The very nature of the legal system is built on adversary. Each side, in general, works to the maximum overall advantage of their client. There is a bit of discretion available, but in general, expect prosecutors to press for maximum overall enforcement of the laws. This is how it works and how we expect law enforcement to act. The laws were generally put in place by legislators duly elected by their constituents. We expect the executive branch to execute, not legislate. Orin's posts seem to be simply pointing out that this case is business as usual. If we don't like it, this should gravely concern us. This type of prosecution is ho-hum, and not just in matters of technology.

Given that the state always has more resources available than individuals it prosecutes, cases like Aaron's are powerful arguments for a limited government. A real limited government, not the kind that just keeps hands off hackers and turns their arsenal of weapons on another class we care about less. I realize this perspective is completely out of vogue these days, but the fact that governments oppress individuals is an age-old truth that needs to be relearned over and over, it seems.

Asking prosecutors to be "nicer" won't cut it. Nor will firing one and replacing them with another, tasked to enforce the same law. We must remove some of their power, meaning many laws need drastic change or repeal. It's sad that it takes a high profile individual to raise concern when plenty of others have been destroyed before and gone unnoticed.