3 ms·
In any other context we'd be calling this "victim blaming." You might. 'In any other context' we would do no such thing. And I am quite happy to hold both part
by yew 13y ago
In any other context we'd be calling this "victim blaming."
You might. 'In any other context' we would do no such thing. And I am quite happy to hold both parties to account for negligence and no small degree of (in AT&T's case institutional) malice.
Being careless with other people and their things is a crime. It's just a matter of managing the prosecution.
- rayiner 13y agoBeing careless with other peoples' things is not generally a crime. It might be the basis for a civil suit, but it's not generally criminal. Criminal law is all about intent. There are four kinds of intent (under the Model Penal Code): Purpose, Knowledge, Recklessness, Negligence. Mere negligence is rarely the basis for criminal liability (it is, however, the basis for tort law). Criminal liability starts at recklessness. Weev is punished and AT&T is not because Weev intended to improperly access data he was not supposed to access, while AT&T was merely negligent in allowing him to do so. We treat the stupid better than the malicious, and I personally think that's a good thing.
- yew 13y agoYou're right that I mischaracterized the legal status of the issue - though I think saying that this 'might be' the basis for a civil suit is seriously understating things, given the degree of incompetence demonstrated by AT&T in securing private information. It's also possible that AT&T violated data privacy laws in certain jurisdictions, which might or might not be a criminal matter. I'm not particularly interested in defending Weev, though I have to say that prosecuting someone for accessing data you published on the Internet with no access control does not a good reputation make.