5 ms·

Yes hes a terrible person. This news article should still be about AT&T being fined a bazillion dollars for not safeguarding that data (of course that never hap

Yes hes a terrible person. This news article should still be about AT&T being fined a bazillion dollars for not safeguarding that data (of course that never happened). Any technical person of course understands that what AT&T did is akin to dumping money on the sidewalk, but you would never know from the cloud of uncertainty and ignorance that permeates these articles. We can't get more specific laws if the understanding of journalists can't rise above the word "hacking".

fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
Or about how many thousands of AT&T customers fled to a competitor who takes customer data privacy seriously, upon hearing of the incident.
- rdl 14y ago
  I don't care that much about the privacy of my email address, personally.
  - Centigonal 14y ago
    It's worth noting that, regarding consumer rights in our society, apathy is tantamount to concession. The reasons why this statement is true would make for a very interesting investigation, methinks.
    - readme 14y ago
      I don't know man. I have 2 emails: public, and semi-public. My public email is used to register for all sorts of things. My semi-public is only used to register for the most important things, and is posted on several internet profiles as a way to contact me.
    - rdl 14y ago
      At the very least, it is some of the least sensitive info a wireless carrier has about me. Leaking my call history, or worse location history, would cause me to take action against the carrier.
IheartApplesDix 14y ago
AT&T has a very important role in national defense to fill. This criminal is luckily he didn't get lined up and shot for treason. Sure, we can say that AT&T is a telecommunications company that should try to protect the customers that pay for their service, but we all know that AT&T is actually a government intelligence agency with all the expected bureaucracy of a military sect. Protecting their customers is #1, and their customer is US Gov.
- phaus 14y ago
  >Protecting their customers is #1 If AT&T gave a single fuck about its customers, Weev wouldn't have been able to access another user's account by incrementing a number in the URL. If AT&T gave a fuck about its customers, they wouldn't have destroyed any chance of having a white hat point out security flaws to them in the future, before the black hats find them. If AT&T gave a fuck about its customers, they wouldn't charge customers $20 a month for texting capabilities that cost them a nickel to provide, or $40 a month for $2 worth of bandwidth. Should I continue? There are a million other reasons why your statement makes no sense whatsoever. If they cared about customers, they would be open to criticism when security experts are ready to offer it behind closed doors.
  - unimpressive 14y ago
    While I may not necessarily agree with it, you're missing his point. Kind of like "if you're not paying for it you're not the customer", his argument is that because telecos handle communications from every organization and entity in the US, it's inevitable that they become a de facto intelligence agency for the federal government. (That is, their number one customer is their government interests.) It's sort of a corollary to the idea that all of these convictions are intended to set the precedent that all Internet users are criminals.[0] If the primary purpose of telecos is to serve the US government, and the US government wants to criminalize Internet use, then it would make sense for them to serve "hackers" with hefty sentences in cooperation with the department of justice. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5393561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5393561
  - efdee 14y ago

fnordfnordfnord 14y ago

Or about how many thousands of AT&T customers fled to a competitor who takes customer data privacy seriously, upon hearing of the incident.

rdl 14y ago
I don't care that much about the privacy of my email address, personally.
- Centigonal 14y ago
  It's worth noting that, regarding consumer rights in our society, apathy is tantamount to concession. The reasons why this statement is true would make for a very interesting investigation, methinks.
  - readme 14y ago
    I don't know man. I have 2 emails: public, and semi-public. My public email is used to register for all sorts of things. My semi-public is only used to register for the most important things, and is posted on several internet profiles as a way to contact me.
  - rdl 14y ago
    At the very least, it is some of the least sensitive info a wireless carrier has about me. Leaking my call history, or worse location history, would cause me to take action against the carrier.

IheartApplesDix 14y ago

AT&T has a very important role in national defense to fill. This criminal is luckily he didn't get lined up and shot for treason. Sure, we can say that AT&T is a telecommunications company that should try to protect the customers that pay for their service, but we all know that AT&T is actually a government intelligence agency with all the expected bureaucracy of a military sect. Protecting their customers is #1, and their customer is US Gov.

phaus 14y ago
>Protecting their customers is #1 If AT&T gave a single fuck about its customers, Weev wouldn't have been able to access another user's account by incrementing a number in the URL. If AT&T gave a fuck about its customers, they wouldn't have destroyed any chance of having a white hat point out security flaws to them in the future, before the black hats find them. If AT&T gave a fuck about its customers, they wouldn't charge customers $20 a month for texting capabilities that cost them a nickel to provide, or $40 a month for $2 worth of bandwidth. Should I continue? There are a million other reasons why your statement makes no sense whatsoever. If they cared about customers, they would be open to criticism when security experts are ready to offer it behind closed doors.
- unimpressive 14y ago
  While I may not necessarily agree with it, you're missing his point. Kind of like "if you're not paying for it you're not the customer", his argument is that because telecos handle communications from every organization and entity in the US, it's inevitable that they become a de facto intelligence agency for the federal government. (That is, their number one customer is their government interests.) It's sort of a corollary to the idea that all of these convictions are intended to set the precedent that all Internet users are criminals.[0] If the primary purpose of telecos is to serve the US government, and the US government wants to criminalize Internet use, then it would make sense for them to serve "hackers" with hefty sentences in cooperation with the department of justice. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5393561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5393561
- efdee 14y ago