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

61–70 of 176 posts

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

#61

Post by throwaway420 »

siphor wrote: post #43

I really hope Jury nullification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification becomes a bigger thing in this country..

I hope so too, but Julian Heicklen and others have already been charged with "jury tampering" and other such made up crimes simply for trying to inform others about jury nullification.

Juries are not supposed to be rubber-stamps for the government and I'd urge anybody who is going to serve on a jury to learn about their rights and responsibilities before going.

If you think a non-violent person being charged in a marijuana possession case or other non-crime doesn't merit locking up, throw a wrench into the corrupt system and vote not guilty.

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

#62

Post by gavinlynch »

rdl wrote: post #34
smsm42 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

>>> "This is along troll by him"

The only person he's trolling, is himself.

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

#63

Post by smsm42 »

rdl wrote: post #45
smsm42 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

aaronsw? Same CFAA.

Same CFAA, different cases. Different approaches, different intents, different results. Swartz had noble goals but chose means that are questionable. Auernheimer's goals are, as it appears from his public persona, to cause disorder, embarrassment and trouble, and to derive personal enjoyment from the result. No wonder he gets different reaction.

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

#64

Post by px43 »

objclxt wrote: post #44
zalzane wrote: post #6

Every time I see a ruling like this, I can't help but think that future historians will view this time period in the same way that present day historians view the crusades/religious persecution/witchhunts of the past millennium. It's amazing how much point of view can change perspective.

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.

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

#65

Post by numbsafari »

jellicle wrote: post #53
numbsafari wrote: post #19

If you are driving down the street, and notice that I put the deadbolt onto my house backwards (so that it locked from the outside), is the appropriate thing to do to let yourself in and walk around looking at all my stuff and then call the local news station and invite them in along with you, or is it to call the police or leave me a note letting me know I've got a problem?

Try making an honest comparison instead. This photo was taken at a restaurant, from the outside looking in, before it opened for the day: http://www.blogto.com/upload/2008/02/20080215_rats.jpg The restauranteurs were not informed about it; it went straight to the media and to the city health department. The restaurant was shut down later that day for health violations. Has a crime been committed? Did the photographer…

None. Notice that the photographer was OUTSIDE. He didn't remove any property from the restaurant. He did not physically enter the restaurant.

Part of the problem, and I think you'll agree with me on this, is that these metaphors breakdown because, when talking about information and systems, the notions of property are much more complicated. What if, for example, the photographer photographed a sheet of paper with 100 usernames and passwords to gmail accounts, or bank account records and then mailed it out for everyone to see?

He should probably have gone to the authorities first, not the media.

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

#66

Post by [deleted] »

sigzero wrote: post #33
thomasvendetta wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

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

#67

Post by warfangle »

rdl wrote: post #58
flyinRyan wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think there's a strong case for less culpability for children. If a 5 year old (EDIT: "accidentally" not intended here) rapes or kills someone, that's a different crime than if an adult does it. But, 18 shouldn't be the dividing line for responsibility.

How the fuck do you accidentally rape someone? Do you like, trip and fall in?

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

#68

Post by rdl »

warfangle wrote: post #67
rdl wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a strong case for less culpability for children. If a 5 year old (EDIT: "accidentally" not intended here) rapes or kills someone, that's a different crime than if an adult does it. But, 18 shouldn't be the dividing line for responsibility.

How the fuck do you accidentally rape someone? Do you like, trip and fall in?

Heh, that was a spurious "accidentally" I guess.

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

#70

Post by gavinlynch »

drhayes9 wrote: post #52
smsm42 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't "gather the evidence", you rather take the records for 100,000 citizens, put them on a truck and dump them in the frontyard for a local newspaper, after considering how much you could sell it for and deciding it's probably more fun to just cause public embarrassment. If you wanted just to show the system is insecure, 2 records would be enough. Stealing 100K of them is not something you do if your goal is ju…

There's definitely a "being an ass" component to this, no doubt... but one could argue that presenting two records to a journalist implies a small security hole. 100k of them is a giant security hole.

Yah, except for the part where he spends an extra 10 seconds explaining "here are 2 of hundreds of thousands, as an example".

The headline would be the same: "X Company exposes N Number of user accounts in discovered security hole". So do you see where that doesn't make any sense?

edit: agree with you @drhayes9, just responding to the OP's assertion that the number mattered.

Post reply on HN