What this article fails to point out is this:
If David did not have permission to install the client on the states computers, then every single point mentioned above is moot.
If David violated the Accepable Usage policy of the state by installing the clients, the state has EVERY SINGLE RIGHT to go after him under criminal prosecution.
I think it shows extreme bias that the author of this article failed to mention this.
What if David had set up something else on these computers, instead of the dnet client? What if he was running kiddie pr0n servers, or what if he set up all the machines to run DDOS attacks? Would there be this much support for him? No, of course not.
But the fact remains: abuse is abuse is abuse under the law.