If there was no evidence to convict then Aaron had nothing to worry about, ham sandwich or not.

I don't think even most prosecutors would have the balls to say something as fucked-up as that. One who scoffs at the threat of criminal court proceedings, in this nation, does so from a very privileged position. A more charitable person than I would hope you never have the misfortune to discover how wrong you are.

What I'm saying is that you cannot have your cake here and eat it too.

Strong laws? Great, you'll have an Aaron Swartz every 5 years at least, especially as long as those laws continue to make common-sense computer crimes like breaking into a subnet (now matter how easy or difficult that was to do technically!) legal crimes as well.

Weak laws? That's fine too, but don't be surprised what a dedicated "advanced persistent threat" can do under a weak legal regime.

That is not at all my interpretation of your other comments on this page, but let's go with it...

If APT were "real" instead of marketing/lobbyist bullshit, like "al Queda" and "the domino theory", what could we imagine "strong laws" doing to combat it? Does anyone suggest we pull a Baghdad in Shanghai or St. Petersburg? How strong is a law that can't be enforced, really?