trakata

I’m of the “no risk to small” mind set as well and I’d wager when they try to investigate, the people they must ask, will simply delay answering.

Perhaps not because of ideology either, I imagine the total increase in spillover work from sudden attack surface exposure must look wildly Sisyphean right now.

No apology necessary, it seems you consider them a joke, I don’t.

The circumstances draw parallels to Sartre’s time.

Cheers, friend.

Sure, with the notable exception that they (the exec branch) are also the stakeholders and enforcers of that law.

It’s perfectly legal for them to simply ignore any activity going on, or executive order investigations shut down if any check or balance gets in the way.

And as a tertiary overlap in either case, use cronies to reinforce bad policy to further objectives.

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

Jean-Paul Sartre

Yes, it’s commonly prosecuted in both USA and CAN.

In USA: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) site:justice.gov

Essentially, directly accessing and modifying any system you don’t have authority over meets the bar for legal action.

They can and will track this, being hands off or proper opsec is the only way to ensure safety.