequences, I'm curious how you interpret the issue.

> What is the material consequence of this action

Almost none. Which is why there was no further prosecution.

> Why is that something that needs legislation

Because this is very similar to other acts that could have worse consequences. Consider instead of "installed funny spyware on apple laptops" was replaced with "installed funny spyware on ATMs".

Lots of things "could" happen...

It is literal truth that the first police in the US were slave hunters and the first police station in the world was to protect from theft at the Wapping docks

There were constables in England in the Middle Ages. There have been local volunteer watchman and paid constables in the United States since the early colonial days. There was also "hue and cry", whereby someone witnessed a crime and then shouted out and all men were supposed to help catch the criminal. This, as can be imagined, was sometimes quite the shit-show.

What will you do if I rob you? Who will you report this to? What stops me from burglary?

Also, city guards have existed in Europe and China since before tge US existed. They didn't use the word "police" obviously.

I wish "cops = nazis" people would explain what they would have instead.

The idea that you can’t criticise the failings and nature of something you also use are so tiring. Crime happens for so many reasons, some of which force maybe required to stop or hold people accountable, and many of the reasons are endemic to the system we live in. Other things could be prevented by provisioning elsewhere.

When did I say you can’t criticise the failings and nature of something? I stated that your assertion was wrong, and asked questions that need answering by "defund the police" people. You never explicitly stated you want to dedund the police, but this is the argument those people make for it's removal. I read an article in the magazine of a major newspaper that said to remove prison and the police entirely, and this was before Floyd. I never said you support this position, and I never gave you any instruction. I asked you relevant questions and examined your statement.

You didn't respond to any of it

> What will you do if I rob you? Who will you report this to? What stops me from burglary?

In yesterday’s discussion about getting mugged in San Fran, virtually every comment said “the police did not help”.