[roflc0ptic]

This article leaves some really crucial parts of this timeline ambiguous. These things happened in some order:

1. Guy downloads stuff from website 2. Guy publishes stuff from website 3. Stuff becomes unavailable on the website 4. Website owners go to police, report “illegal access” 5. Police arrest guy

Either the police arrested him, and the company declined to inform the police that these illegally accessed files has been free to access, thus actively misleading the police, or company did inform the police and the police acted heinously by arresting him anyways. Maybe there’s a third option here that I’m not seeing. Seems pretty wild, and likely to me that the org should be criminally liable here (not that I know the laws or if they would be criminally liable.)

[nonfamous]

6. No charges were filed

>> "He was taken into custody and later released under investigation. Following a review of all available evidence, it was determined no offences had been committed and no further action was taken."

[brundolf]

> He was taken into custody and later released under investigation. Following a review of all available evidence, it was determined no offences had been committed and no further action was taken.

Sounds like the first one

[gpm]

This could also be "he was taken into custody, someone with a few more brain cells than average searched his computer, looked at his browser history, concluded that case 2 was the case and let him go".

I don't think we have enough information.

[jdjdu]

If the website owner didn't think it was a big deal, why would they call police in the first place? Police are not just sitting and eagerly waiting for the ridiculous calls and complaints they receive. Most likely the website owner made the story sound like sort of theft occurred.