3 ms·

>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

by 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
While I don't necessarely disagree with most of your content, a) it was not simply "incrementing a number in the URL" and b) you can hardly say someone is a whitehat if his goal is "to harass rich people".

by phaus 14y ago

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

While I don't necessarely disagree with most of your content, a) it was not simply "incrementing a number in the URL" and b) you can hardly say someone is a whitehat if his goal is "to harass rich people".