4 ms·
He didn't expose some flaw or weakness. ATT knew that information was there, they were the ones that put it there. Weev was pointing out a negligent mishandli
by px43 14y ago
He didn't expose some flaw or weakness. ATT knew that information was there, they were the ones that put it there. Weev was pointing out a negligent mishandling of data. ATT already has shown that they suck at vendor response. I think he has a duty to inform the public when there is an issue like that. If he had gone to ATT first, they likely would have lawyered him into oblivion, and kept their shitty service online.
- enraged_camel 14y agoThis argument is very commonly made, and that's unfortunate because it is fundamentally flawed. Just because AT&T left the information exposed is not sufficient justification for some random person to take it, especially when that person takes it with the explicit intent to cause harm AND profit from it.
- px43 14y agoFirst off, what profit? Weev can be described by many negative terms, but greedy has never been one of them. Secondly, if a company posts something publicly, people in the public are going to see it. My mind is incapable of comprehending the logic of anyone who would say "Just because we posted it on our website doesn't mean we wanted anyone to see it."