Rewriting history to fit your own narrative helps no one. He did plenty to hide his tracks:
1) when he connected the laptop to MITs network, he used a fake name (Gary Host/Grace Host)
2) when his MAC was banned by MIT, he changed it
3) he used his helmet to hide his face from a camera when he accessed MITs networking closet
4) he hid the laptop in the closet underneath a cardboard box
5) when he retrieved the laptop from the networking closet, he then went to SIPB and hid the laptop underneath a table
6) when police finally found him, he jumped off his bike and ran from police
He did all of that.. and you're telling me he did not think anything he was doing was wrong? That's a little far fetched.
How about you stop rewriting things, and just tell them how they are?
I never said it did. We can debate about whether he's innocent or not; what sentence he deserves (if he's guilty); what tactics are ok by the justice dept; whether his activities should be illegal at all; etc, etc, etc.
But the things we do know about what happened, that are not an individuals opinion... we don't get to change those just to make it more convenient to create the narrative we want.
Rewriting history to fit your own narrative helps no one. He did plenty to hide his tracks:
1) when he connected the laptop to MITs network, he used a fake name (Gary Host/Grace Host) 2) when his MAC was banned by MIT, he changed it 3) he used his helmet to hide his face from a camera when he accessed MITs networking closet 4) he hid the laptop in the closet underneath a cardboard box 5) when he retrieved the laptop from the networking closet, he then went to SIPB and hid the laptop underneath a table 6) when police finally found him, he jumped off his bike and ran from police
He did all of that.. and you're telling me he did not think anything he was doing was wrong? That's a little far fetched.
How about you stop rewriting things, and just tell them how they are?
http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N30/swartz.html