Live data from Hacker News

“The AT&T Hacker” Sentenced To 41 Months In Prison

techcrunch.com

91–100 of 176 posts

Re: “The AT&T Hacker” Sentenced To 41 Months In Prison

#91
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just when you think your opinion of Reddit can't get any lower... I can't believe how many people think you should go to jail for being mean.

The default subreddits have suffered from an eternal september, if you unsubscribe from them & find the more niche subreddits it gets a lot better.

That's very true, but some of the smaller sub reddits are also vile.

Justiceporn (people getting their come uppance) and cringe (originally things that made you cringe in sympathy, but latterly videos of socially awkward youth that Reddit could bully and mock) are two examples, but there are others.

Re: “The AT&T Hacker” Sentenced To 41 Months In Prison

#92
post #43

I really hope Jury nullification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification becomes a bigger thing in this country..

You'll only get that if people educate themselves. It was never mentioned to me in school that I can remember.

Re: “The AT&T Hacker” Sentenced To 41 Months In Prison

#93

Maybe it's a function of gettin older, but it feels that my country (and as a sort of extension the English speaking West) has begun to tire of the effort. We have marched, protested, voted and won. Human rights, gay rights, pollution and justice. But it took effort and now the injustices are less obvious, are not next door but a long way away, and so it seems we can stop and rest. But injustice is like entropy - it…

> We have marched, protested, voted and won. Human rights, gay rights, pollution and justice.

This is not true by any stretch. Human rights have been and are continually violated, esp. for minority groups, mainstream gay rights has become assimilationist and has abandoned the LBTQ of LGBTQ, and pollution abuses continue and many of those abuses moved overseas as perpetrating corps. went for cheaper labor.

> But it took effort and now the injustices are less obvious, are not next door but a long way away, and so it seems we can stop and rest.

The injustices are next door, they happen every day. The root causes of issues have not been addressed and classism, racism, sexism, and capitalist patriarchy are as much of a part of western society as ever.

> But injustice is like entropy - it never rests and so we let the torture be done in our name, we don't mind that the youth of the country are given sentences for looting longer than murderers, we don't shout that companies who leave their virtual doors unlocked should not be upset i they find people inside the building

It should be noted that people have tolerated and/or endorsed this kind of structural dysfunction for a long time and continue to do so. But you are right in that injustice is systemic and will continue even if people feel hopeless or tired of fighting that injustice.

Re: “The AT&T Hacker” Sentenced To 41 Months In Prison

#94
post #5

For context, this guy used to be part of the GNAA. They don't care at all about exposing security holes. His goal probably wasn't to cause some sort of security improvement. Yeah, the punishment was harsh, but this guy isn't exactly a folk hero.

What you are doing here is actually the opposite of providing context.

Re: “The AT&T Hacker” Sentenced To 41 Months In Prison

#95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None. Notice that the photographer was OUTSIDE. He didn't remove any property from the restaurant. He did not physically enter the restaurant. Part of the problem, and I think you'll agree with me on this, is that these metaphors breakdown because, when talking about information and systems, the notions of property are much more complicated. What if, for example, the photographer photographed a sheet of paper with 10…

That sign is copyrighted and that kitchen arrangement is a trade secret, so yes, that photographer "stole" the same kind of things as weev. It's quite easy to casually condone three years in a cage for someone you don't like when that's your only involvement.

That sign is copyrighted and that kitchen arrangement is a trade secret

You don't actually believe those words you just said.

Re: “The AT&T Hacker” Sentenced To 41 Months In Prison

#96
post #63
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

aaronsw? Same CFAA.

Same CFAA, different cases. Different approaches, different intents, different results. Swartz had noble goals but chose means that are questionable. Auernheimer's goals are, as it appears from his public persona, to cause disorder, embarrassment and trouble, and to derive personal enjoyment from the result. No wonder he gets different reaction.

But how differently did the Justice Dep't. act with respect to the charging of Swartz?

Re: “The AT&T Hacker” Sentenced To 41 Months In Prison

#97
post #79
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would Swartz have done an AMA the night before sentencing where he would state that his only regret was that he had not harmed enough people, and promise next time to do more harm, and then have the prosecutors bring that AMA to the attention of the judge at sentencing, likely causing the judge to opt for a much longer sentence than he would have otherwise given?

Well he was certainly a much more likeable character than Weev, but he also didn't believe that what he did was wrong. And really, who did Weev harm with this?

weev believes right and wrong correspond to his amusement

Re: “The AT&T Hacker” Sentenced To 41 Months In Prison

#98

He went to gawker first then to at & t he hasn't got a leg to stand on , he tried to profit front he flaw before reporting it..

Going to Gawker first is not a crime. Not even going to AT&T at all is not a crime.

If people on hacker news are seriously this confused, it's no wonder there is no hope for a legitimate jury in CFAA cases.

Re: “The AT&T Hacker” Sentenced To 41 Months In Prison

#99
post #47
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must be very new on this Earth if you think it actually doesn't matter who the defendant is and how he behaves. Motives matter, so does evaluation of the probability that the crime will be repeated in the future. weev did everything to show he intended to harm AT&T and his only regret is that he didn't harm them more. That's not exactly a way to get lenient sentence.

He didn't intend to harm AT&T; they discussed selling the URLs or shorting the stock, that would amount to harm, but they didn't do it in the end, so his intent is pretty obvious. If I was dealing with such dickheads as the AT&T and the US prosecutors, my "last" wish would be to harm them more, too. Edit: typo, changed "with" into "wish" in the last paragraph.

Shorting stock doesn't harm AT&T, it harms the shareholders.

>>>> If I was dealing with such dickheads as the AT&T and the US prosecutors, my "last" wish would be to harm them more, too.

Then you'd be no smarter than Auernheimer, and I sincerely hope you don't behave as stupidly as he did, or you inevitably would land in jail too. It usually doesn't go well for people that try to harm others and publicly admit it. At least Auernheimer didn't publicly proclaim his desire to harm prosecutors too, that'd be an nice cherry on top of this cake of self-destruction.

Re: “The AT&T Hacker” Sentenced To 41 Months In Prison

#100
post #74
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this particular case is black and white. Judging by my Twitter feed, a number of security researchers and white hats feel the same way I do: the law as it stands is not good, but what Weev did was also really, really unhelpful and borderline stupid. Rather than disclosing to AT&T, he leaked it directly to Gawker, and discussed how to potentially abuse the data he had (by shorting the stock, selling the…

The first amendment makes no distinction between someone who says "Hey your shitty website is broken. And I'm telling everybody." and someone who sends a private email, hat in hand, saying; "Excuse me kind sirs, but I can't help but notice that your security procedures are somewhat lacking." And oddly, if one of those is a crime, so is the other.

Does the First Amendment make a distinction between a person in a crowded room shouting "I love U2" and the same person shouting "Fire"?

I'm going to go ahead and suggest that the answer is "No, but we as a society make a distinction." Same princple here. I believe the general principle is that you have freedom of speech, but you do not have indemnity from the harmful consequences of your speech.

Post reply on HN