6 ms·

This is such a tough issue for me. On one hand, I absolutely support the cause that the EFF is trying to champion. It reminds me of the classic case in the Am

This is such a tough issue for me. On one hand, I absolutely support the cause that the EFF is trying to champion. It reminds me of the classic case in the American free speech vs. hate speech debate: should Nazis be allowed to organize a peaceful rally to further their thinly-veiled racist ideals? I have had personal interaction with weev for years, and while I don't think he's vile per se, he is most definitely not the ideal that the EFF and other groups should rally behind to bring this fight to the limelight... mostly because he's not likable. It disgusts me to say it, but it's true: if you want public support, you need a likable figurehead. In the end, though, I can't fault the EFF. As the famous Hall quote states: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

rhizome 14y ago
Since it's the majority opinion at this early stage of the thread, what exactly is the ideal being sought?
- jamesaguilar 14y ago
  The ideal is: you should be legally allowed to fetch and use any public document on internet, even if you know or should know its owner intended it to be private.
  - smtddr 14y ago
    > you should be legally allowed to fetch and use any public document on internet, even if you know or should know its owner intended it to be private. That's a bit too general isn't it? If I hacked H&R Block and gave the tax documents of 5,000 people to journalist should I not face some kind of consequence? Not that I'm on AT&T's side on this; just saying the line needs to be drawn somewhere. Revealing emails, to me, shouldn't be a crime at all. Revealing the kind of info found on tax-forms however should have some kind of penalty.
    - bigiain 14y ago
      "If I hacked H&R Block and gave the tax documents of 5,000 people to journalist should I not face some kind of consequence?" As I see it - if H&R Block had a public webserver which used an easily innumerable url to "protect" the tax documents of 5000 people - it's H&R Block who should be "facing the consequences". Ignoring for a moment the distraction about weev's likableness and/or character, where's the outrage against AT&T for their part? If it's been a teenaged scriptkiddie from somewhere that US jurisdiction (and oil interests) don't reach (like most of these WordPress admin logins my fail2ban config is seeing these last few days), wouldn't it be _much_ more obviously AT&T's "fault"? Hell, where I live it's an offense to leave your car unlocked : http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/community_issues/crime_prevention/public_transport_and_traffic http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/community_issues/crime_preventi... (scroll down to the first bullet point under "Help Stop Car Theft"). Why isn't someone at AT&T facing jail time here?
      - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
        >Ignoring for a moment the distraction about weev's likableness and/or character, where's the outrage against AT&T for their part? There's the rub though. AT&T isn't a human, so who do you punish? You can fine AT&T the company, but that's not punishing the people who left the site like that, it's punishing the stockholders. Stockholders really don't like to be liable for the actions of fairly low level subordinates like that, and they have the political influence to make sure that doesn't happen. You could try to go after the specific admins who set up the site insecurely, but they're not unsympathetic people. The ones who do things like this are mostly people who are overworked or poorly trained through no fault of their own. The people who are really at fault, then, are the ones who hired admins without proper training or experience or put so much workload on them that they couldn't adequately do their jobs, but now you're talking about corporate executives who (like stockholders) don't like to be personally liable for the actions of subordinates and who have the political influence to make sure that doesn't happen. So we're left with a situation where there is no one good to punish, but we have to punish someone, don't we? Something bad has happened! So we kill the messenger. The messenger doesn't have any lobbyists on staff. What's missing from all this is that we really don't have to punish anyone. Just let the vulnerabilities be published. Companies don't want to hear that because it very publicly makes them look as dumb as they are, but if they can't stop it by threatening anyone with prison then the only way they can do it is by maintaining secure systems. Which means they will, or they'll face the penalties of the court of public opinion. Where in this dynamic is there a need for intervention by the federal prison system?
  - rhizome 14y ago
    The ideal I was referring to is the character of the defendant, not their actions.

rhizome 14y ago

Since it's the majority opinion at this early stage of the thread, what exactly is the ideal being sought?

jamesaguilar 14y ago
The ideal is: you should be legally allowed to fetch and use any public document on internet, even if you know or should know its owner intended it to be private.
- smtddr 14y ago
  > you should be legally allowed to fetch and use any public document on internet, even if you know or should know its owner intended it to be private. That's a bit too general isn't it? If I hacked H&R Block and gave the tax documents of 5,000 people to journalist should I not face some kind of consequence? Not that I'm on AT&T's side on this; just saying the line needs to be drawn somewhere. Revealing emails, to me, shouldn't be a crime at all. Revealing the kind of info found on tax-forms however should have some kind of penalty.
  - bigiain 14y ago
    "If I hacked H&R Block and gave the tax documents of 5,000 people to journalist should I not face some kind of consequence?" As I see it - if H&R Block had a public webserver which used an easily innumerable url to "protect" the tax documents of 5000 people - it's H&R Block who should be "facing the consequences". Ignoring for a moment the distraction about weev's likableness and/or character, where's the outrage against AT&T for their part? If it's been a teenaged scriptkiddie from somewhere that US jurisdiction (and oil interests) don't reach (like most of these WordPress admin logins my fail2ban config is seeing these last few days), wouldn't it be _much_ more obviously AT&T's "fault"? Hell, where I live it's an offense to leave your car unlocked : http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/community_issues/crime_prevention/public_transport_and_traffic http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/community_issues/crime_preventi... (scroll down to the first bullet point under "Help Stop Car Theft"). Why isn't someone at AT&T facing jail time here?
    - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
      >Ignoring for a moment the distraction about weev's likableness and/or character, where's the outrage against AT&T for their part? There's the rub though. AT&T isn't a human, so who do you punish? You can fine AT&T the company, but that's not punishing the people who left the site like that, it's punishing the stockholders. Stockholders really don't like to be liable for the actions of fairly low level subordinates like that, and they have the political influence to make sure that doesn't happen. You could try to go after the specific admins who set up the site insecurely, but they're not unsympathetic people. The ones who do things like this are mostly people who are overworked or poorly trained through no fault of their own. The people who are really at fault, then, are the ones who hired admins without proper training or experience or put so much workload on them that they couldn't adequately do their jobs, but now you're talking about corporate executives who (like stockholders) don't like to be personally liable for the actions of subordinates and who have the political influence to make sure that doesn't happen. So we're left with a situation where there is no one good to punish, but we have to punish someone, don't we? Something bad has happened! So we kill the messenger. The messenger doesn't have any lobbyists on staff. What's missing from all this is that we really don't have to punish anyone. Just let the vulnerabilities be published. Companies don't want to hear that because it very publicly makes them look as dumb as they are, but if they can't stop it by threatening anyone with prison then the only way they can do it is by maintaining secure systems. Which means they will, or they'll face the penalties of the court of public opinion. Where in this dynamic is there a need for intervention by the federal prison system?
- rhizome 14y ago
  The ideal I was referring to is the character of the defendant, not their actions.