Andrew 'Weev' Auernheimer Faces Jail

"Andrew Auernheimer, 26, of Fayetteville, Arkansas, was found guilty in federal court in New Jersey of one count of identity fraud and one count of conspiracy to access a computer without authorization." [1]

Those were the charges. Ridiculous in my opinion.

[1] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/11/att-hacker-found-gu...

Re: Andrew 'Weev' Auernheimer Faces Jail

#6

Post by jrockway » Mon, Mar 18, 2013, 11:37 AM UTC

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #5

jrockway wrote: post #2

What exactly was he found guilty of?

"Andrew Auernheimer, 26, of Fayetteville, Arkansas, was found guilty in federal court in New Jersey of one count of identity fraud and one count of conspiracy to access a computer without authorization." [1] Those were the charges. Ridiculous in my opinion. [1] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/11/att-hacker-found-gu...

What is AT&T guilty of? Is it now legal to publish personal information without any authentication?

Re: Andrew 'Weev' Auernheimer Faces Jail

#7

Post by objclxt » Mon, Mar 18, 2013, 11:38 AM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #4

jrockway wrote: post #2

What exactly was he found guilty of?

[deleted]

...but it sounds as if he did neither of those things, so surely not that smart?

(the parent I replied to has been deleted, but it suggested he was found guilty of 'being smart')

Re: Andrew 'Weev' Auernheimer Faces Jail

#8

Post by n3rdy » Mon, Mar 18, 2013, 11:42 AM UTC

DoubleMalt wrote: post #3

Every piece I read about him made me like him less. But despite my deep feelings of antipathy the charges that are brought against him can NEVER warrant 10 years of prison. That's ridiculous.

This article made me like him a lot.

Re: Andrew 'Weev' Auernheimer Faces Jail

#9

Post by Nursie » Mon, Mar 18, 2013, 11:42 AM UTC

Yeah this is ludicrous. AFAICT, AT&T effectively published this information to the web, this guy just pointed out where it was.

Not a crime.

Re: Andrew 'Weev' Auernheimer Faces Jail

#10

Post by objclxt » Mon, Mar 18, 2013, 11:43 AM UTC

DoubleMalt wrote: post #3

Every piece I read about him made me like him less. But despite my deep feelings of antipathy the charges that are brought against him can NEVER warrant 10 years of prison. That's ridiculous.

In many countries simply accessing a public server without consent is illegal. Here in the UK the Computer Misuse Act contains the following gem:

> It is an offense to make a computer perform a function and for that function to be deemed unauthorised by the owner of that computer

This is fantastically broad. I believe it's similar in the US. It's led to convictions for things like directory traversal, XSS testing, and even people looking for vulnerabilities with good intentions. If you're doing stuff like this, be aware of the risk. Some companies are very good about it (Facebook, Google, etc). Others take a far dimmer, litigious view (AT&T?).

These are not laws that are taught in a civics class. I think it's important that until the laws can be changed (and they definitely should be changed) that people in this field know the risks, and weigh them up accordingly.

I agree with you that Andrew's approach is quite...antagonistic. I wouldn't, for example, go on the record saying I think "a sane society would lynch [...] Carmen Ortiz". Personally, I'm not in favour of public lynchings. This isn't going to endear you to the court, or to those who could help change the law for the better.