8 ms·

I'm not sure if you're unfamiliar with the Weev case, or trying to make it sound like it was more complicated, but if you look at the reasons why he was origina

by halviti 11y ago

I'm not sure if you're unfamiliar with the Weev case, or trying to make it sound like it was more complicated, but if you look at the reasons why he was originally convicted, it was specifically for typing in a URL and "gaining access" to data that was publicly available on a website. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130929/15371724695/dojs-insane-argument-against-weev-hes-felon-because-he-broke-rules-we-made-up.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130929/15371724695/dojs-... Unless you're saying that because he changed his browser user-agent, that makes it 'more complicated', but I think most everyone here would disagree.

res0nat0r 11y ago
he knowingly and purposefully accessing systems and information he knew he should not have been.
- halviti 11y ago
  I agree, but that is not the issue. The issue was how the case was decided. He incremented a number in a URL, and that was his ultimate crime. Do you honestly think it's right to send someone to jail for several years because they were messing around with a URL? Of course he likely deserved to be charged with something, but not what he was charged with, and it hurts the rest of us when things like this set a bad precedent.
  - gph 11y ago
    >He incremented a number in a URL, and that was his ultimate crime. IANAL, but the way I understand it, it's not about the method that you used to access the system. Even if someone was highly incompetent and left their system open to being accessed, the fact that you accessed it knowing you shouldn't have is the actual crime. After all, even if someone leaves the doors and windows wide open to their house, it's still illegal to go inside if you don't have permission. In this case they left the URLs open to be accessed, but it was clear that that part of the website wasn't meant to be accessed by the general public and the prosecutors were able to convince a jury/judge that weev would have reasonable known that.
    - msandford 11y ago
      I walk up to a grocery store with automatic doors. The lights are all on. The doors open. I walk in. It's 8am. This grocery store has two sets of doors, about 200 feet apart. At the other set of doors there is a sign that says that the store doesn't open until 9am. Am I trespassing?
      - gph 11y ago
        Again IANAL and trespassing is a different law than the CFAA, but if the prosecutors could reasonable prove that it wasn't an honest mistake and you were knowingly going into the store when you're aware it's not allowed, then yes I think you could be charged with trespassing. Like say you're an ex-employee who for some reason wants to go look at the schedule (maybe your stalking one of your old co-workers). If you walked in knowing the store was closed and you shouldn't be there, then I have to imagine you'd be arrested and charged with trespassing amongst other things.
        msandford 11y ago
        Both deal with unauthorized access and intent don't they? The point I'm trying to make is that it's VERY difficult to divine intent in the absence of any kind of access control. In other words, given my above example and that's all the information you have, you can't prove that I intended to trespass. Now if the doors didn't open automatically and there was a broken lock, it's much easier to determine intent. But in Weev's case, there was no broken lock because there was no lock at all! Going strictly from the evidence we can surmise that AT&T didn't INTEND to prevent unauthorized access because they did nothing to prevent it.
        res0nat0r 11y ago
        We always delve into ridiculous analogies on this site for some reason when it comes to this case, trying to somehow justify that someone, knowingly, was accessing a system they, again knowingly, knew they should not have been accessing. Status codes, locks, no locks, these silly analogies aren't really useful. Proving intent is.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    This is exactly like saying that someone convicted of trespassing had an ultimate crime of "turning a doorknob", ergo we should all fear for our ability to turn doorknobs. No, that's not how it works. The state must prove not just action, but intent.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      Well, its not that similar, in that weev's conviction was overturned on appeal based on improper venue, with the appeals court also quite skeptical (though, as the improper venue was sufficient to dismiss the conviction, not stating an authoritative conclusion on this point) as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the charges. Both the people arguing for and those arguing against the result in weev's case seem to be forgetting what the final result actually was.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        I'm sorry but I don't see what this has to do with the point I raised. I am very familiar with Auernheimer's case, so if you could spell out in more detail what you're objecting to, I'm pretty sure I can follow along. The point I was making upthread had less to do with Auernheimer's case than it did with the silly notion that the case turned on "incrementing a URL".
        dragonwriter 11y ago
        > The point I was making upthread had less to do with Auernheimer's case than it did with the silly notion that the case turned on "incrementing a URL". Your rebuttal seemed to be based on the premise that the conviction turned on more than action, but substantive evidence of intent. My response addressed the fact that, while the conviction was dismissed for procedural reasons, the appeals court also appeared skeptical of the substantive result the same reasons that the critics here are -- that the evidence did not appear sufficient to show the intent.
        tptacek 11y ago
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > He incremented a number in a URL, and that was his ultimate crime. What ultimate crime? Are we forgetting that weev's conviction was overturned on appeal, indicating that it was a result of legal error. There was no crime. Not in a "well, some people on the internet think he shouldn't have been convicted" sense, but in a "the legal system has authoritatively declared that his conviction was in error" sense.

by halviti 11y ago

res0nat0r 11y ago

he knowingly and purposefully accessing systems and information he knew he should not have been.

halviti 11y ago
I agree, but that is not the issue. The issue was how the case was decided. He incremented a number in a URL, and that was his ultimate crime. Do you honestly think it's right to send someone to jail for several years because they were messing around with a URL? Of course he likely deserved to be charged with something, but not what he was charged with, and it hurts the rest of us when things like this set a bad precedent.
- gph 11y ago
  >He incremented a number in a URL, and that was his ultimate crime. IANAL, but the way I understand it, it's not about the method that you used to access the system. Even if someone was highly incompetent and left their system open to being accessed, the fact that you accessed it knowing you shouldn't have is the actual crime. After all, even if someone leaves the doors and windows wide open to their house, it's still illegal to go inside if you don't have permission. In this case they left the URLs open to be accessed, but it was clear that that part of the website wasn't meant to be accessed by the general public and the prosecutors were able to convince a jury/judge that weev would have reasonable known that.
  - msandford 11y ago
    I walk up to a grocery store with automatic doors. The lights are all on. The doors open. I walk in. It's 8am. This grocery store has two sets of doors, about 200 feet apart. At the other set of doors there is a sign that says that the store doesn't open until 9am. Am I trespassing?
    - gph 11y ago
      Again IANAL and trespassing is a different law than the CFAA, but if the prosecutors could reasonable prove that it wasn't an honest mistake and you were knowingly going into the store when you're aware it's not allowed, then yes I think you could be charged with trespassing. Like say you're an ex-employee who for some reason wants to go look at the schedule (maybe your stalking one of your old co-workers). If you walked in knowing the store was closed and you shouldn't be there, then I have to imagine you'd be arrested and charged with trespassing amongst other things.
      - msandford 11y ago
        Both deal with unauthorized access and intent don't they? The point I'm trying to make is that it's VERY difficult to divine intent in the absence of any kind of access control. In other words, given my above example and that's all the information you have, you can't prove that I intended to trespass. Now if the doors didn't open automatically and there was a broken lock, it's much easier to determine intent. But in Weev's case, there was no broken lock because there was no lock at all! Going strictly from the evidence we can surmise that AT&T didn't INTEND to prevent unauthorized access because they did nothing to prevent it.
        res0nat0r 11y ago
        We always delve into ridiculous analogies on this site for some reason when it comes to this case, trying to somehow justify that someone, knowingly, was accessing a system they, again knowingly, knew they should not have been accessing. Status codes, locks, no locks, these silly analogies aren't really useful. Proving intent is.
- tptacek 11y ago
  This is exactly like saying that someone convicted of trespassing had an ultimate crime of "turning a doorknob", ergo we should all fear for our ability to turn doorknobs. No, that's not how it works. The state must prove not just action, but intent.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    Well, its not that similar, in that weev's conviction was overturned on appeal based on improper venue, with the appeals court also quite skeptical (though, as the improper venue was sufficient to dismiss the conviction, not stating an authoritative conclusion on this point) as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the charges. Both the people arguing for and those arguing against the result in weev's case seem to be forgetting what the final result actually was.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      I'm sorry but I don't see what this has to do with the point I raised. I am very familiar with Auernheimer's case, so if you could spell out in more detail what you're objecting to, I'm pretty sure I can follow along. The point I was making upthread had less to do with Auernheimer's case than it did with the silly notion that the case turned on "incrementing a URL".
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > The point I was making upthread had less to do with Auernheimer's case than it did with the silly notion that the case turned on "incrementing a URL". Your rebuttal seemed to be based on the premise that the conviction turned on more than action, but substantive evidence of intent. My response addressed the fact that, while the conviction was dismissed for procedural reasons, the appeals court also appeared skeptical of the substantive result the same reasons that the critics here are -- that the evidence did not appear sufficient to show the intent.
        tptacek 11y ago
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > He incremented a number in a URL, and that was his ultimate crime. What ultimate crime? Are we forgetting that weev's conviction was overturned on appeal, indicating that it was a result of legal error. There was no crime. Not in a "well, some people on the internet think he shouldn't have been convicted" sense, but in a "the legal system has authoritatively declared that his conviction was in error" sense.