Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 176 posts

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

#111

Post by rayiner »

DannyBee wrote: post #18
rdl wrote: post #3

Marcia Hofmann is joining his appeals team, so I suspect this is going to SCOTUS. Normally you pick the most compassionate defendant (like they did in Heller in DC) for a test case. Weev is probably the least sympathetic defendant. But I guess you go to war with the weev you have, not the aaronsw you wanted.

1. First, it's going to be appealed to an appeals court :) 2. Generally, if you are smart, you don't bring wildly unsympathetic defendants to SCOTUS at all (IE you don't go to war over them). There are cases it doesn't matter, but one of the reason we ended up with so many 4th amendment exceptions is, IMHO, because of the habit of bringing really unsympathetic people/facts to SCOTUS back when we had justices like O'C…

That's part of it, but it was a natural reaction to the total collapse of order and the explosion in crime in U.S. cities in the 1970's and 1980's. The fact is that most of the people invoking the 4th amendment were really unsympathetic. They still are.

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

#114

Post by enraged_camel »

px43 wrote: post #64
objclxt wrote: 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…

He didn't expose some flaw or weakness. ATT knew that information was there, they were the ones that put it there. Weev was pointing out a negligent mishandling of data. ATT already has shown that they suck at vendor response. I think he has a duty to inform the public when there is an issue like that. If he had gone to ATT first, they likely would have lawyered him into oblivion, and kept their shitty service online…

This argument is very commonly made, and that's unfortunate because it is fundamentally flawed. Just because AT&T left the information exposed is not sufficient justification for some random person to take it, especially when that person takes it with the explicit intent to cause harm AND profit from it.

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

#115

Post by drawkbox »

Cruel and unusual punishment, again prison for non-violent crime (non repeat). We are definitely backwards and feudal in this aspect. Non-violent crime resulting in prison time is a net loss for everyone and everything involved except private prisons. Everyone loses in this situation. Do you want to pay for this guy to sit in prison with your tax dollars?

What would have happened if they jailed Woz + Jobs back in the blue box days?

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

#116

Post by sneak »

smsm42 wrote: post #28
rdl wrote: post #3

Marcia Hofmann is joining his appeals team, so I suspect this is going to SCOTUS. Normally you pick the most compassionate defendant (like they did in Heller in DC) for a test case. Weev is probably the least sympathetic defendant. But I guess you go to war with the weev you have, not the aaronsw you wanted.

I think somebody that publishes this: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1ahkgc/i_am_weev_i_may... a day before his sentencing is either completely sure for some reason he gets away with it or is an idiot. Nothing more effective to prove you're not a criminal that saying in public "I only regret I didn't do more harm to whoever they accusing me of harming, next time will be worse". It's like saying "no, I didn't b…

Watching the prosecutor butcher pronouncing "regexps" in federal court was worth it.

(Seriously, they read his AMA responses in court this morning. Weev's a shithead, but still: 't'was glorious. )

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

#117

Post by sneak »

smsm42 wrote: post #39
rdl wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the thing is that weev genuinely doesn't care if he gets 41 months vs. 36 months. This is a long troll by him; by being a troll, he brings more attention to the case, maximizing lulz, and bringing bigger guns to bear in his defense. If he'd gotten 3-6 month suspended sentence, even if you thought that was a bit much for essentially incrementing numbers, you'd probably not care much. If he were facing life in…

If he doesn't care why should I? I know many security researchers who aren't trolls and they are doing fine. When it happens to somebody who isn't purposefully self-destructive, then it may be a better case for concern.

Because living at the mercy of the government only not prosecuting you simply because they think you're not a dick doesn't scale to 100% of a free society.

This is why the ACLU defended the Klan.

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

#118

Post by numbsafari »

flyinRyan wrote: post #50
numbsafari wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to defend them, because what they did was reprehensible, but they were charged as juveniles. This guy is an adult. If the two guys from Steubenville had been over 18, the sentences would have been considerably higher.

What a horribly screwed up system that seeks maximum penalty for a guy who wanted the public to be able to see the research they actually pay for but charge rapists as juveniles as if rape is less evil if you're less than 18 when you commit it.

There is significant research into the culpability of minors. There have been significant steps taken by the Supreme Court to limit and restrict the prosecution of minors because of fundamental research into neurological development and youths' ability to make proper judgements.

What those guys did was reprehensible and they should be in jail. No questions asked.

But we have two separate penal systems in this country: one for juveniles and one for adults. The adult penal system uses harsher punishments than the juvenile one.

You simply cannot compare the sentence handed down in both of these cases, because they are happening under two effectively different penal systems.

For ANOTHER thing, the actual sentences handed down by the judge in the Steubenville rape trial where that they are remanded to the state juvenile detention facility for at least one year (for the one who only participated in the rape) and for at least two years (for the one who also sent around the pictures). At most, they will stay in such a facility until they are 21. In addition, these two must also register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives, effectively giving them life-long parole.

So, when we are talking about Aaron Swartz, everyone quotes the maximum penalty he could have faced, even though it was almost impossible he ever would have received such a sentence. But in the case of these two rapists, everyone is saying they only got one or two years. The fact is, when you want to say punishment is potentially harsh, you quote the maximum, but when you want to say it is weak, you quote the minimum. Make up your mind.

Again, I'm not trying to defend those two guys. I'm making the point that you cannot compare juvenile and adult sentences. Perhaps question whether or not these two should have been tried as adults, sure, but then there are many who would argue that that is overly aggressive prosecutorial action[1].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jena_Six

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

#119

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

whiddershins wrote: post #113

I keep seeing posts referencing that his actions were "technically trivial." How does anyone propose we write or enforce legislation based on that criteria?

You don't. It's trivial for a stranger to walk through my unlocked front door, but that doesn't mean they're not committing trespass.
Post reply on HN