6 ms·

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

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.
- mxxx 14y ago
  When a vulnerability/exploit is discovered, there's a difference between dealing with it responsibly and using it to troll people "for the lulz". Don't paint this guy as a white hat trying to help AT&T patch their poor security. The very idea that this dude is trying to compare himself to Swartz is laughable at best and in very, very poor taste. edit: to clarify, in no way do i think the punishment he might get fits the crime. the feds are being completely overzealous here. i just don't like that a guy who gets busted doing something completely self-interested tries to jump on the coattails of a genuine tragedy to stir up public support.
  - Jimmie 14y ago
    wnight never said that Andrew was white hat, just that not all the blame should be placed on him.
  - wnight 14y ago
    Personally I find it gauche when people judge the worthiness of someone else, merely because other people have had an even rougher time. This case is absolutely like Aaron's, an over-zealous prosecutor doing absolutely nothing useful for society and pursuing a non-issue to potentially life-running levels. And it's not that this guy is or is not a white-hat, but that AT&T and the government are effectively black hats. It's not his duty to hold their hands, but it's AT&T's duty not to lie or misrepresent the situation and it's the prosecutor's duty to serve the public good.
neilk 14y ago
Trolling is not illegal. Embarrassing a company is not illegal. Talking or joking about blackmailing a company on IRC is not illegal. Taking a security exploit first to a journalist, rather than the parties involved, is not illegal. I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, the crime that weev is being charged with is literally that he accessed certain publicly available URLs. For this, he is being charged with "accessing a computer without authorization" and fraud. As for Aaron versus weev: our dedication to a principle is tested when it protects people that we don't like.
- rayiner 14y ago
  Crime = intent + action. Doing two otherwise legal things may amount to a crime. For example, it is not illegal to talk about killing your ex-wife. It is also not illegal to walk to her house with a chainsaw. Both those things are by themselves quite legal. But combine the two, and you can quite fairly be charged for attempted murder.
  - craigching 14y ago
    Not trolling, genuinely curious, is it a crime to say "I might do this" vs. actually doing it? What is the law that's broken? I have to agree with neil, though I'm not suggesting you're doing this: > our dedication to a principle is tested when it protects people that we don't like
    - rayiner 14y ago
      > Not trolling, genuinely curious, is it a crime to say "I might do this" vs. actually doing it? What is the law that's broken? You're oversimplifying the situation. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code. As I said, crime = intent + action. If you kill someone, and you had no bad intent (it was neither your purpose to kill them nor were you acting negligently), then there is no crime. At the same time, if you fully intend to kill someone, but don't take any action consistent with that intent, there is no crime. The two factors must also exist simultaneously. If you intend to kill someone, and buy a gun, you can be charged with attempted murder. If you fully intend to kill someone today, but then change your mind, and tomorrow buy a gun because of a rash of burglaries tomorrow, then there is no crime. Now, obviously we can't get inside someone's head. So we infer intent from action. But we must always remember that the focus is not the action, but what the action says as evidence of the person's intent. And no matter what intent is inferred, there must still be independent action towards committing the crime. So no, it's not illegal to say "I might do this." But, saying "I might do this" can amount to evidence that you intend, in fact, to do this, and if you independently take some other action consistent with this intent, you can be charged with an attempted crime.

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.

mxxx 14y ago
When a vulnerability/exploit is discovered, there's a difference between dealing with it responsibly and using it to troll people "for the lulz". Don't paint this guy as a white hat trying to help AT&T patch their poor security. The very idea that this dude is trying to compare himself to Swartz is laughable at best and in very, very poor taste. edit: to clarify, in no way do i think the punishment he might get fits the crime. the feds are being completely overzealous here. i just don't like that a guy who gets busted doing something completely self-interested tries to jump on the coattails of a genuine tragedy to stir up public support.
- Jimmie 14y ago
  wnight never said that Andrew was white hat, just that not all the blame should be placed on him.
- wnight 14y ago
  Personally I find it gauche when people judge the worthiness of someone else, merely because other people have had an even rougher time. This case is absolutely like Aaron's, an over-zealous prosecutor doing absolutely nothing useful for society and pursuing a non-issue to potentially life-running levels. And it's not that this guy is or is not a white-hat, but that AT&T and the government are effectively black hats. It's not his duty to hold their hands, but it's AT&T's duty not to lie or misrepresent the situation and it's the prosecutor's duty to serve the public good.

neilk 14y ago

Trolling is not illegal. Embarrassing a company is not illegal. Talking or joking about blackmailing a company on IRC is not illegal. Taking a security exploit first to a journalist, rather than the parties involved, is not illegal. I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, the crime that weev is being charged with is literally that he accessed certain publicly available URLs. For this, he is being charged with "accessing a computer without authorization" and fraud. As for Aaron versus weev: our dedication to a principle is tested when it protects people that we don't like.

rayiner 14y ago
Crime = intent + action. Doing two otherwise legal things may amount to a crime. For example, it is not illegal to talk about killing your ex-wife. It is also not illegal to walk to her house with a chainsaw. Both those things are by themselves quite legal. But combine the two, and you can quite fairly be charged for attempted murder.
- craigching 14y ago
  Not trolling, genuinely curious, is it a crime to say "I might do this" vs. actually doing it? What is the law that's broken? I have to agree with neil, though I'm not suggesting you're doing this: > our dedication to a principle is tested when it protects people that we don't like
  - rayiner 14y ago
    > Not trolling, genuinely curious, is it a crime to say "I might do this" vs. actually doing it? What is the law that's broken? You're oversimplifying the situation. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code. As I said, crime = intent + action. If you kill someone, and you had no bad intent (it was neither your purpose to kill them nor were you acting negligently), then there is no crime. At the same time, if you fully intend to kill someone, but don't take any action consistent with that intent, there is no crime. The two factors must also exist simultaneously. If you intend to kill someone, and buy a gun, you can be charged with attempted murder. If you fully intend to kill someone today, but then change your mind, and tomorrow buy a gun because of a rash of burglaries tomorrow, then there is no crime. Now, obviously we can't get inside someone's head. So we infer intent from action. But we must always remember that the focus is not the action, but what the action says as evidence of the person's intent. And no matter what intent is inferred, there must still be independent action towards committing the crime. So no, it's not illegal to say "I might do this." But, saying "I might do this" can amount to evidence that you intend, in fact, to do this, and if you independently take some other action consistent with this intent, you can be charged with an attempted crime.