5 ms·

Because next time he will burn AT&T to the ground instead of revealing their mistake.

by wnight 13y ago

smsm42 13y ago
That's why he is in jail for the time he is, and that's why he is in SHU. Person who doesn't want to be in jail says "Your honor, doing what I did was a terrible mistake, and I will remember it for the rest of my life and will behave responsibly in the future and apply my knowledge for good, not for evil". Person who wants to end up in SHU says "Fuck you, judge, fuck you, system, you're not the boss of me, I'll keep doing what I want to do and I'll do it worse next time. Yeah, you thought your puny jail would stop me from doing it again?! Fuck you!". If he was some kind of Ghandi that refuses to cooperate with the system for a noble cause, I'd feel sympathy for him even though his conduct is contrary to what a reasonable person would do. Struggle for freedom requires people to do unreasonable things to push the boundaries and improve the system. But he's no Ghandi, he's a douchebag and the only cause I can see about him is his own douchebaggery. So my sympathy for him is very minimal. And repeated proclamations from his supporters in the vein of "oh, he's treated so badly, he'll burn you all to the ground once he's out" is not helping either. Threatening is usually not the best way to gain sympathy.
- wnight 13y ago
  > That's why he is in jail for the time he is, No. It's pretty much entirely because he and his group spoke loudly about what a horrible job AT&T was doing. Because other than that they scraped a website and sent a list of email addresses to journalists. > Person who doesn't want to be in jail says "Your honor, [...] Sure, and a photographer who'd just taken an incriminating picture of the police but who didn't want to go to jail would say "Yes, sir, here's the card." > But he's no Ghandi, he's a douchebag Your main reason for thinking that he's no Ghandi is that he's a douchebag. Circular reasoning always justifies itself. You'd probably be one of the many standing around watching, lecturing, about how the smelly hippy should have given the police the memory card if he didn't want to be beaten, without asking why the police are trying to confiscate photographs. > So my sympathy for him is very minimal. That's good. Conserve your sympathy. Wait for the moment, then unleash it when they least expect! > repeated proclamations from his supporters Who, me? Doubtful. I'd likely find him to be a douchebag. No, seriously. I don't know him. And what's a proclamation then? If it's cold and I say it's cold, have I proclaimed it or complained about it? > in the vein of "oh, he's treated so badly, he'll burn you all to the ground once he's out" is not helping either. Gosh no. Not in the vein of - exactly like. But I don't mean him. He's done here because he's too visible. Weev's final troll is going to be costing $80k a day forever for a team of secret-service to follow him around making sure he never tweets anything in violation of his parole. I mean the next person who for their own reasons stumbles onto a vulnerability and realizes what the company is like to other hackers - douchebags or not. > Threatening is usually not the best way to gain sympathy. You misread my intent again. It's not to win sympathy for weev, it's to point out that they've made an enemy of their own choosing. They're kicking a hornets' nest. If they stopped, it'd stop spewing hornets. Then maybe they'd discover it was honey-bees after all.
  - smsm42 13y ago
    >>> No. It's pretty much entirely because he and his group spoke loudly about what a horrible job AT&T was doing. Nope. It is because he stole tons of private info from AT&T and then boasted about it and then said he would totally do it again and with worse consequences to the victim. Law enforcement usually doesn't like people that say "I'll do it again and worse" too much. >>> Sure, and a photographer who'd just taken an incriminating picture of the police Very nice, now do you have anything to say that is not wildly offtopic? >>> Your main reason for thinking that he's no Ghandi is that he's a douchebag. My main reason to thing he's a douchebag because I've read about him and his actions. My main reason to think he's no Ghandi is the same - nothing in these actions points at anything but being a docuhebag. Name me what he did that nominates him for being Ghandi - is it GNAA, maybe? >>> about how the smelly hippy should have given the police the memory card Very nice, now do you have anything to say that is not wildly offtopic? >>> They're kicking a hornets' nest. There's no hornet's nest. There's a bunch of douchebags on the internet that could think of nothing better to do that cause mayhem and suffering to those around them. Those despicable and miserable creatures would be around us forever, probably, but they are not honey-bees. They're more like dung flies - both by their tastes, their places of habitation and their behavior, and their attractiveness. Of course, even dung fly can cause an epidemic, given improper sanitation and bad luck - but I wouldn't be too proud to be one.
    - wnight 13y ago
      > Nope. It is because he stole tons of private info from AT&T and then boasted about it and then said he would totally do it again and with worse consequences to the victim. Wrong. It wasn't private info, it was email addresses. They aren't treated as private and no harm comes from someone else knowing them. These were on unpassworded, public-facing URLs because nobody cared. Another way to tell you're just manufacturing outrage here is that you pretend to care about sensitive data but don't give a shit that without the leak the hole would have remained indefinitely. If it really was sensitive, it could have been exploited. Repeatedly your main complaint about weev has been his disrespect for authority, and your hastily-formed notions about his personality. Nothing about actual harm, because you know there was none - or if there was it was because of AT&T's dereliction of duty. To the degree that there were victims, they were the customers who were implicitly lied to. Without this security audit they'd still be in the dark. >>> Someone who didn't want to go to jail would say "... >> Someone who didn't want to get unfairly arrested would say "... > Very nice, now do you have anything to say that is not wildly offtopic? Sorry, but it's not off-topic, it just shows your point is full of holes the size of a truck. You brought up "what someone who didn't want to go to jail" would say, but upon examination it fails to help your case and now you don't like that tangent. You're more concerned with jailing those who disrespect your surrogate authority than in patching whatever hole there is. > There's a bunch of douchebags on the internet that could think of nothing better to do that cause mayhem and suffering to those around them. God, I know. Don't you just hate idiot politicians who try to control things they don't understand with the same blunt-object laws they fail to fix anything else with. > Those despicable and miserable creatures You're conflating what they thought would be funny with what they actually did. > they are not honey-bees. Really? They look like it from my point of view. They're useful if farmed with care but harmful if mistreated. > My main reason to thing he's a douchebag because I've read about him and his actions. Well, your interpretations of things are pretty weak - that doesn't mean much. Was this before you were told what to think? Because following links from an echo chamber is just going to reinforce your preconceived notions. You seem easily led by anyone who says something catchy - you're using a juvenile phrase implying weev resembles a menstrual pad. It's like the rash of ideological clones saying "mansion arrest" in any discussion of Wikileaks, indicating not a single one of them had ever had an original thought. > Law enforcement usually doesn't like people that say "I'll do it again and worse" too much. It's pretty obvious you're upset because you're an authoritarian and you see someone flouting the rules. You're fixated on it.
emidln 13y ago
Seriously. The only thing this episode teaches me is that instead of gaining publicity or attempting to help in any way at all, exploit the victims as hard and as fast as possible, doing maximum damage once financial and information gains have been appropriately optimized.
- al1x 13y ago
  I think a more rational takeaway would be responsible disclosure. That or avoiding these situation entirely by not meddling where you're not supposed to.
  - wnight 13y ago
    > I think a more rational takeaway would be responsible disclosure. The takeaway, happy or not, is that most companies see no disclosure as the only right disclosure and will punish you beyond reason if you're even connected to something that hurts them a little - even if they're the ones who caused themselves the hurt. So, responsible for who? Because the fastest way to guarantee this stops sooner than later is leak every address publicly with information about every error AT&T made and let civil suits from pissed-off customers fry them. This is all just manufactured panic anyways so it's not like anyone would even get hurt. Email addresses aren't secrets and we don't act like they are or we'd be arresting spammers. > That or avoiding these situation entirely by not meddling No, then it'd still be broken and nobody would know. > where you're not supposed to. Sorry, but if you have my data or provide a service I need, I've got an interest in your systems.
    - al1x 13y ago
      > The takeaway, happy or not, is that most companies see no disclosure as the only right disclosure and will punish you beyond reason if you're even connected to something that hurts them a little - even if they're the ones who caused themselves the hurt. But we don't know this is true for Apple because Weev didn't try to responsibly/ethically disclose his findings. He boasted about it on IRC and then to a reporter. So maybe Apple would have sued him if he tried to bring it to their attention. Still, he could have disclosed it to them anonymously. > Because the fastest way to guarantee this stops sooner than later is leak every address publicly with information about every error AT&T made and let civil suits from pissed-off customers fry them. I don't know whether you're a programmer or not, but one thing you learn very quickly when you are one is that programmers are humans and humans make mistakes. Bugs happen all the time, and no one wants to be on the receiving end of some kid who finds ones and takes rubbing it in your face as his divine mandate. Dumping all the info you pull from a hack is neither responsible nor ethical. Doing so dons you with the blackest of hats and destroys your reputation to all except like-minded sociopaths. > No, then it'd still be broken and nobody would know. If it's broken and nobody knows, is it still broken? I do understand where you're coming from though.

Because next time he will burn AT&T to the ground instead of revealing their mistake.

by wnight 13y ago

Because next time he will burn AT&T to the ground instead of revealing their mistake.

That's why he is in jail for the time he is, and that's why he is in SHU. Person who doesn't want to be in jail says "Your honor, doing what I did was a terrible mistake, and I will remember it for the rest of my life and will behave responsibly in the future and apply my knowledge for good, not for evil". Person who wants to end up in SHU says "Fuck you, judge, fuck you, system, you're not the boss of me, I'll keep doing what I want to do and I'll do it worse next time. Yeah, you thought your puny jail would stop me from doing it again?! Fuck you!". If he was some kind of Ghandi that refuses to cooperate with the system for a noble cause, I'd feel sympathy for him even though his conduct is contrary to what a reasonable person would do. Struggle for freedom requires people to do unreasonable things to push the boundaries and improve the system. But he's no Ghandi, he's a douchebag and the only cause I can see about him is his own douchebaggery. So my sympathy for him is very minimal. And repeated proclamations from his supporters in the vein of "oh, he's treated so badly, he'll burn you all to the ground once he's out" is not helping either. Threatening is usually not the best way to gain sympathy.

wnight 13y ago
> That's why he is in jail for the time he is, No. It's pretty much entirely because he and his group spoke loudly about what a horrible job AT&T was doing. Because other than that they scraped a website and sent a list of email addresses to journalists. > Person who doesn't want to be in jail says "Your honor, [...] Sure, and a photographer who'd just taken an incriminating picture of the police but who didn't want to go to jail would say "Yes, sir, here's the card." > But he's no Ghandi, he's a douchebag Your main reason for thinking that he's no Ghandi is that he's a douchebag. Circular reasoning always justifies itself. You'd probably be one of the many standing around watching, lecturing, about how the smelly hippy should have given the police the memory card if he didn't want to be beaten, without asking why the police are trying to confiscate photographs. > So my sympathy for him is very minimal. That's good. Conserve your sympathy. Wait for the moment, then unleash it when they least expect! > repeated proclamations from his supporters Who, me? Doubtful. I'd likely find him to be a douchebag. No, seriously. I don't know him. And what's a proclamation then? If it's cold and I say it's cold, have I proclaimed it or complained about it? > in the vein of "oh, he's treated so badly, he'll burn you all to the ground once he's out" is not helping either. Gosh no. Not in the vein of - exactly like. But I don't mean him. He's done here because he's too visible. Weev's final troll is going to be costing $80k a day forever for a team of secret-service to follow him around making sure he never tweets anything in violation of his parole. I mean the next person who for their own reasons stumbles onto a vulnerability and realizes what the company is like to other hackers - douchebags or not. > Threatening is usually not the best way to gain sympathy. You misread my intent again. It's not to win sympathy for weev, it's to point out that they've made an enemy of their own choosing. They're kicking a hornets' nest. If they stopped, it'd stop spewing hornets. Then maybe they'd discover it was honey-bees after all.
- smsm42 13y ago
  >>> No. It's pretty much entirely because he and his group spoke loudly about what a horrible job AT&T was doing. Nope. It is because he stole tons of private info from AT&T and then boasted about it and then said he would totally do it again and with worse consequences to the victim. Law enforcement usually doesn't like people that say "I'll do it again and worse" too much. >>> Sure, and a photographer who'd just taken an incriminating picture of the police Very nice, now do you have anything to say that is not wildly offtopic? >>> Your main reason for thinking that he's no Ghandi is that he's a douchebag. My main reason to thing he's a douchebag because I've read about him and his actions. My main reason to think he's no Ghandi is the same - nothing in these actions points at anything but being a docuhebag. Name me what he did that nominates him for being Ghandi - is it GNAA, maybe? >>> about how the smelly hippy should have given the police the memory card Very nice, now do you have anything to say that is not wildly offtopic? >>> They're kicking a hornets' nest. There's no hornet's nest. There's a bunch of douchebags on the internet that could think of nothing better to do that cause mayhem and suffering to those around them. Those despicable and miserable creatures would be around us forever, probably, but they are not honey-bees. They're more like dung flies - both by their tastes, their places of habitation and their behavior, and their attractiveness. Of course, even dung fly can cause an epidemic, given improper sanitation and bad luck - but I wouldn't be too proud to be one.
  - wnight 13y ago
    > Nope. It is because he stole tons of private info from AT&T and then boasted about it and then said he would totally do it again and with worse consequences to the victim. Wrong. It wasn't private info, it was email addresses. They aren't treated as private and no harm comes from someone else knowing them. These were on unpassworded, public-facing URLs because nobody cared. Another way to tell you're just manufacturing outrage here is that you pretend to care about sensitive data but don't give a shit that without the leak the hole would have remained indefinitely. If it really was sensitive, it could have been exploited. Repeatedly your main complaint about weev has been his disrespect for authority, and your hastily-formed notions about his personality. Nothing about actual harm, because you know there was none - or if there was it was because of AT&T's dereliction of duty. To the degree that there were victims, they were the customers who were implicitly lied to. Without this security audit they'd still be in the dark. >>> Someone who didn't want to go to jail would say "... >> Someone who didn't want to get unfairly arrested would say "... > Very nice, now do you have anything to say that is not wildly offtopic? Sorry, but it's not off-topic, it just shows your point is full of holes the size of a truck. You brought up "what someone who didn't want to go to jail" would say, but upon examination it fails to help your case and now you don't like that tangent. You're more concerned with jailing those who disrespect your surrogate authority than in patching whatever hole there is. > There's a bunch of douchebags on the internet that could think of nothing better to do that cause mayhem and suffering to those around them. God, I know. Don't you just hate idiot politicians who try to control things they don't understand with the same blunt-object laws they fail to fix anything else with. > Those despicable and miserable creatures You're conflating what they thought would be funny with what they actually did. > they are not honey-bees. Really? They look like it from my point of view. They're useful if farmed with care but harmful if mistreated. > My main reason to thing he's a douchebag because I've read about him and his actions. Well, your interpretations of things are pretty weak - that doesn't mean much. Was this before you were told what to think? Because following links from an echo chamber is just going to reinforce your preconceived notions. You seem easily led by anyone who says something catchy - you're using a juvenile phrase implying weev resembles a menstrual pad. It's like the rash of ideological clones saying "mansion arrest" in any discussion of Wikileaks, indicating not a single one of them had ever had an original thought. > Law enforcement usually doesn't like people that say "I'll do it again and worse" too much. It's pretty obvious you're upset because you're an authoritarian and you see someone flouting the rules. You're fixated on it.

emidln 13y ago

Seriously. The only thing this episode teaches me is that instead of gaining publicity or attempting to help in any way at all, exploit the victims as hard and as fast as possible, doing maximum damage once financial and information gains have been appropriately optimized.

al1x 13y ago
I think a more rational takeaway would be responsible disclosure. That or avoiding these situation entirely by not meddling where you're not supposed to.
- wnight 13y ago
  > I think a more rational takeaway would be responsible disclosure. The takeaway, happy or not, is that most companies see no disclosure as the only right disclosure and will punish you beyond reason if you're even connected to something that hurts them a little - even if they're the ones who caused themselves the hurt. So, responsible for who? Because the fastest way to guarantee this stops sooner than later is leak every address publicly with information about every error AT&T made and let civil suits from pissed-off customers fry them. This is all just manufactured panic anyways so it's not like anyone would even get hurt. Email addresses aren't secrets and we don't act like they are or we'd be arresting spammers. > That or avoiding these situation entirely by not meddling No, then it'd still be broken and nobody would know. > where you're not supposed to. Sorry, but if you have my data or provide a service I need, I've got an interest in your systems.
  - al1x 13y ago
    > The takeaway, happy or not, is that most companies see no disclosure as the only right disclosure and will punish you beyond reason if you're even connected to something that hurts them a little - even if they're the ones who caused themselves the hurt. But we don't know this is true for Apple because Weev didn't try to responsibly/ethically disclose his findings. He boasted about it on IRC and then to a reporter. So maybe Apple would have sued him if he tried to bring it to their attention. Still, he could have disclosed it to them anonymously. > Because the fastest way to guarantee this stops sooner than later is leak every address publicly with information about every error AT&T made and let civil suits from pissed-off customers fry them. I don't know whether you're a programmer or not, but one thing you learn very quickly when you are one is that programmers are humans and humans make mistakes. Bugs happen all the time, and no one wants to be on the receiving end of some kid who finds ones and takes rubbing it in your face as his divine mandate. Dumping all the info you pull from a hack is neither responsible nor ethical. Doing so dons you with the blackest of hats and destroys your reputation to all except like-minded sociopaths. > No, then it'd still be broken and nobody would know. If it's broken and nobody knows, is it still broken? I do understand where you're coming from though.