There's a few basic groups you could classify crackers and hackers into:
1 - penetration testers - given authorisation to try and probe a system or network and produce a report highlighting weaknesses, i've done this kind of thing myself for friends (great fun to do by the way, I remember completely owning one guy's machine with so many backdoors it needed a reinstall)

2 - those who are not authorised but who do not cause damage and report flaws they find - although this practice is illegal, ethically it's much more excusable than someone who finds flaws and exploits them for personal gain or for malicious purposes, to some extent you could classify most security researchers in this group - the guys who work for antivirus companies or CERT and publish their findings alongside workarounds - sometimes this can be illegal (such as breaking into a public website and then telling the owner how you did it and how to fix it), other times it may be completely legal (such as for example reverse engineering new versions of windows or decompiling viruses to find security holes and pressuring microsoft to fix them), also known as white hats or grey hats depending on legality

3 - malicious crackers - the kind of people who'd break into your machine and plant a sniffer or keylogger, then use it to get your credit card details, or virus authors who do the same kind of reverse engineering as legit security professionals do, these are the "black hats"

4 - script kiddies - some classify them as black hats, some don't - the best definition I can think of is "black hats with hardly any real skill and a trollish attitude"

I'd classify Gary as somewhere between 3 and 4, he was malicious in his actions and did not report the flaws he found, he left taunting messages and caused damage, but he used very poor judgement in his choice of tools (using a commercial remote control app instead of for example injecting a silent VNC server or reverse shell) and did not need much skill to make the initial breakin.

If Gary had not shown malice in his actions and his only crime was mere unauthorised access, I would be vastly more sympathetic to him. Of course, this is all beside the main point - an NT in his situation would get identical treatment, so his case isn't an autism rights issue.