Unfortunately, it's not a uniquely Texan viewpoint, I run into that kind of thinking any time I talk to technophobes. In the long run, government agencies in Houston and elsewhere can expect not to get a free consultation (and lets face it, he did them a service with a value far above the amount of 'public image' value he's been charged with damaging.) Instead, when weekend code-warriors and beginning hackers find these kinds of holes in security in the future, agencies and businesses will find their files ripped to shreds and their websites filled with pr0n.

Of course, at that point, they'll point fingers and yell "See, we were right!"

Actually, I expect that someone to react with integrity, not throw a hissy fit. Apparently that's too much to expect from our government. They should have accepted that their network had a serious flaw and that it needed to be fixed. Instead they blame him for the cost of fixing their own problem. They are acting like children and I find it disgusting and disturbing.

How is what he did considered fraud? Doesn't fraud usually mean deceiving someone in an attempt to gain something at their expense? What did he gain from it? What did they lose? As near as I can tell, they had a wide open computer network. There was probably no real "hacking" involved. It's like they left the front door open. He walked in and said, "Hey! You left your door open!" Big deal. They admit he didn't cause any damage or tamper with their files. The only problem is that they had to shut down their wireless access for a month. Which is a benefit, not a problem when you have an unsecure network. Bottom line is that they were incompetent and he pointed it out. Someone could have easily gotten access and not told anyone. Then they could tamper all they wanted. He did the community a favor by getting it shut down sooner rather than later.