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

You May Not Like Weev, But Your Online Freedom Depends on His Appeal

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–145 of 145 posts

Re: You May Not Like Weev, But Your Online Freedom Depends on His Appeal

#141

Post by sneak »

tptacek wrote: post #71
walid wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True when you say that there can be data left out in public by mistake without public access authorization. However it is not the responsibility of the accessing entity to preserve this data private. An analogy is if your bank left your money easily accessible on a table in front of the bank without security. We are used to the idea of ownership, but this issue is a matter of blame. Here AT&T is the one to blame for…

This is, literally, an argument that if you stumble across a text file full of credit card numbers, expiration dates, and CVV codes, it should be lawful for you to put it up on Pastebin.

I think that should be lawful, yes.

We already have laws to prosecute people who misuse credit card numbers for gain. Either attack the edge (ppl who use the cc nums for fraud) or the root (the people who posted them on the public web).

Re: You May Not Like Weev, But Your Online Freedom Depends on His Appeal

#142

Post by sneak »

smsm42 wrote: post #137
IanDrake wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weev owned an iPad. His iPad checked a url on ATT without him doing anything. That's really more than an invitation.

Really? So if you have a device that checks your email on gmail this is an invitation to browse any mailboxes stored on gmail? I have such device, you wouldn't mind me reading your gmail mailbox, right? Or would you?

Straw man: Gmail has authentication, this web service did not.

Re: You May Not Like Weev, But Your Online Freedom Depends on His Appeal

#143

Post by tptacek »

rhizome wrote: post #140
m0nastic wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll walk back calling it a "textbook example" (because I suppose ultimately it's probably up to the quality of the lawyers involved), but the part of 18 USC 1343 that I think would be argued by the prosecution in the "pastebin cc numbers example" is: "...or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, sign…

OK, so how does it reach Weev again?

It doesn't. That wasn't the point.

Re: You May Not Like Weev, But Your Online Freedom Depends on His Appeal

#144

Post by smsm42 »

sneak wrote: post #142
smsm42 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? So if you have a device that checks your email on gmail this is an invitation to browse any mailboxes stored on gmail? I have such device, you wouldn't mind me reading your gmail mailbox, right? Or would you?

Straw man: Gmail has authentication, this web service did not.

It did, it was just easy to guess. So are about 3/4 of passwords. Gmail account with weak password means no problem going through your emails, right?

Re: You May Not Like Weev, But Your Online Freedom Depends on His Appeal

#145

Post by walid »

nicholassmith wrote: post #72
walid wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True when you say that there can be data left out in public by mistake without public access authorization. However it is not the responsibility of the accessing entity to preserve this data private. An analogy is if your bank left your money easily accessible on a table in front of the bank without security. We are used to the idea of ownership, but this issue is a matter of blame. Here AT&T is the one to blame for…

That analogy falls over, because in it weev actually saw the money and went over and took it. That'd be a crime off the bat.

Yeah but I was trying to show that the true problem was AT&T's negligence and not Weev pointing it out to the people. Probably not the most perfect analogy, but analogies have limits of expression.
Post reply on HN