The difference to the victim between unlawful entry and B&E is the amount of work needed to make the property secure afterwards.
In theory a sysadmin could claim hours of work after someone sat down at a logged-in computer or someone "hacked" entry. That admin might want to check for privalidge escalation an back doors.
(I think this indictment is bullshit and I hope he is found not guilty or has a token punishment. A federal convictions seems weirdly harsh. Cruel and unusual -especially with the subsequent consequences- for the crime.)
I thought B&E was a bigger crime because of the intentional use of force? Demonstrating a greater criminal intent, or something like that. Popping a window lock with a credit card causes no damage, but it's still B&E.
Actually, you're both wrong. The real significant legal distinction is usually between criminal trespass and burglary (also known as "breaking and entering"), where the latter involves entry with intent to commit some other crime beyond illegal presence. At common law, the "breaking" of the "breaking and entering" element of burglary does not require actual use of force or damage to a physical object.
In UK law, simply opening an unlocked door and going inside is not a crime. You can come home to me sat on your sofa and all you can do is ask me to leave by the nearest exit (though if I refuse, you can use reasonable force to remove me).
In theory a sysadmin could claim hours of work after someone sat down at a logged-in computer or someone "hacked" entry. That admin might want to check for privalidge escalation an back doors.
(I think this indictment is bullshit and I hope he is found not guilty or has a token punishment. A federal convictions seems weirdly harsh. Cruel and unusual -especially with the subsequent consequences- for the crime.)