I wonder if the fact that this was a bank had something to do with the short sentence. Back when I was a pr activist, it was known that the level of public anger - the public's trigger - on an issue would sway the decision of high-profile cases - that is, the public's perception would factor into the judge's decisionmaking. If crimes were committed inside certain "pathways", those crimes were easier to get away with under certain constraints. This man has sabotaged a bank using a computer and made pro-union statements. If he had made broadly anarchist statements I wonder how this sentence would have changed.

I argue that these dynamics are relevant from a criminal psychology and a government-hacking standpoint. Being mostly derived from firsthand resources, Toffler, Bernays, et. al, along with some authors whose mention is straight-up dangerous, I am constantly seeking additional resources.

Uh. Hack the planet.

Edit: or don't. U du u.