If you hack a computer and cause millions or billions in damage, why the heck can't you be prosecuted for causing damage rather than for accessing an unauthorized system?
Because you shouldn't be accessing an unauthorised system? If someone unlawfully entered your house shouldn't they be punished for doing that not only if they take something?
Sure. Yes. But that punishment doesn't need to be multiple felony convictions and 30 years in prison for a minor, non-violent, victimless crime that nobody directly affected is interested in prosecuting. That's all.
Please read my post suggesting a tiered system. A tiered system would set limits in specific circumstances 'in stone' so that there isn't this idea that all computer trespasses can be sentenced on the same scale (e.g. from 0 - 30 years).
The specific circumstances can take into account things like:
- Did the defendant aim to profit financially from the actions?
- Was the defendant attempting to cause malicious harm? (i.e. he didn't want to profit, but he was trying to cause damage)
etc. The most innocuous being "no financial gain + no malicious intent."
Entering someone's house uninvited is extremely clearly not an appropriate thing to do.
But accessing an unauthorized system? That term is so ill-defined, that it quite literally means you can be prosecuted for modifying a URL and being given back a web page you weren't supposed to see.
Does that mean that if a door isn't locked, it is an invitation to enter my house? Take a look at the case of Andrew Auernheimer (mentioned in the OP) who could be sentenced up to 10 years in prison for accessing data on a web server that was unsecured (http://www.technewsdaily.com/15581-hacker-found-guilty-despi...)
