He added that the city had never actually disseminated a policy regarding internet usage to tell workers what was inappropriate.
Looks like they DID need to find SOMETHING illegal to be able to fire him. Still bull**** for criminally charging him though. . .
Doesn't that also tie the legality of his actions to the policy that was never disseminated?
According to his employer's terms, nothing that he did was illegal. However, it appears as if they went "oh ****...we can't get him because we forgot to post our policies" and they dug up this VERY broad definition of hacking. Essentially, it appears as if it went like this:
Employer: He didn't actually break our policies, so what do we do?
Advisor in Employer's company: Well, there IS this very broad definition of hacking we can apply here. We can just charge him criminally; if it's in the law it doesn't have to be in our rules.
Employer: Charge the bastard!