This article is so interesting, but mostly because I feel that there's something missing with it.

Mangham seems like there is some reason for which he shouldn't be in trouble at all, but it's never revealed -- or maybe there isn't any real reason, and he's just delusional? I don't know.

It starts off bad enough -- "Strictly speaking what I did broke the law because at the time and subsequently it was not authorized," -- So wait. It wasn't EVERY authorized? Or is he implying that sometime before the time he actually stole the source it had been authorized? Was he hired to do this work at some time, then let go afterward, only to keep trying? It's confusing without context (to me at least).

Then he realizes that FB is on his tail and he "panicked because I knew how bad it looked without sufficient context." What is the context? He seems to imply that there is some reason for which he shouldn't be thrown in jail, but never seems to get at exactly what it is.

There's something weird here, and practically every statement he makes hints at some deeper cause, but always falls short of actually revealing what it is.