5 ms·

Does weev get any compensation? I get that he's now retroactively never been convicted of a felony, but he was in prison focused on protecting his corn bread f

by rdl 13y ago

Does weev get any compensation? I get that he's now retroactively never been convicted of a felony, but he was in prison focused on protecting his corn bread for a couple years. Clearly this affects his employability, as well as his general happiness, having been deprived of both liberty and safe corn bread for a while. Civil suit against ATT? Wrongful prosecution against the feds?

aroch 13y ago
AT&T isn't a named party and did not bring the suit. Their civil liability is pretty much zero as far as I understand it. Wrongful prosecution is, for all intents and purposes, impossible to prove. Because it was overturned on appeal and the determination was not on the merits (ie. what he did isn't actually illegal) but instead on procedural grounds he loses a bunch of options for remedy.
- yp_maplist 13y ago
  If he had been convicted would he have also been required to pay for the "damage" done to AT&T's computer? Isn't there something in the CFAA about having to allege causing damage, measurable in financial terms? Maybe they did not use that provision? Surely there must be logical reasons I am overlooking, but I find it peculiar that today technology companies can so easily get federal authorities to bring proceedings on their behalf. Whether it's the DMCA or the CFAA, these "violations" seem like civil matters to me. Do they harm the public, or do they just (potentially) harm a business? I thought this opinion was very clearly written and although it only addresses venue, it does have some precedential value for the future of "CFAA law". For one, if you plan to rely on improper venue as a defense, stay away from the Second Circuit!
- grrowl 13y ago
  > AT&Ts [...] civil liability is pretty much zero as far as I understand it. This is the most heartbreaking part of the case.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
unreal37 13y ago
After reading the judgement, seems like the right decision was made to overturn the conviction based on venue. But compensation? Come on. He would still be convicted of some of the computer hacking charges in other states. Didn't his co-accused plead guilty to those charges? What happens to him?
- Nursie 13y ago
  Personally I think that everyone who ever has a conviction overturned should be compensated for all time lost and costs incurred. Not because the state would be dissuaded from pushing edge-cases but because we, the people, have robbed someone of part of their life. We should make it right.
  - aroch 13y ago
    This wasn't just an overturned verdict, this was a vacation due to process which is different. Most states offer compensation packages to those wrongly incarcerated. Its usually a percentage of your expected income if you hadn't been put in jail
    - beambot 13y ago
      A percentage!? That doesn't even come close. Perhaps a multiple is more fitting.
      - jmathai 13y ago
        1000%
        bronson 13y ago
        Looking to create a new profession?
      - aroch 13y ago
        A percentage is better than nothing, last time I was curious and looked it was 60-70% of your expected earning up to a max (120K/year IIRC) in my state. You can either take the `deal` so to speak or go to court for your compensation
eli 13y ago
He was incarcerated because a Grand Jury thought there was enough evidence to charge him.
- anseljh 13y ago
  ...and because another jury convicted him.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - rhizome 13y ago
      Maybe the prosecutors were just seeing what they could get away with. Hey, it beats working for a living.
- tptacek 13y ago
  In other words, he exceeded the "ham sandwich" threshold.
- DominoTree 13y ago
  As someone who was questioned by the AUSA and FBI in front of that federal grand jury, from the onset of things, the prosecution wasn't interested in finding justice, only in twisting everyone's words as much as necessary to secure an indictment, and later, a conviction.
letrerrr 13y ago
He has it made, expect a multimillion settlement on the dime of the US taxpayer.
- badman_ting 13y ago
  If that ever comes to pass (nope), perhaps the US taxpayer should have thought twice about prosecuting him.
  - farinasa 13y ago
    Right because we all chose this.
    - badman_ting 13y ago
      I sympathize. That's how I feel about our recent wars, among other things. But I'm paying for them anyway, and will be for the foreseeable future. Sucks.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  Probably not. But good for him if he does. Where were you when the USAA's were wasting time / money prosecuting him to start with?
eliteraspberrie 13y ago
People who are wrongfully charged have no recourse, except in the most egregious or best publicized cases. It's even a police tactic to charge someone as a punishment in itself. His best option now is to move on with his life, success will bring him closure.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by rdl 13y ago

aroch 13y ago

AT&T isn't a named party and did not bring the suit. Their civil liability is pretty much zero as far as I understand it. Wrongful prosecution is, for all intents and purposes, impossible to prove. Because it was overturned on appeal and the determination was not on the merits (ie. what he did isn't actually illegal) but instead on procedural grounds he loses a bunch of options for remedy.

yp_maplist 13y ago
If he had been convicted would he have also been required to pay for the "damage" done to AT&T's computer? Isn't there something in the CFAA about having to allege causing damage, measurable in financial terms? Maybe they did not use that provision? Surely there must be logical reasons I am overlooking, but I find it peculiar that today technology companies can so easily get federal authorities to bring proceedings on their behalf. Whether it's the DMCA or the CFAA, these "violations" seem like civil matters to me. Do they harm the public, or do they just (potentially) harm a business? I thought this opinion was very clearly written and although it only addresses venue, it does have some precedential value for the future of "CFAA law". For one, if you plan to rely on improper venue as a defense, stay away from the Second Circuit!
grrowl 13y ago
> AT&Ts [...] civil liability is pretty much zero as far as I understand it. This is the most heartbreaking part of the case.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

unreal37 13y ago

After reading the judgement, seems like the right decision was made to overturn the conviction based on venue. But compensation? Come on. He would still be convicted of some of the computer hacking charges in other states. Didn't his co-accused plead guilty to those charges? What happens to him?

Nursie 13y ago
Personally I think that everyone who ever has a conviction overturned should be compensated for all time lost and costs incurred. Not because the state would be dissuaded from pushing edge-cases but because we, the people, have robbed someone of part of their life. We should make it right.
- aroch 13y ago
  This wasn't just an overturned verdict, this was a vacation due to process which is different. Most states offer compensation packages to those wrongly incarcerated. Its usually a percentage of your expected income if you hadn't been put in jail
  - beambot 13y ago
    A percentage!? That doesn't even come close. Perhaps a multiple is more fitting.
    - jmathai 13y ago
      1000%
      - bronson 13y ago
        Looking to create a new profession?
    - aroch 13y ago
      A percentage is better than nothing, last time I was curious and looked it was 60-70% of your expected earning up to a max (120K/year IIRC) in my state. You can either take the `deal` so to speak or go to court for your compensation

eli 13y ago

He was incarcerated because a Grand Jury thought there was enough evidence to charge him.

anseljh 13y ago
...and because another jury convicted him.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - rhizome 13y ago
    Maybe the prosecutors were just seeing what they could get away with. Hey, it beats working for a living.
tptacek 13y ago
In other words, he exceeded the "ham sandwich" threshold.
DominoTree 13y ago
As someone who was questioned by the AUSA and FBI in front of that federal grand jury, from the onset of things, the prosecution wasn't interested in finding justice, only in twisting everyone's words as much as necessary to secure an indictment, and later, a conviction.

letrerrr 13y ago

He has it made, expect a multimillion settlement on the dime of the US taxpayer.

badman_ting 13y ago
If that ever comes to pass (nope), perhaps the US taxpayer should have thought twice about prosecuting him.
- farinasa 13y ago
  Right because we all chose this.
  - badman_ting 13y ago
    I sympathize. That's how I feel about our recent wars, among other things. But I'm paying for them anyway, and will be for the foreseeable future. Sucks.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
Probably not. But good for him if he does. Where were you when the USAA's were wasting time / money prosecuting him to start with?

eliteraspberrie 13y ago

People who are wrongfully charged have no recourse, except in the most egregious or best publicized cases. It's even a police tactic to charge someone as a punishment in itself. His best option now is to move on with his life, success will bring him closure.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]