Sure, but that doesn't mean that it was "hacked", either.
This is lots closer to calling unlisted telephones.
This is lots closer to calling unlisted telephones.
As a side note, I don’t think what he did can be charged as theft, technically speaking, because theft laws generally require the perpetrator to take property from the victim.
This case would be destruction of property or vandalism, if my memory of law school serves. And I don’t think there are grand versions of those crimes, at any rate.
Yes, this is how it would be charged.
>because theft laws generally require the perpetrator to take property from the victim.
If I sent a penny from millions of people to another person, would I be innocent of crime?
If I burned up money in another person's safe, would I be innocent?
The law will look at the damage to the victim(s), in aggregate. That the person causing the losses only hurts each a little or doesn't end up with goods is irrelevant.
Besides the normal value of goods laws, there are even tougher computer fraud and abuse type laws. Those could really cost him if some prosecutor decided to pursue those. I suspect there are Feds right now looking at this case and how to proceed.
Personally I don't want to see this person get prison for a felony, but perhaps charging him with it will make him or others think twice about such behavior next time. Community service or such would be a good outcome.
Oddly, I think calling unlisted telephones is more morally opposable than printing on random printers. So there are clearly two different ideals in my brain dueling for relevancy...