3 ms·

>> but to then boast about the felony they've committed on a corporate blog? You must have missed the part in my original post where I said bragging about it

>> but to then boast about the felony they've committed on a corporate blog? You must have missed the part in my original post where I said bragging about it probably isn't the best thing they did. It also means as a hacker, if you fuck with someone's business, be advised, you might end up getting the horns. I think to a degree, it helps put people on notice these guys don't take this stuff lying down and if you commit fraud on their watch, they're not just going to write it off. It probably also helps potential clients feel safer, knowing they don't just write off their losses, they actually do something about it - regardless of how the general public interpret it. Also, by your standards, then do you believe what Andrew "weev" Auernheimer did was illegal as well? Just curious. . .

notahacker 12y ago
As a potential client I'd feel safer if they admitted that fraud had occurred and said what steps they were taking to avoid fraud in future, but considerably less safe from the revelation the fraudsters were rank amateurs and that the website operator might be prepared to use hacking and doxing as a means of redressing grievances. I haven't payed particularly close attention to weev's trial but IIRC, the main points in his defence were that the "hacked" data was actually accessible via the public internet with no real subterfuge or misuse of private information required, and they'd tried to disclose it through appropriate channels. Neither seem to apply here, even if Russian hackers don't particularly deserve the Feds rushing to their aid.