6 ms·

Even if they are similar cases (an assessment I disagree with), I doubt Auernheimer will get nearly as much sympathy among the hacker community given his histor

by dubfan 14y ago

Even if they are similar cases (an assessment I disagree with), I doubt Auernheimer will get nearly as much sympathy among the hacker community given his history of trolling and malicious behavior, compared to Swartz's history of creative and constructive actions.

duskwuff 14y ago
Yeah, there are some pretty significant differences here. Among other things, weev more or less stated that he intended to harm AT&T by leaking their customer data and driving down their stock price, and that he was, at one point, considering selling the leaked data for profit. http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/01/goatse-security-trolls-were-after-max-lols-in-att-ipad-hack/ http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/01/goatse-security-trolls-...
- dmix 14y ago
  So the important question is what's the appropriate punishment... if this was his motives (assuming it's accurate)? The illegality of Aarons actions is debatable, but the sentencing and lawyering by the DoJ has been seen as inappropriate and over-zealous by almost all spectators.
- wnight 14y ago
  If any harm could come to AT&T's customers over this, then their stock price should fall. Also, as facts those email addresses aren't copyrightable. Taking them and selling them for profit is what all direct mail companies legally do with phone numbers and email addresses they find. Websites without passwords are like postcards. Don't try to mandate restrictions on reading postcards, just use envelopes where needed.
filmgirlcw 14y ago
Exactly. This guy was very publicly trying to either blackmail or sell the data. As someone who had an iPad 3G and was alerted my info was stolen, I was pissed at the future spam I knew I'd end up getting out of the whole thing. Weev is a troll. That's not a judgment, that's fact. His antics weren't about liberating data or making a bigger statement, it was about embarrassing a company. He did it for the lulz. The law might not see these as different cases (though like you, I know I do), but public opinion certainly will. To be totally honest, I'm sort of disgusted that he's using Aaron's suicide as fodder to try to gain sympathy or sentiment ahead of his sentencing.
- tobyjsullivan 14y ago
  I have no issue with his personality being judged in the court of public opinion but I must ask if you really think he deserves this case being brought against him? Like the man or not, it's pretty easy for any technically savvy individual to see your information was leaked by AT&T, not this guy. He just pointed out what was going on. And this is hardly an "exploit" so much as stumbling across a glaring bug that he did report to a news organization, not leverage for profit. Does this really deserve a sentence that will effectively ruin a mans life (beyond the damage that has allegedly already been done)? Have you so much as stopped doing business with AT&T? I think the public has some responsibility to demand the justice system be fair for all individuals without bias, not just the ones we like. It's probably also worth asking what is being done about companies, like AT&T in this case, that are carelessly releasing said private information to the public while we are actively prosecuting people who stumble across it.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
    - tobyjsullivan 14y ago
      > He did report it to a news organization,[1] but he also talked about how he was going to blackmail AT&T with it. Which is better evidence of his intent? His actions.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
    - rsingel 14y ago
      Once again, he wasn't charged with blackmail and he never said squat about blackmailing. And if your intent is to sell the data, you don't use your real name when you get a media organization to write up the security hole.
- wnight 14y ago
  Typical. You blame the person who discovered the hole instead of the incompetent developers and negligent company that made millions from cutting corners. Actually, if anyone needs to go to jail over it, it's the management team that didn't care to implement any security. After all, no hacking was done, just simple URL editing. If that's a crime, leaving the server open that way is a far bigger one.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
politician 14y ago
The community has an opportunity to publicly judge whether the charges levied on Auernheimer match the severity of the actions he allegedly took. Specifically, is the prosecution trying to "make an example" of him by heaping charge upon overlapping charge? Are they pursuing a strategy of maximum years in jail in order to obtain a plea deal for an easy win? Are they claiming to the press that they Auernheimer is a Arthur C. Clarke-ian "frightening technology wizard or witch"? Do the prosecutors involved have an unreasonable stake in this case or political aspirations? Let's get some answers to these questions.

by dubfan 14y ago

duskwuff 14y ago

Yeah, there are some pretty significant differences here. Among other things, weev more or less stated that he intended to harm AT&T by leaking their customer data and driving down their stock price, and that he was, at one point, considering selling the leaked data for profit. http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/01/goatse-security-trolls-were-after-max-lols-in-att-ipad-hack/ http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/01/goatse-security-trolls-...

dmix 14y ago
So the important question is what's the appropriate punishment... if this was his motives (assuming it's accurate)? The illegality of Aarons actions is debatable, but the sentencing and lawyering by the DoJ has been seen as inappropriate and over-zealous by almost all spectators.
wnight 14y ago
If any harm could come to AT&T's customers over this, then their stock price should fall. Also, as facts those email addresses aren't copyrightable. Taking them and selling them for profit is what all direct mail companies legally do with phone numbers and email addresses they find. Websites without passwords are like postcards. Don't try to mandate restrictions on reading postcards, just use envelopes where needed.

filmgirlcw 14y ago

Exactly. This guy was very publicly trying to either blackmail or sell the data. As someone who had an iPad 3G and was alerted my info was stolen, I was pissed at the future spam I knew I'd end up getting out of the whole thing. Weev is a troll. That's not a judgment, that's fact. His antics weren't about liberating data or making a bigger statement, it was about embarrassing a company. He did it for the lulz. The law might not see these as different cases (though like you, I know I do), but public opinion certainly will. To be totally honest, I'm sort of disgusted that he's using Aaron's suicide as fodder to try to gain sympathy or sentiment ahead of his sentencing.

tobyjsullivan 14y ago
I have no issue with his personality being judged in the court of public opinion but I must ask if you really think he deserves this case being brought against him? Like the man or not, it's pretty easy for any technically savvy individual to see your information was leaked by AT&T, not this guy. He just pointed out what was going on. And this is hardly an "exploit" so much as stumbling across a glaring bug that he did report to a news organization, not leverage for profit. Does this really deserve a sentence that will effectively ruin a mans life (beyond the damage that has allegedly already been done)? Have you so much as stopped doing business with AT&T? I think the public has some responsibility to demand the justice system be fair for all individuals without bias, not just the ones we like. It's probably also worth asking what is being done about companies, like AT&T in this case, that are carelessly releasing said private information to the public while we are actively prosecuting people who stumble across it.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - tobyjsullivan 14y ago
    > He did report it to a news organization,[1] but he also talked about how he was going to blackmail AT&T with it. Which is better evidence of his intent? His actions.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - rsingel 14y ago
    Once again, he wasn't charged with blackmail and he never said squat about blackmailing. And if your intent is to sell the data, you don't use your real name when you get a media organization to write up the security hole.
wnight 14y ago
Typical. You blame the person who discovered the hole instead of the incompetent developers and negligent company that made millions from cutting corners. Actually, if anyone needs to go to jail over it, it's the management team that didn't care to implement any security. After all, no hacking was done, just simple URL editing. If that's a crime, leaving the server open that way is a far bigger one.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

politician 14y ago

The community has an opportunity to publicly judge whether the charges levied on Auernheimer match the severity of the actions he allegedly took. Specifically, is the prosecution trying to "make an example" of him by heaping charge upon overlapping charge? Are they pursuing a strategy of maximum years in jail in order to obtain a plea deal for an easy win? Are they claiming to the press that they Auernheimer is a Arthur C. Clarke-ian "frightening technology wizard or witch"? Do the prosecutors involved have an unreasonable stake in this case or political aspirations? Let's get some answers to these questions.