A true story that happened recently in the building I work in, during the summer. Workman were in the building working on running data lines for a lab renovation. One of them stood outside a locked computer lab waiting to be given access. One of the faculty in the building, being very nice and helpful, let the worker into the lab. The faculty did not know who he was, there is no ID system for guests, no way to know why he was there. Physical access at most universities is fairly easy to get. And once some employee invites you in, its hard to prove that you illegally accessed the environment. Like I said before. Universities are very open environments. Its most likely why MIT just wants to drop the matter. Why would that want to damage that culture of openness they spent so long creating?
One other thing a forgot to mention. In your cases, one would assume that this all happened against the "victim"'s will. Both JSTOR and MIT have publicly said that the man should not be prosecuted. So not only do they not want to press charges themselves, they are actually standing up for the guy being charged.
A true story that happened recently in the building I work in, during the summer. Workman were in the building working on running data lines for a lab renovation. One of them stood outside a locked computer lab waiting to be given access. One of the faculty in the building, being very nice and helpful, let the worker into the lab. The faculty did not know who he was, there is no ID system for guests, no way to know why he was there. Physical access at most universities is fairly easy to get. And once some employee invites you in, its hard to prove that you illegally accessed the environment. Like I said before. Universities are very open environments. Its most likely why MIT just wants to drop the matter. Why would that want to damage that culture of openness they spent so long creating?