> It was hacking because AT&T certainly didn't intend for people to be retrieving other people's personal information by randomly guessing ICCID numbers, and ch

> It was hacking because AT&T certainly didn't intend for people to be retrieving other people's personal information by randomly guessing ICCID numbers, and changing their User-agent header. I think the worst part about this is that it once again sends the message to companies that its OK to be this negligent. The law came in and fixed everything, the system works! Bad things were done, the bad people are in jail, full resolution. I don't feel safer if every hacker ends up in jail. I feel safer when things are too hard to hack, or at the very least not brain dead easy to hack. This is very similar to Sony's response to repeated hackings of their customer's credit card numbers stored in plaintext: "We'll get those perpetrators!" instead of "oh we'll stop being ridiculously negligent now". The arguments of discouraging future hackers with harsh sentences don't work when 15 year olds are doing this all around the world. I want my information protected so that my money can't be stolen, not to receive retribution for it afterwards. If my bank left all the security boxes wide open for anyone to steal from, sure its still a crime to steal from them but I'd be much more pissed at the bank -- I pay them to keep that stuff safe! I think we have too often come to accept crime followed by punishment as an ideal scenario, forgetting that sometimes there even exists the possibility of avoiding the initial crime in the first place.