8 ms·

The government wants to suppress hackers from distributing identity theft information out and about so that ATM harvesting (an exploding business) continues to

by maeon3 13y ago

The government wants to suppress hackers from distributing identity theft information out and about so that ATM harvesting (an exploding business) continues to be out-of-control. But the problem is, the government is doing it exactly backwards. We need to be punishing AT&T for the fact that Weev gained access. Not punishing the person who got in. It's cultiavating a culture of "It's OK to have no security". And as such, criminals are stealing your identity from everywhere all over the internet because the government wants to spy on the citizens. If we have tons of weev's going around illustrating (proving to the world) that AT&T can be hacked by teenagers, then AT&T would fix their problems. This whole situation is so disgusting. The people who are perpetuating the problems on the internet are the ones destroying the few capable hackers who are trying to point at the REAL problem. We need the government to pay Weev a million dollars every time he steals a batch of Identity information, and send the bill to AT&T. Eventually AT&T would be bulletproof. It makes me very sad, kind of like when you see a criminal stealing some booze shoot a mother and a baby because they were witnesses and in the way. You just cry and move on. The problem of identity theft will continue to explode because the criminal is still lose, and the only solution was incarcerated.

damoncali 13y ago
"If it wasn't for dickheads like you, there wouldn't be any thievery in this world, would there?" -GySgt Hartman
gcb0 13y ago
Gov does not want that to cease from happening. As it does not want violence from happening. What gov wants is the monopoly in it. It has the legal monopoly on violence, it want the monopoly on information gathering. It's simple as that. Don't get in the way.
ajross 13y ago
I don't know that "the government" really needs to have any particular agenda here. All that's required is that someone like Weev, with a well-known penchant for mischief and disrespect for authority, be placed in a situation like prison, where all of the existing structures are in place to prevent mischief and preserve authority. They have a tool (solitary) used to control inmates who cannot otherwise be controlled, and they used it. Now sure: this seems like (and is, I argue) an unjust abuse in the abstract. But the specific situation here is that the prison has an inmate they don't understand. So you have to expect the bureaucracy isn't going to handle it well. None of that requires a conspiracy, just a staff trying to do its job under strange circumstances.
- gknoy 13y ago
  True, but unfortunate and disturbing at the same time. He would effectively be tweeting similarly if he were to send postcards every single day (or a stack each weekend): more latency, basically same information.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
rayiner 13y ago
> But the problem is, the government is doing it exactly backwards. We need to be punishing AT&T for the fact that Weev gained access. Not punishing the person who got in. I don't understand this line of reasoning. In any other context we'd be calling this "victim blaming." The fact that you should have been more careful does not absolve the person who took advantage of that, nor is the government in the wrong for punishing the person who had malevolent intent,[1] rather than the person that was merely careless. Hell, one of the great things about living in a civilized society is that you don't have to be paranoid about your own security--that's why we created government. The real lesson here is that the internet is now a part of everyone's "normal life," and people are going to expect it to be orderly in the same way other things in their life are orderly. Just as the wild west was tamed, the internet will be tamed, and it will be a good thing (romanticism aside). [1] And yes, "I'm just dicking with you" is malevolent intent, as anyone who has dealt with a bully knows. Weev is at best a bully, the kind of person who dicks with you just because he can, as a way of showing his power over you. Indeed, most "black hat" hackers fit this bully archetype.
- mhurron 13y ago
  'Not punishing the person that got in' is too far, the guy did break the law. However, this is not exactly AT&T minding their own business and being taken advantage of, they should have a responsibility to act in a responsible manner with data they have collected and stored. They do deserve blame in this instance. Describing it as victim blaming is also going to far.
  - droopybuns 13y ago
    I disagree. AT&T apologized to their impacted customers & changed the function that was exploited. (http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/att-explains-ipad-security-breach/ http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/att-explains-ipad-s...) As with all security problems- a mistake was made and then exploited. It's reasonable to assess the situation and ask if they did all they should. It's also reasonable to assess their failure. But they didn't just call weev up and ask him if he wanted the data. His partner took it and then Weev seized an opportunity to gain some attention. It is not too far to call this victim blaming. This could just as easily happened to any upstart startup or fortune 1000 company.
jforman 13y ago
> It's cultiavating a culture of "It's OK to have no security" This is how the rest of our culture works. If you leave your door unlocked and somebody robs your house, we charge that person with robbery and put them in jail. We might shake our head at your naivete, but you won't get in trouble for having lax security. If the tech community wants this standard to change when dealing with intellectual property, we need to articulate why and get people on board, because it's certainly not the default in either our current culture or our current laws.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- 67726e 13y ago
  At what point do you differentiate naïveté from negligence?
  - MartinCron 13y ago
    When it has external impact. Leaving your own door unlocked is very different from leaving everyone's safe deposit boxes unlocked.
  - jforman 13y ago
    With real property, you can't get sued for negligence just for having lax security. You can incur liability if somebody gets onto your property and hurts themselves (the particulars of which I'm not familiar with since IANAL), and you may lose some protection for property damage/loss, but the standard for that is also very much in favor of the property owner.
  - columbo 13y ago
    When a company makes a guarantee that they do not uphold. You buy a storage bin from a company that guarantees 24x7 security and your stuff is stolen because there was no nightwatchman on duty then you have a case against the company. That doesn't give the thief a free pass or make their actions right, however partial blame does go to the storage company. The same theory should apply to the internet.

by maeon3 13y ago

damoncali 13y ago

"If it wasn't for dickheads like you, there wouldn't be any thievery in this world, would there?" -GySgt Hartman

gcb0 13y ago

Gov does not want that to cease from happening. As it does not want violence from happening. What gov wants is the monopoly in it. It has the legal monopoly on violence, it want the monopoly on information gathering. It's simple as that. Don't get in the way.

ajross 13y ago

I don't know that "the government" really needs to have any particular agenda here. All that's required is that someone like Weev, with a well-known penchant for mischief and disrespect for authority, be placed in a situation like prison, where all of the existing structures are in place to prevent mischief and preserve authority. They have a tool (solitary) used to control inmates who cannot otherwise be controlled, and they used it. Now sure: this seems like (and is, I argue) an unjust abuse in the abstract. But the specific situation here is that the prison has an inmate they don't understand. So you have to expect the bureaucracy isn't going to handle it well. None of that requires a conspiracy, just a staff trying to do its job under strange circumstances.

gknoy 13y ago
True, but unfortunate and disturbing at the same time. He would effectively be tweeting similarly if he were to send postcards every single day (or a stack each weekend): more latency, basically same information.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

rayiner 13y ago

> But the problem is, the government is doing it exactly backwards. We need to be punishing AT&T for the fact that Weev gained access. Not punishing the person who got in. I don't understand this line of reasoning. In any other context we'd be calling this "victim blaming." The fact that you should have been more careful does not absolve the person who took advantage of that, nor is the government in the wrong for punishing the person who had malevolent intent,[1] rather than the person that was merely careless. Hell, one of the great things about living in a civilized society is that you don't have to be paranoid about your own security--that's why we created government. The real lesson here is that the internet is now a part of everyone's "normal life," and people are going to expect it to be orderly in the same way other things in their life are orderly. Just as the wild west was tamed, the internet will be tamed, and it will be a good thing (romanticism aside). [1] And yes, "I'm just dicking with you" is malevolent intent, as anyone who has dealt with a bully knows. Weev is at best a bully, the kind of person who dicks with you just because he can, as a way of showing his power over you. Indeed, most "black hat" hackers fit this bully archetype.

mhurron 13y ago
'Not punishing the person that got in' is too far, the guy did break the law. However, this is not exactly AT&T minding their own business and being taken advantage of, they should have a responsibility to act in a responsible manner with data they have collected and stored. They do deserve blame in this instance. Describing it as victim blaming is also going to far.
- droopybuns 13y ago
  I disagree. AT&T apologized to their impacted customers & changed the function that was exploited. (http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/att-explains-ipad-security-breach/ http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/att-explains-ipad-s...) As with all security problems- a mistake was made and then exploited. It's reasonable to assess the situation and ask if they did all they should. It's also reasonable to assess their failure. But they didn't just call weev up and ask him if he wanted the data. His partner took it and then Weev seized an opportunity to gain some attention. It is not too far to call this victim blaming. This could just as easily happened to any upstart startup or fortune 1000 company.

jforman 13y ago

> It's cultiavating a culture of "It's OK to have no security" This is how the rest of our culture works. If you leave your door unlocked and somebody robs your house, we charge that person with robbery and put them in jail. We might shake our head at your naivete, but you won't get in trouble for having lax security. If the tech community wants this standard to change when dealing with intellectual property, we need to articulate why and get people on board, because it's certainly not the default in either our current culture or our current laws.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
67726e 13y ago
At what point do you differentiate naïveté from negligence?
- MartinCron 13y ago
  When it has external impact. Leaving your own door unlocked is very different from leaving everyone's safe deposit boxes unlocked.
- jforman 13y ago
  With real property, you can't get sued for negligence just for having lax security. You can incur liability if somebody gets onto your property and hurts themselves (the particulars of which I'm not familiar with since IANAL), and you may lose some protection for property damage/loss, but the standard for that is also very much in favor of the property owner.
- columbo 13y ago
  When a company makes a guarantee that they do not uphold. You buy a storage bin from a company that guarantees 24x7 security and your stuff is stolen because there was no nightwatchman on duty then you have a case against the company. That doesn't give the thief a free pass or make their actions right, however partial blame does go to the storage company. The same theory should apply to the internet.