11–20 of 145 posts
I, for one like Weev. He is a boundary pusher. Many even around here on hn might perceive his stuff as tasteless. But I sincerely wished more people were as dedicated to their "ideals" as Weev is. Defending free speech means standing up for people who have controversial views - no matter how unease you personally are with these views.
How do you make this a speech issue?
I agree with the sentiment that computer use crimes need to be reworked, and that weev shouldn't have been hoisted by the fact he is a colossal dick but the article seems to gloss over things for the sake of the argument. - `The spoofing was irrelevant; Spitler would have gotten the same email addresses if he had manually inputted the URLs on an iPad rather than a spoofed desktop browser.`, the spoofing is incredibly…
Whether you agree with his methods or not, there is no stretch of the imagination that makes prison for downloading (even 114k of) them make sense.
It wasn't a hole or bug— it was an expressly implemented feature. ATT decided to do it this way to reduce resubscription friction. The iPad sends the sim serial (ICCID), and ATT sends the HTML form with the email address already filled in, so all the user has to do is enter the password.
As it turns out, ICCIDs are sequential integers.
It should always be perfectly legal to access a remote computer system via a publicly accessible interface. It's up to that remote system to respond appropriately. In this case, it was working exactly as ATT intended.
Weev knew that the greater the number of records he got, the worse it would reflect upon ATT, and rightfully so.
I agree with the sentiment that computer use crimes need to be reworked, and that weev shouldn't have been hoisted by the fact he is a colossal dick but the article seems to gloss over things for the sake of the argument. - `The spoofing was irrelevant; Spitler would have gotten the same email addresses if he had manually inputted the URLs on an iPad rather than a spoofed desktop browser.`, the spoofing is incredibly…
However as a third person it's also useful for me to know the scope of this hole and how liable my own information was. Weev here is guilty of exactly the same reasoning that AT&T realised in court which is that a message is irrelevant without impact. And which has more impact: an article about how a vulnerability in AT&T security could have resulted in some leaked emails or an article about 114 000 potentially leaked email addresses?
It is a terrible decision curl http://domain.com/showdocument?[00000-99999] should not be a crime!!
What if doing so killed a person for each ID at showdocument? Ok, that's pretty absurd. What if it wiped out their bank account? Don't you think that the consequences should depend on what the action actually accomplished, rather than the action itself? Flicking a lighter is generally pretty innocuous, but if done to light a house on fire, it means it's a bit different - right? Yes, it's their fault too for leaving i…
Shouldn't you hold the people who created that system responsible, rather than the person who used it? If I rig up my cell phone to a gun, so that every time someone calls it it shoots at a crowd of people, should the people who call it go to prison while I walk free?
It is a terrible decision curl http://domain.com/showdocument?[00000-99999] should not be a crime!!
Should I be allowed to brute force passwords then?
It is a terrible decision curl http://domain.com/showdocument?[00000-99999] should not be a crime!!
Should I be allowed to brute force passwords then?
Websites are served in an attempt to disseminate them.
There's a big difference here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if doing so killed a person for each ID at showdocument? Ok, that's pretty absurd. What if it wiped out their bank account? Don't you think that the consequences should depend on what the action actually accomplished, rather than the action itself? Flicking a lighter is generally pretty innocuous, but if done to light a house on fire, it means it's a bit different - right? Yes, it's their fault too for leaving i…
"What if doing so killed a person for each ID at showdocument? Ok, that's pretty absurd. What if it wiped out their bank account?" Shouldn't you hold the people who created that system responsible, rather than the person who used it? If I rig up my cell phone to a gun, so that every time someone calls it it shoots at a crowd of people, should the people who call it go to prison while I walk free?
He knew what he was doing once he'd pulled down a few records.
Also, yes, ATT should be held responsible for implementing lame security.
I, for one like Weev. He is a boundary pusher. Many even around here on hn might perceive his stuff as tasteless. But I sincerely wished more people were as dedicated to their "ideals" as Weev is. Defending free speech means standing up for people who have controversial views - no matter how unease you personally are with these views.
How do you make this a speech issue?
He'd been on their radar for years due to his unpopular speech.
It is a terrible decision curl http://domain.com/showdocument?[00000-99999] should not be a crime!!
Should I be allowed to brute force passwords then?
In a just world, we would let full responsibility lie with those who deployed the machines without understanding the consequences of, e.g., no login failure rate limiting.
I agree with the sentiment that computer use crimes need to be reworked, and that weev shouldn't have been hoisted by the fact he is a colossal dick but the article seems to gloss over things for the sake of the argument. - `The spoofing was irrelevant; Spitler would have gotten the same email addresses if he had manually inputted the URLs on an iPad rather than a spoofed desktop browser.`, the spoofing is incredibly…
It's fucking ridiculous that changing the user agent, even to circumvent server "protections", would be a crime worthy of any jail time whatsoever. What is he guilty of? Criminal misrepresentation of web browser?