35 years is the upper limit for wire fraud. Hopefully, that should only be used on people who cause serious privacy violations, national security leaks, massive data loss, etc.
Actually, if he's accused of wire fraud, his lawyers might get him off; as I don't think he did anything fraudulent. At what point did he misrepresent a fact, which was relied upon by the victim causing losses? He lied about his name, but that didn't cause the loss. He lied about his IP number, but I think he simply represented his IP number to be a "John Doe" - any other number than the one that was blocked; not the IP number of a privileged user. I would debate that nobody expects your IP number to remain constant under all circumstances anyway, unless you have a privileged IP which the admins have specifically greenlisted.
So how did his "lies" (dummy name, and maybe a dummy IP number) cause any losses?
And is changing your IP number to some other random IP (once or twice, not in an automated way) really misrepresenting a material fact?
Actually, if he's accused of wire fraud, his lawyers might get him off; as I don't think he did anything fraudulent. At what point did he misrepresent a fact, which was relied upon by the victim causing losses? He lied about his name, but that didn't cause the loss. He lied about his IP number, but I think he simply represented his IP number to be a "John Doe" - any other number than the one that was blocked; not the IP number of a privileged user. I would debate that nobody expects your IP number to remain constant under all circumstances anyway, unless you have a privileged IP which the admins have specifically greenlisted.
So how did his "lies" (dummy name, and maybe a dummy IP number) cause any losses?
And is changing your IP number to some other random IP (once or twice, not in an automated way) really misrepresenting a material fact?