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.
It wasn't just being mean. First-hand experience in my case. He and his GNAA attacked my volunteer-run open source project and did many things, including calling Child Protective Services (CPS) and making false complaints -- leading one of my volunteers and his children to have to undergo interviews with CPS to suss everything out. They emailed one person's professors at university and made false, damaging claims. Bo…
That sort of behavior is disgusting. There are questions about the CFAA, and rightfully so. But on one level, I am 100% fine with this asshole being in jail.
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.
The sign is definitely copyrighted as a creative work, and some sort of argument based on competitive advantage would certainly be brought out in regards to why taking the photograph has wronged the restaurant owner. These things don't make constructive sense, they're just convenient to invoke when it's time to conjure up some justification for persecution of the undesirables. Fortunately for the photographer, that window is not a computer network and the average person understands that having rats in a restaurant is wrong.
Precisely that. Sure, he made a mistake, but so did AT&T, and now because of it he's potentially going to spend 41 months of his life in jail. Life is too short as it is.
He "made a mistake"? That is what we are calling it now?
Yeah, he banged on the keyboard and made a typo and accidentally fell into a 100K of AT&T user records, and then he turned and these records stuck to him and then when he was trying to get rid of them they accidentally fell on Gawker. That's how it happened, judge, and if you don't believe it you must be bought by AT&T.
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 to…
As more and more of those who were overtly disciminated against become assimilated, those who are still facing overt discimination are considered to be at the "extreme", unfortunately, and are considered "less deserving" of equal rights. Those who face subtle discrimination are unaware and/or tired. Pollution abuses continue. . .some still occur here, but the most severe ones are not in the middle- and upper-class neighborhood, so might as well be non-existent. And many of us don't view ourselves as global citizens so virtually anything occurring overseas is ignored or denied.
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.
If you want to get technical, accessing the records in the first place is the crime. All the rest is just demonstrating the intent and the public interest in prosecuting him.
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'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. And to be fair, if he didn't do things like the AMA, he probably would have gotten the 3-6 month sentence.
His comrade got 12-15mo, so I think there was little chance of weev getting less (and probably 24mo was the most likely). I predicted 3y before his last little bit of trolling.
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.
It wasn't just being mean. First-hand experience in my case. He and his GNAA attacked my volunteer-run open source project and did many things, including calling Child Protective Services (CPS) and making false complaints -- leading one of my volunteers and his children to have to undergo interviews with CPS to suss everything out. They emailed one person's professors at university and made false, damaging claims. Bo…
I have no trouble believing that weev did those things and worse, and it is probably criminal behavior, and if so it should be punished. But that has nothing to do with what the gov't. has just done. Just as defense atty's want sympathetic defendants, prosecutors are happy to exploit the unsympathetic response that most people have to learning about weev's behavior. If we let them do it to weev, we are inviting them to do it to anyone, including yourself. The gov't has just expanded its power to jail people for what ought to never have been chargeable, and given that power to companies like AT&T. As it stands now, any company with the means to do so can use the state to jail you under similar circumstances. Even if you are a nice guy who saves stranded kittens from trees.
That sign is copyrighted and that kitchen arrangement is a trade secret You don't actually believe those words you just said.
The sign is definitely copyrighted as a creative work, and some sort of argument based on competitive advantage would certainly be brought out in regards to why taking the photograph has wronged the restaurant owner. These things don't make constructive sense, they're just convenient to invoke when it's time to conjure up some justification for persecution of the undesirables. Fortunately for the photographer, that w…
You are right that the public understands rats in restaurants more than they understand insecure web apps.
But the public also understands that things visible through the front window of a business on a street are not private or secret. (And I know someone is itching to type that AT&T is just a window and they just served up exactly what Weev wanted, but I'm too tired to respond to such nonsense.)
"Bringing a serious problem to the public's attention" are not magic words that make someone's actions legal.
I think the thing that doesn't sit right about this is that he accessed the data with entirely ordinary means, but it's called "access without authorization" simply because the company didn't want him to have it.
If a company accidentally puts a link on their homepage to private info (say, with a typo) and users click on the link and read the page contents, are the then violating the CFAA because they should have known that the company didn't intend for them to view that information?
If you get naked in front of a window visible from the street, you can't get mad that someone saw you.