6 ms·

Weev found that certain urls had private AT&T user information on them, and scraped them to get 114k users' information. Then he notified a journalist and sent

by Buge 8y ago

Weev found that certain urls had private AT&T user information on them, and scraped them to get 114k users' information. Then he notified a journalist and sent the information to the journalist as proof. He was found to have done $73k damages. Why? AT&T sent a physical letter to all 114k people, and that was the cost of the postage. Convicted to 41 months in prison. https://techcrunch.com/2013/03/22/weev-files-appeal-gets-new-lawyer/ https://techcrunch.com/2013/03/22/weev-files-appeal-gets-new...

beezischillin 8y ago
Wow! This is disgusting. In a sane reality AT&T would've been the one paying damages...
hooloovoo_zoo 8y ago
However, he did win on appeal and did not serve most of the conviction. https://www.eff.org/press/releases/appeals-court-overturns-andrew-weev-auernheimer-conviction https://www.eff.org/press/releases/appeals-court-overturns-a...
- Buge 8y ago
  Yes, but the overturn wasn't based on urls, or scraping, or disclosure, or security, or damages, it was based on him being charged in the wrong state. The court system still thinks everything else about the case was fine.
CaptainZapp 8y ago
Let's not forget that this gentleman is a neo nazi and white supremacist of the vilest sort.[1] I may be downvoted to hell and then some, but it's impossible to look beyond those facts before mythologizing him into some sort of hacker hero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev#After_prison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev#After_prison
- shakna 8y ago
  One can both dislike a person and believe their actions were above board. He doesn't have to be hero worshipped - his actions in this particular case should stand on their own. His terrible beliefs may only come into it if they are relevant to what actions he performed. Serving prison time for notifying people of a serious privacy breach doesn't seem to be a balanced approach.
  - CaptainZapp 8y ago
    I don't agree what happened to him based on his "hack" and deem AT&T's (and the legal system's) actions despicable in this manner. Reporting on his "hacker hero antics" without putting it in context of what a personality he really is is, in my book, whitewashing of history and engaging in revisionism.
    - shakna 8y ago
      Tone can be hard to convey over the internet - try and imagine this conversation is happening in a cafe over a coffee. I'm calm, and not trying to disagree with you for internet points or anything of the like. Just trying to have a conversation. I just lack the skill to write things in a sensitive enough manner. --- Whilst I agree with you in part, I also believe that over-emphasising personality traits or behaviours of a person also engages in revisionism. One should be able to view an event entirely separate from the person, if the person's generalised behaviour isn't relevant. We don't need to think about the man at all, in my own opinion, in this particular case. Redact his name if you have concerns that the man is unworthy of attention. Adding complaints of a person to any mention of them is calling for jury and judgement. It's a distraction from what's important. It takes an event that should be discussed and explored, and twists it so you are forced to take sides about the person. You can use these tactics to derail any conversation. It's a debating tactic commonly used in politics to avoid answering questions. It might be better in future just to say something along the lines of "Aside: Can we not use his name? The guy is actually a racist, and has a pretty deplorable past." We don't want to get lost in the debate of a man's merits, when his actions may themselves be meritorious.

by Buge 8y ago

beezischillin 8y ago

Wow! This is disgusting. In a sane reality AT&T would've been the one paying damages...

hooloovoo_zoo 8y ago

However, he did win on appeal and did not serve most of the conviction. https://www.eff.org/press/releases/appeals-court-overturns-andrew-weev-auernheimer-conviction https://www.eff.org/press/releases/appeals-court-overturns-a...

Buge 8y ago
Yes, but the overturn wasn't based on urls, or scraping, or disclosure, or security, or damages, it was based on him being charged in the wrong state. The court system still thinks everything else about the case was fine.

CaptainZapp 8y ago

Let's not forget that this gentleman is a neo nazi and white supremacist of the vilest sort.[1] I may be downvoted to hell and then some, but it's impossible to look beyond those facts before mythologizing him into some sort of hacker hero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev#After_prison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev#After_prison

shakna 8y ago
One can both dislike a person and believe their actions were above board. He doesn't have to be hero worshipped - his actions in this particular case should stand on their own. His terrible beliefs may only come into it if they are relevant to what actions he performed. Serving prison time for notifying people of a serious privacy breach doesn't seem to be a balanced approach.
- CaptainZapp 8y ago
  I don't agree what happened to him based on his "hack" and deem AT&T's (and the legal system's) actions despicable in this manner. Reporting on his "hacker hero antics" without putting it in context of what a personality he really is is, in my book, whitewashing of history and engaging in revisionism.
  - shakna 8y ago
    Tone can be hard to convey over the internet - try and imagine this conversation is happening in a cafe over a coffee. I'm calm, and not trying to disagree with you for internet points or anything of the like. Just trying to have a conversation. I just lack the skill to write things in a sensitive enough manner. --- Whilst I agree with you in part, I also believe that over-emphasising personality traits or behaviours of a person also engages in revisionism. One should be able to view an event entirely separate from the person, if the person's generalised behaviour isn't relevant. We don't need to think about the man at all, in my own opinion, in this particular case. Redact his name if you have concerns that the man is unworthy of attention. Adding complaints of a person to any mention of them is calling for jury and judgement. It's a distraction from what's important. It takes an event that should be discussed and explored, and twists it so you are forced to take sides about the person. You can use these tactics to derail any conversation. It's a debating tactic commonly used in politics to avoid answering questions. It might be better in future just to say something along the lines of "Aside: Can we not use his name? The guy is actually a racist, and has a pretty deplorable past." We don't want to get lost in the debate of a man's merits, when his actions may themselves be meritorious.