3 ms·
>The average, reasonable person can't comprehend a webserver. But weev could. We don't apply laws as if the defendant is some mythical "reasonable" person. We
by gph 11y ago
>The average, reasonable person can't comprehend a webserver.
But weev could. We don't apply laws as if the defendant is some mythical "reasonable" person. We try each case based on it's unique circumstances. It's not that he "should have known better", it's that he absolutely did know better.
The comparison is clear, but it has no relevance.
- msandford 11y ago> But weev could. We don't apply laws as if the defendant is some mythical "reasonable" person. What weev could or could not do is 100% irrelevant. What matters with regard to the law is what a reasonable person would do. That's literally a thing. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/reasonable http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/reasonable AT&T's customers had a REASONABLE expectation of privacy in general, and quite likely AT&T had a privacy policy which spelled this out. AT&T failed to take the proper steps to protect their customers privacy. AT&T is at fault here, not weev. Even if weev did know or not know something, AT&T is at fault for the situation where his knowing or not knowing makes a lick of difference.