5 ms·

Seriously? That you actually believe his punishment fits the crime is incredibly saddening. If even the top voted comment on a site that understands the issue b

by RyanZAG 14y ago

Seriously? That you actually believe his punishment fits the crime is incredibly saddening. If even the top voted comment on a site that understands the issue believes the punishment is appropriate, imagine the discussion in a law firm or in parliament. Anybody in the USA touching a computer will be in trouble soon. Can't wait for the next batch of laws.

rayiner 14y ago
Punishing people for purposefully disclosing private information that is clearly not intended to be public is the path to "everyone touching a computer will be in trouble soon?" You act as if he was just playing around on his own computer minding his own business when the big bad government broke his door down. In Texas, they don't convict homeowners who shoot trick or treaters trespassing on private property: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/In_Texas_can_you_shoot_someone_for_stepping_on_your_property http://wiki.answers.com/Q/In_Texas_can_you_shoot_someone_for.... Don't act so surprised and imposed upon that a culture that very much respects fences sees something wrong with intentionally poking your nose where it doesn't belong, online or offline.
- ghshephard 14y ago
  Wasn't it just email addresses that he published? I'm all for protecting personal information, but I find it hard to believe it's a felony for collecting a list of email addresses.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    The crime in question was accessing a computer system in an unauthorized fashion to collect e-mail addresses. Yes, the distinction is relevant. Taking photos of my wife in public and publishing them? Creepy but not illegal. Walking through my door (locked or unlocked, it doesn't matter) to take photos of my wife in my house? You're lucky if you don't get shot.
    - ghshephard 14y ago
      But, in this case - didn't he just spoof a user agent and toss fairly guessable CCID numbers? Certainly hacking, and given that he doesn't work for, or is associated with AT&T - some type of criminal trespass - but, we're talking community service here, not a felony. Slap the hand, don't cut it off. I would hope we can all agree that there is a pretty big difference between a pervasive attack where someone spear-phishes a user inside a company, plants a trojan, and uses that to acquire sensitive intellectual property for financial gain, and/or do damage - versus what weev did - trying some pretty obvious numbers on the public website with an iPad user agent.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        > Certainly hacking, and given that he doesn't work for, or is associated with AT&T - some type of criminal trespass - but, we're talking community service here, not a felony. Slap the hand, don't cut it off. I agree, but he's not being charged with felonies for simply poking around. He's being charged with felonies for what he claims he was going to do with the information. The defense seems to be that he wasn't actually going to do that, but it's the domain of the jury to decide his intentions based on his actions.
      - jessaustin 14y ago
        some type of criminal trespass When you send packets to an internet-connected device, and that device sends some packets back to you, that is not "trespass". You haven't "gone" anywhere, and you certainly didn't cross any "property lines". Much in the way that the copyright mafia wants to redefine "piracy" from "murder and plunder on the high seas" to "listening to a friend's MP3", numerous other bad people will be thrilled when the public accepts "SYN,SYN-ACK,ACK" as a new meaning of "trespass".
    - rsingel 14y ago
      Remind me never to file a bug report to any company you work for.
    - deadairspace 14y ago
      The crime in question was accessing a computer system in an unauthorized fashion Via a URL accessible to anybody? If I poke around on your website and find your /hiddenstuff directory, am I guilty of a crime?
  - lawnchair_larry 14y ago
    He didn't even publish it. He reported it to the media, so they saw it in order to verify, and he deleted the list.
- rdl 14y ago
  For the purpose of federal sentencing guidelines, this doesn't count as "acceptance of responsibility", right?
- jessaustin 14y ago
  In Texas, they don't convict homeowners who shoot trick or treaters trespassing on private property Please clarify. Are you trying to say that there exists any justification for this idiotic Texanity? Because there isn't, and therefore you can't logically use it to justify this other unjustifiable thing. Also, sending packets to an internet-connected device, and then reading the packets it sends back to you, is in no sense "trespassing". Trespass is being physically present in a physical location in which you aren't welcome. You can't trespass while you're physically in your mother's basement. Please don't mangle the English language.

by RyanZAG 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago

Punishing people for purposefully disclosing private information that is clearly not intended to be public is the path to "everyone touching a computer will be in trouble soon?" You act as if he was just playing around on his own computer minding his own business when the big bad government broke his door down. In Texas, they don't convict homeowners who shoot trick or treaters trespassing on private property: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/In_Texas_can_you_shoot_someone_for_stepping_on_your_property http://wiki.answers.com/Q/In_Texas_can_you_shoot_someone_for.... Don't act so surprised and imposed upon that a culture that very much respects fences sees something wrong with intentionally poking your nose where it doesn't belong, online or offline.

ghshephard 14y ago
Wasn't it just email addresses that he published? I'm all for protecting personal information, but I find it hard to believe it's a felony for collecting a list of email addresses.
- rayiner 14y ago
  The crime in question was accessing a computer system in an unauthorized fashion to collect e-mail addresses. Yes, the distinction is relevant. Taking photos of my wife in public and publishing them? Creepy but not illegal. Walking through my door (locked or unlocked, it doesn't matter) to take photos of my wife in my house? You're lucky if you don't get shot.
  - ghshephard 14y ago
    But, in this case - didn't he just spoof a user agent and toss fairly guessable CCID numbers? Certainly hacking, and given that he doesn't work for, or is associated with AT&T - some type of criminal trespass - but, we're talking community service here, not a felony. Slap the hand, don't cut it off. I would hope we can all agree that there is a pretty big difference between a pervasive attack where someone spear-phishes a user inside a company, plants a trojan, and uses that to acquire sensitive intellectual property for financial gain, and/or do damage - versus what weev did - trying some pretty obvious numbers on the public website with an iPad user agent.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      > Certainly hacking, and given that he doesn't work for, or is associated with AT&T - some type of criminal trespass - but, we're talking community service here, not a felony. Slap the hand, don't cut it off. I agree, but he's not being charged with felonies for simply poking around. He's being charged with felonies for what he claims he was going to do with the information. The defense seems to be that he wasn't actually going to do that, but it's the domain of the jury to decide his intentions based on his actions.
    - jessaustin 14y ago
      some type of criminal trespass When you send packets to an internet-connected device, and that device sends some packets back to you, that is not "trespass". You haven't "gone" anywhere, and you certainly didn't cross any "property lines". Much in the way that the copyright mafia wants to redefine "piracy" from "murder and plunder on the high seas" to "listening to a friend's MP3", numerous other bad people will be thrilled when the public accepts "SYN,SYN-ACK,ACK" as a new meaning of "trespass".
  - rsingel 14y ago
    Remind me never to file a bug report to any company you work for.
  - deadairspace 14y ago
    The crime in question was accessing a computer system in an unauthorized fashion Via a URL accessible to anybody? If I poke around on your website and find your /hiddenstuff directory, am I guilty of a crime?
- lawnchair_larry 14y ago
  He didn't even publish it. He reported it to the media, so they saw it in order to verify, and he deleted the list.
rdl 14y ago
For the purpose of federal sentencing guidelines, this doesn't count as "acceptance of responsibility", right?
jessaustin 14y ago
In Texas, they don't convict homeowners who shoot trick or treaters trespassing on private property Please clarify. Are you trying to say that there exists any justification for this idiotic Texanity? Because there isn't, and therefore you can't logically use it to justify this other unjustifiable thing. Also, sending packets to an internet-connected device, and then reading the packets it sends back to you, is in no sense "trespassing". Trespass is being physically present in a physical location in which you aren't welcome. You can't trespass while you're physically in your mother's basement. Please don't mangle the English language.