While "importance" is a pretty subjective (read: bullshit) metric in legal terms, using the dollar value of theft to threshold criminal charges is used around the world. In the U.S. you can press charges for any amount, but depending on the state they have different thresholds between misdemeanor and a felony (grand theft) usually around $500-$1000. Interestingly enough, in some places such as China (where I originally learned about the theft lines / thresholds in a class at Peking University), there is a minimum value that must be stolen before one can prosecute, which is on the order of US$100. This obviously saves the court from wasting too much time on judicial abuse, but clearly discriminates against people in among the lowest rungs of the economic ladder. On the other hand it sets the priority for handling larger cases that impact more people (such as official corruption scandals which admittedly China does a more prudent job of enforcing responsibility in white collar crime than the States).
Of course the argument could be made that criminal prosecution is largely a function of who you know rather than the spare resources of the judicial system, which is probably correct, but it is still food for though.
But that's not what the quote implies at all, at least taken in the context of the article. Instead, it implies that the only reason he is being punished is, not because of the hack, but because he hacked facebook. It implies that, had he done the same on some "tiny business of no great importance" it wouldn't have been such a big deal.
I don't think China does a more prudent job of enforcing responsibility. Rather China occasionally makes an example of the most blatant cases of corruption.
In specific instances the fact that China kills people where the US does little to the individuals involved feels good. However, the US approach of mostly free press coupled with regular and independent policing of government contracts, coupled with class action lawsuits changes the landscape significantly. In the end you might argue that corruption is endemic of both systems, yet that's the case for any large scale government thought out history.
What the US does well is simply keep things public enough that everyone tries to at-least appear to follow the rules. And if you ever tried to do significant business in China as apposed to a Chinese company you will quickly understand that that in and of it's self is huge.
It's better when "everyone tries to at-least appear to follow the rules" ? Isn't that worse than blatantly not following the rules, because at least you know what they are doing?
Following the rules in this case means actually providing the service that the government paid for. The government may overpay for a building because people skim off the top, but it's far less common for them to build something that's so poorly constructed that people can't actually use it. The first case is less efficient the second is useless.
Of course the argument could be made that criminal prosecution is largely a function of who you know rather than the spare resources of the judicial system, which is probably correct, but it is still food for though.
(Sources: http://www.california-criminal-lawyer-blog.com/2010/11/grand... and http://www.chinareview.info/issue2/pages/case.htm and some classes I took, but IANAL)