4 ms·
All largely irrelevant to the issue that no real crime was committed. In any rational world, there has to be some difficulty to a hack before it is a "hack". N
by EdHominem 11y ago
All largely irrelevant to the issue that no real crime was committed. In any rational world, there has to be some difficulty to a hack before it is a "hack".
No locks were broken - not even the weakest 1bit password. Weev only incremented a number of a public endpoint.
The prosecution in his case, as in Aaron Swartz's, conspired to use their legal enforcement powers to intimidate the innocent. They literally, knowingly, tried to charge people for things they knew at the time weren't crimes, because they had been "humiliated" by losing earlier.
(*Innocent of the charges at hand - questions of someone's "other" guilt are out of scope.)
- maxerickson 11y agoWalking through an open door can be criminal trespass (especially if you know you don't have permission to do so). The problem isn't that easy hacks can be criminal, it's that the punishments are out of line with the harm done.
- EdHominem 11y agoA 1-bit lock would be like "Employees only. Are you an employee? Yes/No". It's just enough to establish that you knew you were supposed to stay out. And yes, a guilty-verdict and a one-cent fine wouldn't be too big of a deal. But ideally the courts just wouldn't even hear the case.