: what odd drugs are you on?
This doesn't have anything to actually do with your mom, candy, or your friend. I was trying to explain how you can lie while still being "technically" truthful, which was what people were talking about.
The analogy wasn't about the legal actions themselves, which is what you seem to have completely missed. You're just confused. Forget about trying to equate "candy" with "computer fraud" or anything like that. That wasn't the analogy, for chrissake!
The analogy was about the lying
part. Trying to explain how you can lie while not technically
saying anything untrue. IOW, you lie by omission, or by misdirecting the audience.
So no. Nobody actually took any candy at all. But the Massachusetts attorney's office first tells how they are saving the world from dangerous criminal scum and point out how horrible the crime is, and what a big deal this is, and how the criminal basically faces a sentence that is harsher than most murders and rapes.
Then, when that backfires on them (because it turns out that the law is crap, and it shouldn't have been a crime at all, and MIT actually asked for the charges to be dropped, and the guy got depressed and killed himself), the same office that was making a big deal about how big a crime it was, now turns right around and says "oh, it wasn't that bad at all, and we were actually being very appropriate and only ever asked for six months".That
is what I think the big deal is. It's dishonesty. And it's dishonesty from exactly the kind of people we should expect more from. If you are a US state attorney, you shouldn't be a dishonest little turn-coat. You should make people trust
you, not be a weasel-wording excuse for a human being.