It's understood that the state certainly knows the identity, yet the state did nothing punitive -- it made the person in question rather curious as to the intentions of the state in deciding to not prosecute or seek interdepartmental assistance from the Fed (insofar as he knows from that time). I really appreciate your guys' assistance.
^ This is interesting given that in a way that may be the original intention in both retaining and releasing the information. Most, if not all of it is of no real end-use other than exposure to the state, granted each affected person's credentials have changed by now. Additionally, there is only certain content retained and/or supposedly in the person's possession, all of which was intended to be used as proof that the breach actually occurred and was largely ignored. I'm definitely going to study up on the ccmanual to see how this all bridges together. I have no doubt that if the Feds wanted to prosecute, they'd find a way. Having said as much, this state is the same way -- I would have presumed they'd do the same, but did not.At the same time, holding the data might help prove he wanted to do good while destroying the data might help prove intent to commit the earlier crimes as well be a violation in and of itself. ( 18 U.S.C. § 1519 )