7 ms·

For context, this guy used to be part of the GNAA. They don't care at all about exposing security holes. His goal probably wasn't to cause some sort of security

For context, this guy used to be part of the GNAA. They don't care at all about exposing security holes. His goal probably wasn't to cause some sort of security improvement. Yeah, the punishment was harsh, but this guy isn't exactly a folk hero.

khuey 14y ago
It doesn't really matter if the guy is an asshole. Harsher sentences for incrementing a URL than for rape or vehicular manslaughter are ridiculous.
- DannyBee 14y ago
  Sure, but that's a question for the legislature, of course. Courts are going to give deference to the policy choices of what crimes deserve what punishments.
  - jbooth 14y ago
    They hit him with the maximum sentence, not the minimum -- this one's on the courts. If it was a case of someone going away for 10 years for shoplifting because of 3 strikes, then that's on the legislature.
    - DannyBee 14y ago
      No it isn't The minimum/maximums are legislatively defined (In this case, through the US sentencing guidelines, which came through the Sentencing act of 1984) If they didn't want the maximum to be the maximum, they shouldn't have put it in the range? For the most part, the actual calculation is mechanical. Unless the judge performed an upward departure (which i can't find any evidence of), he was just following the guidelines.
lifeisstillgood 14y ago
We are supposed to prosecute, convict and sentence on the facts of the case, not the likeability of the defendant
- smsm42 14y ago
  You must be very new on this Earth if you think it actually doesn't matter who the defendant is and how he behaves. Motives matter, so does evaluation of the probability that the crime will be repeated in the future. weev did everything to show he intended to harm AT&T and his only regret is that he didn't harm them more. That's not exactly a way to get lenient sentence.
  - ceejayoz 14y ago
    "We are supposed to" isn't the same as "we don't".
  - tomp 14y ago
    He didn't intend to harm AT&T; they discussed selling the URLs or shorting the stock, that would amount to harm, but they didn't do it in the end, so his intent is pretty obvious. If I was dealing with such dickheads as the AT&T and the US prosecutors, my "last" wish would be to harm them more, too. Edit: typo, changed "with" into "wish" in the last paragraph.
    - smsm42 14y ago
      Shorting stock doesn't harm AT&T, it harms the shareholders. >>>> If I was dealing with such dickheads as the AT&T and the US prosecutors, my "last" wish would be to harm them more, too. Then you'd be no smarter than Auernheimer, and I sincerely hope you don't behave as stupidly as he did, or you inevitably would land in jail too. It usually doesn't go well for people that try to harm others and publicly admit it. At least Auernheimer didn't publicly proclaim his desire to harm prosecutors too, that'd be an nice cherry on top of this cake of self-destruction.
      - mindslight 14y ago
        > It usually doesn't go well for people that try to harm others and publicly admit it If you're a federal persecutor, it usually goes very well.
  - 14y ago
Udo 14y ago
Nevertheless, what applies to him will also be applied to folk heroes. So it does matter, even if the defendant is unlikeable.
lawnchair_larry 14y ago
What you are doing here is actually the opposite of providing context.

khuey 14y ago

It doesn't really matter if the guy is an asshole. Harsher sentences for incrementing a URL than for rape or vehicular manslaughter are ridiculous.

DannyBee 14y ago
Sure, but that's a question for the legislature, of course. Courts are going to give deference to the policy choices of what crimes deserve what punishments.
- jbooth 14y ago
  They hit him with the maximum sentence, not the minimum -- this one's on the courts. If it was a case of someone going away for 10 years for shoplifting because of 3 strikes, then that's on the legislature.
  - DannyBee 14y ago
    No it isn't The minimum/maximums are legislatively defined (In this case, through the US sentencing guidelines, which came through the Sentencing act of 1984) If they didn't want the maximum to be the maximum, they shouldn't have put it in the range? For the most part, the actual calculation is mechanical. Unless the judge performed an upward departure (which i can't find any evidence of), he was just following the guidelines.

lifeisstillgood 14y ago

We are supposed to prosecute, convict and sentence on the facts of the case, not the likeability of the defendant

smsm42 14y ago
You must be very new on this Earth if you think it actually doesn't matter who the defendant is and how he behaves. Motives matter, so does evaluation of the probability that the crime will be repeated in the future. weev did everything to show he intended to harm AT&T and his only regret is that he didn't harm them more. That's not exactly a way to get lenient sentence.
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  "We are supposed to" isn't the same as "we don't".
- tomp 14y ago
  He didn't intend to harm AT&T; they discussed selling the URLs or shorting the stock, that would amount to harm, but they didn't do it in the end, so his intent is pretty obvious. If I was dealing with such dickheads as the AT&T and the US prosecutors, my "last" wish would be to harm them more, too. Edit: typo, changed "with" into "wish" in the last paragraph.
  - smsm42 14y ago
    Shorting stock doesn't harm AT&T, it harms the shareholders. >>>> If I was dealing with such dickheads as the AT&T and the US prosecutors, my "last" wish would be to harm them more, too. Then you'd be no smarter than Auernheimer, and I sincerely hope you don't behave as stupidly as he did, or you inevitably would land in jail too. It usually doesn't go well for people that try to harm others and publicly admit it. At least Auernheimer didn't publicly proclaim his desire to harm prosecutors too, that'd be an nice cherry on top of this cake of self-destruction.
    - mindslight 14y ago
      > It usually doesn't go well for people that try to harm others and publicly admit it If you're a federal persecutor, it usually goes very well.
- 14y ago

Udo 14y ago

Nevertheless, what applies to him will also be applied to folk heroes. So it does matter, even if the defendant is unlikeable.

lawnchair_larry 14y ago

What you are doing here is actually the opposite of providing context.