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

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

#171

Post by rayiner » Tue, Mar 19, 2013, 4:20 PM UTC

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #169

rayiner wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Change "100" to "tens of thousands" and "posts them on his blog" "suggests to someone else that he was going to sell them for profit" and you've got a damn good analogy.

And why are either of those crimes?

Because it's not okay to access data you know you shouldn't look at and threaten to sell that data to parties that would use it to harm others. The fact that nothing is stopping you from doing so does not make it okay.

The world is full of sensitive information that's basically protected on the honor system, for the same reason the world is full of unlocked doors: because we assume some assholes won't come around and abuse the situation.

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

#172

Post by lifeisstillgood » Tue, Mar 19, 2013, 5:38 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #171

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And why are either of those crimes?

Because it's not okay to access data you know you shouldn't look at and threaten to sell that data to parties that would use it to harm others. The fact that nothing is stopping you from doing so does not make it okay. The world is full of sensitive information that's basically protected on the honor system, for the same reason the world is full of unlocked doors: because we assume some assholes won't come around and…

In this case? Really?

AT&T had a duty of care to protect their Data which they signally failed to do. Then some asshole finds out and makes that situation public. He did not do so in a responsible manner but four years is a long time to get for being an asshole.

If that is commonplace HN is going to be a smaller forum

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

#173

Post by rayiner » Tue, Mar 19, 2013, 9:36 PM UTC

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #172

rayiner wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's not okay to access data you know you shouldn't look at and threaten to sell that data to parties that would use it to harm others. The fact that nothing is stopping you from doing so does not make it okay. The world is full of sensitive information that's basically protected on the honor system, for the same reason the world is full of unlocked doors: because we assume some assholes won't come around and…

In this case? Really? AT&T had a duty of care to protect their Data which they signally failed to do. Then some asshole finds out and makes that situation public. He did not do so in a responsible manner but four years is a long time to get for being an asshole. If that is commonplace HN is going to be a smaller forum

Let's stop making things up about the facts of the case, shall we? Weev did not get 41 months for being the asshole that made AT&T's blunder public. The worst he could have gotten for the CFAA charge by itself would have been a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of less than a year (and realistically, probably zero jail time).

Weev was convicted, by a jury, of fraud in connection with personal information. The jury believed he intended to sell the e-mail addresses he collected to people who would use them for various nefarious purposes. Given that he claimed he was going to do so in IRC conversations, it's really hard for you to sit there and argue that the jury was unreasonable in reaching this conclusion, and that all they are really punishing him for is blowing the lid on AT&T.

What you're doing is trying to create a particular narrative about Weev's intentions, but ignoring that the jury in this case heard and rejected this narrative.

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

#174

Post by lifeisstillgood » Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 8:13 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #173

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case? Really? AT&T had a duty of care to protect their Data which they signally failed to do. Then some asshole finds out and makes that situation public. He did not do so in a responsible manner but four years is a long time to get for being an asshole. If that is commonplace HN is going to be a smaller forum

Let's stop making things up about the facts of the case, shall we? Weev did not get 41 months for being the asshole that made AT&T's blunder public. The worst he could have gotten for the CFAA charge by itself would have been a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of less than a year (and realistically, probably zero jail time). Weev was convicted, by a jury, of fraud in connection with personal information. The jury b…

Really I hate the idea of convicting people for intentions

Whilst I see that there are times and crimes it is viable, it's just a vicious circle.

He intended to commit a crime, but did not? And so he got jail?

I admit I am taking this too far on too little reading of the case (any links to original docs would be useful) but intention is real flimsy.

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

#175

Post by flyinRyan » Wed, Mar 20, 2013, 10:05 AM UTC

anglebracket wrote: post #87

flyinRyan wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a bunch of victim blaming to me. So the guy is an idiot, is that enough to go to prison now?

>Sounds like a bunch of victim blaming Ironic that you should say that, considering that Weev's defense is essentially "her parameters were all hanging out and it was just so easy."

No weev's defense is that... it was a public URL... Do you really want to set a precedent that companies get to decide after the fact that some public URL you surfed wasn't meant to be public so now you go to jail?

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

#176

Post by whiddershins » Mon, Mar 25, 2013, 7:54 AM UTC

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #119

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.

My point exactly