4 ms·
Whether they've stated it publicly or not, I would imagine AT&T's main contention with weev is that he released the information publicly (to Gawker) without att
by epenn 14y ago
Whether they've stated it publicly or not, I would imagine AT&T's main contention with weev is that he released the information publicly (to Gawker) without attempting to disclose the information to them first (please correct me if he did and I've overlooked that). Nonetheless, if he were to have gone to AT&T first I don't think there's anything that could have stopped AT&T from accusing him of hacking and pressing charges anyway since that wouldn't have changed the way he went about discovering the issue. That's scary. Even this particular case aside, how is a person supposed to ethically disclose an exploit to an organization without fear of prosecution?
- dclowd9901 14y agoThat's my impression of the case as well. Whether or not AT&T would've continued to press charges is a worthless thought exercise. History seems to have shown if you make a good faith effort to keep the company in the loop, things turn out OK, and you at least remain sympathetic should they not.
- objclxt 14y ago> he released the information publicly (to Gawker) without attempting to disclose the information to them first Additionally, when he gave the data to Gawker he told them he had already disclosed the issue to AT&T, which is later turned out wasn't the case.