4 ms·

That article's bias is showing. If that is all you read about the incident then sure.. they are just regular criminals. But there is more to the case than that.

That article's bias is showing. If that is all you read about the incident then sure.. they are just regular criminals. But there is more to the case than that. From what I've read elsewhere, the Feds used a bit of stretching to make that law fit.

smsm42 14y ago
Could you back it up with some other sources then? if there's more to the case, where this more can be found?
- jack-r-abbit 14y ago
  I can't tell if you are trolling or are actually asking me how to Google for more info on this guy's case?
  - smsm42 14y ago
    I don't ask you how to Google. I ask you to substantiate your claims that the article is biased and the truth is different from what is described there. If you are convinced this is the case, it must be easy for you to provide some evidence. Of course, you may consider this trolling and refuse to continue the discussion. The readers would then left to judge if your bare unsubstantiated claims are proof enough. I was assuming you wrote that comment in order to try to convince the readers in the truth of your claims. However maybe I was wrong.
    - jack-r-abbit 14y ago
      The article's bias is pretty evident where it referred to them as "trolls". The only "evidence" I have that there is more to the story than what this article said is just what I read in other articles. Sadly, I did not bookmark any of them so I can't easily return to them to provide links to you. I'd have to Google for them. So if you would like to read more than just this one account, you would need to Google as well. But if you want to base your opinion on only what you read in this one article AND what some random guy on the Internet (me) gives you, then I won't judge you for that. Carry on.
      - smsm42 14y ago
        I think the fact that he was a known troll is just a fact. He himself called himself a troll, one quote: "Trolling can frequently have large economic repercussions as, as I learned when I trolled Amazon.". This is not an evidence of bias. Of course, being a troll does not mean being a criminal, but the fact that Auernheimer was a troll is well established and confirmed even by himself. The problem with Googling is that you know what to Google for to provide evidence. I have no idea what evidence you have, so how I can Google for evidence that only you know what it is?
        jack-r-abbit 14y ago
        You don't Google the evidence. You Google the guy. You have his real name. You have his online name. You have the name of his security firm. Those things alone will provide days worth of reading material. Read some. What I read described his actions a little more. And talked more about the vague language in a 30 year old law. And talked about how the Feds used a very self-serving interpretation of that language.
        smsm42 14y ago
        I know all this. I've read his backstory, and his current story, and the court materials, and other materials, and remain convinced that he created a tool to circumvent AT&T access controls and downloaded private information, he violated every standard of responsible disclosure (actually, he didn't disclose it to AT&T at all, he went straight to the press, after doing much more than is necessary for vulnerability demonstration), that he fully knew this is not necessary for demonstrating the vulnerability and that he did it for reasons of personal enjoyment and popularity, if not monetary gain. What I did not find is any evidence that shows the decision was wrong or biased, and so for the article. Since you were repeatedly unable to point to any evidence yourself, I conclude your statement about it was baseless and rooted in personal emotions, not facts. You are still welcome to provide contradicting evidence.
        jack-r-abbit 14y ago

smsm42 14y ago

Could you back it up with some other sources then? if there's more to the case, where this more can be found?

jack-r-abbit 14y ago
I can't tell if you are trolling or are actually asking me how to Google for more info on this guy's case?
- smsm42 14y ago
  I don't ask you how to Google. I ask you to substantiate your claims that the article is biased and the truth is different from what is described there. If you are convinced this is the case, it must be easy for you to provide some evidence. Of course, you may consider this trolling and refuse to continue the discussion. The readers would then left to judge if your bare unsubstantiated claims are proof enough. I was assuming you wrote that comment in order to try to convince the readers in the truth of your claims. However maybe I was wrong.
  - jack-r-abbit 14y ago
    The article's bias is pretty evident where it referred to them as "trolls". The only "evidence" I have that there is more to the story than what this article said is just what I read in other articles. Sadly, I did not bookmark any of them so I can't easily return to them to provide links to you. I'd have to Google for them. So if you would like to read more than just this one account, you would need to Google as well. But if you want to base your opinion on only what you read in this one article AND what some random guy on the Internet (me) gives you, then I won't judge you for that. Carry on.
    - smsm42 14y ago
      I think the fact that he was a known troll is just a fact. He himself called himself a troll, one quote: "Trolling can frequently have large economic repercussions as, as I learned when I trolled Amazon.". This is not an evidence of bias. Of course, being a troll does not mean being a criminal, but the fact that Auernheimer was a troll is well established and confirmed even by himself. The problem with Googling is that you know what to Google for to provide evidence. I have no idea what evidence you have, so how I can Google for evidence that only you know what it is?
      - jack-r-abbit 14y ago
        You don't Google the evidence. You Google the guy. You have his real name. You have his online name. You have the name of his security firm. Those things alone will provide days worth of reading material. Read some. What I read described his actions a little more. And talked more about the vague language in a 30 year old law. And talked about how the Feds used a very self-serving interpretation of that language.
        smsm42 14y ago
        I know all this. I've read his backstory, and his current story, and the court materials, and other materials, and remain convinced that he created a tool to circumvent AT&T access controls and downloaded private information, he violated every standard of responsible disclosure (actually, he didn't disclose it to AT&T at all, he went straight to the press, after doing much more than is necessary for vulnerability demonstration), that he fully knew this is not necessary for demonstrating the vulnerability and that he did it for reasons of personal enjoyment and popularity, if not monetary gain. What I did not find is any evidence that shows the decision was wrong or biased, and so for the article. Since you were repeatedly unable to point to any evidence yourself, I conclude your statement about it was baseless and rooted in personal emotions, not facts. You are still welcome to provide contradicting evidence.
        jack-r-abbit 14y ago