> 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 matte

> 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.