111–119 of 119 posts
"I did this because I despised people I think are unjustly wealthy and wanted to embarass them." -- This is what makes weev "not Aaron". Aaron wanted to further the human race, not embarass people just for the sake of it.
Twelve months ago on this very site it was discussed how a private company named Path was, without permission and certainly illegally, stealing the entire address books of users and uploading it to their own servers. The CEO of that company appeared right here on this board personally (not surprising he follows this board as he has invested in YCombinator projects [ http://www.forbes.com/sites/nicoleperlroth/2011/08/…
If anyone thinks weev deserves any sympathy, you don't know the full story. weev had malicious intent and wanted to harm AT&T by exposing users data. Instead of doing anything remotely rational he took all the data and wanted to sell it. Laws take into account indent (mens rea) and there is a lot of evidence in his indictment that he wanted to profit off this act. He shouldn't be compared to Aaron Swartz
Twelve months ago on this very site it was discussed how a private company named Path was, without permission and certainly illegally, stealing the entire address books of users and uploading it to their own servers. The CEO of that company appeared right here on this board personally (not surprising he follows this board as he has invested in YCombinator projects [ http://www.forbes.com/sites/nicoleperlroth/2011/08/…
Oh my God. Did you really just write a holier-than-thou post comparing Dave Morin to weev? Have you even bothered READING anything weev wrote? A lot of people will never speak out against weev because of his scorched earth tactics. His list of enemies is a lot longer than a few Feds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If he found it and then sold it to a government agency, he'd be rich and not in jail. Selling exploits to the government is a lucrative business. Google "CIPAV", for one.
Are you suggesting that the government would have purchased a bug in AT&T's website?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you suggesting that the government would have purchased a bug in AT&T's website?
No. AT&T is willing to do anything the gov wants. Now, say it was a hole in Gmail? I bet there's government agencies, foreign and domestic, that would buy that for sure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously? That you actually believe his punishment fits the crime is incredibly saddening. If even the top voted comment on a site that understands the issue believes the punishment is appropriate, imagine the discussion in a law firm or in parliament. Anybody in the USA touching a computer will be in trouble soon. Can't wait for the next batch of laws.
Punishing people for purposefully disclosing private information that is clearly not intended to be public is the path to "everyone touching a computer will be in trouble soon?" You act as if he was just playing around on his own computer minding his own business when the big bad government broke his door down. In Texas, they don't convict homeowners who shoot trick or treaters trespassing on private property: http:/…
Please clarify. Are you trying to say that there exists any justification for this idiotic Texanity? Because there isn't, and therefore you can't logically use it to justify this other unjustifiable thing.
Also, sending packets to an internet-connected device, and then reading the packets it sends back to you, is in no sense "trespassing". Trespass is being physically present in a physical location in which you aren't welcome. You can't trespass while you're physically in your mother's basement. Please don't mangle the English language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The crime in question was accessing a computer system in an unauthorized fashion to collect e-mail addresses. Yes, the distinction is relevant. Taking photos of my wife in public and publishing them? Creepy but not illegal. Walking through my door (locked or unlocked, it doesn't matter) to take photos of my wife in my house? You're lucky if you don't get shot.
But, in this case - didn't he just spoof a user agent and toss fairly guessable CCID numbers? Certainly hacking, and given that he doesn't work for, or is associated with AT&T - some type of criminal trespass - but, we're talking community service here, not a felony. Slap the hand, don't cut it off. I would hope we can all agree that there is a pretty big difference between a pervasive attack where someone spear-phis…
When you send packets to an internet-connected device, and that device sends some packets back to you, that is not "trespass". You haven't "gone" anywhere, and you certainly didn't cross any "property lines". Much in the way that the copyright mafia wants to redefine "piracy" from "murder and plunder on the high seas" to "listening to a friend's MP3", numerous other bad people will be thrilled when the public accepts "SYN,SYN-ACK,ACK" as a new meaning of "trespass".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. AT&T is willing to do anything the gov wants. Now, say it was a hole in Gmail? I bet there's government agencies, foreign and domestic, that would buy that for sure.
There seems to be a pervasive notion that because mass-exploitable remote code execution vulnerabilities have a market value, all vulnerabilities do. That's not true.