"Swartz contrived to ... break into a restricted computer wiring closet at MIT;"
"Swartz connected the Acer computer to MIT's computer network"
"JSTOR blocked the computer's access to its network by refusing communications from the computer's assigned IP address. ... Swartz obtained for his computer a new IP address on the MIT network ... and began again to download an extraordinary volume of articles from JSTOR."
(Sorry for typos, I have a PDF of the indictment that is images)
When that didn't work, MIT put in MAC-level blocking, and he worked to evade that, too. See section 21, among others.
He later brought in another computer. See section 22.
He later brought the laptops when he connected inside the wiring closet and assigned himself IP addresses. See section 26.
I don't see any error on ef4's part, much less one that warrants a "maybe you should read"-level response.
Maybe you should read the original indictment instead of throwing around conclusions not found in evidence.