TechCrunch Hacker Identified: You Decide If We Press Charges

That is just how the system works, though, you commit a crime, you get convicted. Then you could argue that the laws should change. But I can't understand these kids(?): smart enough to hack a server, but not smart enough to understand the consequences? Presumably he is feeling invincible?

There seem to be a lot of people who might be willing to give him a second change even with a felony conviction. It sounds like you would? If he really is just a stupid kid, there might be extra laws for kids, and the punishment less severe?

Cocaine is an entirely different matter, because it only damages the user, not other people. Hacking a public server damages other people. How is that excusable? And he didn't just put up a powned message, either, he tried to make money. What's next, selling accounts to the russian mafia?

I mean I would agree with you that if you personally feel that the crime is not really a crime (as you might feel about possession of drugs), you wouldn't press charges. But I don't see how hacking a server with the purpose of making money could not be considered a crime.

Prosecute, without a doubt.

In the chat transcripts, they explicitly discuss the possibility of getting caught. The perp knew the risks, and made a conscious decision to proceed. The Friend's discussion about getting paid for links reveals a pattern (albeit not in this case) of doing this for personal gain. And they also show clearly that they understand the effects of their behavior on the victims, and just don't care about it.

If you want to prevent these hackers from mischief, there must be a credible threat of repercussions. Letting them go will not discourage all this guy's friends. But maybe in a similar conversation next year, when they're talking about getting caught, someone will mention "you remember last year when Xyz got caught, and he's still in jail!".

"I don't see any positive outcomes from that which would offset resources wasted prosecuting."

Positive outcome: to set a good precedent for "don't do stupid shit like that mindlessly or you'll pay dearly if you get caught".

Profitting from traffic from stolen goods is pretty unethical, for me it doesn't matter if you paid for it or not. Clearly the hacker did this either to damage twitter or to profit from it, and in either case you could have done the right thing. Claiming that others would have disclosed it (which is something TC did pretty loudly) is really funny, so you effectively have already admitted that it was unethical, but because others would have done it that made it 'right'. Anything for a scoop.

You could have gotten a good bit of mileage simply by reporting about the hack, instead you decided to do damage to others for your own profits.

It's funny how acceptable stuff like that has become, and how you seem to be claiming some kind of moral highground here for something that is simply sleazy.

Profitting from stolen goods, directly or indirectly is unethical, if you had any sense at all you'd have given twitter a warning that their files are out in the open and you'd have destroyed the data.

I hope one day you'll find the tables turned, we'll see how ethical you will think this is then.

And I'll be on your side in that one, just like I was solidly on twitters side in the other.

Giving people a platform to do damage and to profit from that is sickening.