The real question is who paid him to do it.

Paid him? No. That’s not a question. That’s an assumption.

I feel more information from the trial would have been helpful in this article or at least a link to the trial transcripts if a motivation was put forth by the prosecution and more details about the vandalism. Sometimes there is no clear motivation or grievance or the accused simply is bored or wants to show off.

In response to Case closed you said:

“Paid him? No. That’s not a question. That’s an assumption.”

There were reports that he was paid to hack these publications. One here (Web Link Those reports indicated that he himself said so. You also said:

“I feel more information from the trial would have been helpful in this article or at least a link to the trial transcripts if a motivation was put forth by the prosecution and more details about the vandalism. Sometimes there is no clear motivation or grievance or the accused simply is bored or wants to show off.”

I too would like to read the transcripts. I do not know whether they will be published, but I would hope someone will get them and publish them. Given that they are federal court records, I am certain they are publishable because they are public records.

It would be interesting if the transcript in fact does disclose the statement made by the hacker was genuine.

Transcripts will be made public in August.

Motive remains unknown, but is surely a much more interesting story than what has been reported so far

Are we allowed to know the employment background of the defendant? How did he have the knowledge to perform this act? Was it lucky that so many of the juror have IT experience? Or is this juTst the bay area work staff.