I had a tangential role in the legal aftermath, and am interested to hear this. I hadn't had much to do with the actual outbreak, so I was not particularly watching the whole saga. However, on the evening news one day, I happened to catch video of him coming out of the court-house after his conviction: from the look on his face (he looked like his dog had died, and then someone had kicked him in the stomach) it was pretty clear that incareration (which is what the sentencing guidelines called for, for that offense) was totally inappropriate. So I decided to weigh in. I got advice from the Washington branch of then-Hale&Dorr (my legal people at the time), who were well connected inside the DoJ (they had people who'd been there, and also ex-H+D people were serving, etc). IIRC, they agreed with me that this was over-charging, given the specifics of the offender, etc. (I forget exactly what they told me of what they made of the prosecutor and his actions, but it was highly not positive.) So we organized the IESG to submit a filing in the case on the sentencing, and got everyone to sign on; apparently in the legal system when there is an professional organization in a field, its opinions weigh heavily, and the IESG, representing as it did the IETF, was the closest thing to it here. I don't know how big an effect our filing had, but the judge did depart very considerably from the sentencing guidelines (which called, IIRC, for several years of jail-time) and gave him probation/community-service. Not everyone was happy about our actions (particularly some who'd had to work on the cleanup), but I think in retrospect it was the right call - yeah, he effed up, but several years in jail was not the right punsishment, for him, and for this particular case (no data damaged/deleted/stolen/etc). YMMV. Noel