1: It really varies; surprisingly enough it's not a felony in all states, and in at least one state, it's only a felony if there is intent to benefit from the authority granted.
Any time I hear a politician say they are going to reduce a particular crime by passing a law, I wonder why existing laws aren’t enforced that likely already cover the behavior being targeted. I suppose that would mean planning, logistics, and execution - things politicians don’t know how to do.
E.g. there is a law saying you cant serve alcohol to minors. That in and of itself doesnt prevent beyond threat of punishment if caught.
There is also a law saying you have to check ids. Procedures like that do have a preventitive effect.
This isn't always correct and is rather myopic.
Quite often laws will issue punishments for some behaviors, but also issue things like funding for programs that work on the roots of why particular crimes occur.
Now, laws that punish post ad hoc are always easier to measure and see, because it's much harder to prove that you prevented something that only had a probability of happening in the first place.
That still requires enforcement. The existence of a law does not imply existence of enforcement, much less wide-spread enforcement (see e.g. wage theft, auto breakins, petty theft, etc).
Those that do not fit the above, having no impulse control, or perhaps mental issues, then laws result in stuffing them away.
It's not perfect. Yet every human society does this, and has done this for millenia. Consider that.
Note I was responding to someone who effectly said laws don't prevent crime, and citing ways they do. Understand the context. My statement was not a 200 page dissertation on "those who might break laws" and a deep dive into societal ethics, etc.
OK, and what if it was, say, the Saudi government doing it rather than a crazy stalker in the US?
well good thing emails can only be sent within the USA
I’m not saying that Verizon’s handling of this was anything other than grossly negligent, but let’s not pretend that the sole solution to, well, any problem involve…what? Asymmetric cryptography?
Something being illegal, even in another jurisdiction, is certainly a deterrent for a lot of people.
Like if the system can easily be used to exfiltrate information or perform criminal actions but you can do so anonymously without much effort or more generally doing so remotely in a jurisdiction where you can never be prosecuted, then that system is broken.
Systems that rely on a person not wanting to get caught breaking the rules only work when A the person cares and B the person is capable of being punished. If that invariant doesn't hold up then the system is broken.
You think that's surprising? Wait til you hear that in 35 states, a police officer can claim that a detainee, in custody, even handcuffed at the time, can 'consent' to intercourse with the officer. (That's even before you get to the lesser issue of why a police officer is having intercourse at work...)