×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Jail Looms For Man Who Revealed AT&T Leaked iPad User E-Mails

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the doing-it-wrong dept.

Government 124

concealment sends this quote from MIT's Technology Review: "AT&T screwed up in 2010, serving up the e-mail addresses of over 110,000 of its iPad 3G customers online for anyone to find. But Andrew Auernheimer, an online activist who pointed out AT&T's blunder to Gawker Media, which went on to publicize the breach of private information, is the one in federal court this week. Groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation worry that should that charge succeed it will become easy to criminalize many online activities, including work by well-intentioned activists looking for leaks of private information or other online security holes. [Auernheimer's] case hasn't received much attention so far, but should he be found guilty this week it will likely become well known, fast."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

124 comments

He did it wrong, obviously (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42046335)

Anon pastebin is the way.

Re:He did it wrong, obviously (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42049223)

Then it would have made no difference. You can't test free speech and outdated computer crime laws in court under the guise of anonymity.

PMITA Prison (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42046349)

Good. Enjoy being Bubba's anal slut in the pen.

Who in their right mind prosecutes this? (1)

BMOC (2478408) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046351)

Oh right, the feds, they're never in their right mind. I shouldn't have asked, dumb question, sorry.

Re:Who in their right mind prosecutes this? (1)

garcia (6573) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046407)

That would only stand if staff didn't take direction from the political arm which happens to be manipulated by money from special interests.

Re:Who in their right mind prosecutes this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42046507)

Security: meet swiss cheese

When do we start persecuting the prosecuters?

Re:Who in their right mind prosecutes this? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42046707)

Actually, no. There is no such thing as "the feds" in the USA.
There are service organizations for companies to use, which protect industry interests, but are paid by you.
An actual government would defend you against the companies, and put everyone in jail even tries to "lobby".

But hey, in the US, many people loudly yell and proclaim they want a "small government" and "free market", because they confuse that industry instrument with an actual government, and confuse freedom for companies to abuse them with freedom for people to live their lives. And they don't realize that that "free market" is what results in what they perceive in an "evil government" in the first place. (Like not only the ability to openly buy a president [aka "campaign donations"] but that somebody can't even get into said "government" without being bought with huge sums of money.)

But I don't blame them. Try keeping your mind free of social/media conditioning with TV and news constantly repeating the same lies. It's a simple neurological fact which has been studied since the 60s, that a human brain can't withstand that forever. If you think you're free of it (like I often did), you've only fallen for a different version of the trap.
The best is, not to listen/watch any of it at all. Including websites/blogs/etc. (Because falling for Alex Jones instead of Fox News or MSNBC is not better.)
Just observe. With your own eyes. And be careful about who you trust. (And who they trust!)

Re:Who in their right mind prosecutes this? (3, Insightful)

deathlyslow (514135) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047165)

The best is, not to listen/watch any of it at all. Including websites/blogs/etc.

Says the AC posting on /.

Re:Who in their right mind prosecutes this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42048777)

You raise a very good point. I hope you get modded up, because you show the exact irony of not ever being able to escape completely. Even in my case.

And I gotta be honest with you: The reason I post here, is an addiction. One that does more harm than good. (As always.)
But I already have a plan to get rid of it. The only question is: What other influences will try to fill its place?

I guess as long as I got everyone to escape a bit, and care a bit more about checking things with his own senses, then I can also be a bit more happy. :)

Re:Who in their right mind prosecutes this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42047999)

You realize the people who started this country were acutely aware of how easy special interests could and do corrupt government, and their solution was to limit the power and scope of government. This isn't some new issue that only affects the modern world. Mercantilism was around for centuries and is a perfect example of what we have today and what the founders wanted to limit.

Re:Who in their right mind prosecutes this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42049099)

Companies are people - the only ones that really matter. Organic people are merely resources, to be used like oil or iron.

http://i.imgur.com/SLimt.jpg

Re:Who in their right mind prosecutes this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42046783)

The Feds are currently in their far left mind.

Re:Who in their right mind prosecutes this? (1)

tylikcat (1578365) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047629)

Come now, slavish adherance to corporate interests is hardly a sole characteristic of the left. *snort*

Re:Who in their right mind prosecutes this? (4, Insightful)

sdnoob (917382) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046807)

at&t probably pursued and lobbied for charges to be filed so THEY look like the victim here instead of the people at the other end of those 110,000+ email addresses.

Why aren't whistleblower laws shielding him? (1)

PickyH3D (680158) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046411)

I thought there were whistle blower laws to shield people from these mishaps?

Is it because he went to the media rather than the FBI? I'm genuinely curious as the article doesn't say much except that he's a "hacker" that downloaded a bunch of public web addresses that were easily predictable.

Re:Why aren't whistleblower laws shielding him? (2)

stox (131684) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046447)

AT&T wasn't breaking the law, whistleblower statutes do not apply.

Re:Why aren't whistleblower laws shielding him? (3, Insightful)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046673)

AT&T wasn't breaking the law, whistleblower statutes do not apply.

It must have. From TFA:

One alleges that by being in possession of the e-mails from AT&Tâ(TM)s leaky system he handled 'identification information' in breach of a law intended to protect against identity theft,

I am certain that laws protecting us against identity fraud mandate that the "identification information" is shielded from theft. AT&T has clearly failed to protect the information.

Re:Why aren't whistleblower laws shielding him? (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046449)

Because the laws are usually to cover employees from receiving reprisal from their employers whether private companies or the government.

Apple is and always has been evil. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42046435)

Suck it you rainbow loving fanboys.

Homos.

Re:Apple is and always has been evil. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42046561)

I watched a video of you sucking a fat chub on my Droid Razr.

114 thousand times! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42046479)

If you find a security hole, you don't need to exploit it 114,000 times. The Gawker story is incomplete and confusing, so I'm not sure what Weev did and what Goatse Security did. But to say "there was no illegal activity or unauthorized access" is plain silly.

Robin In The Hood (1)

westlake (615356) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046501)

like the Electronic Frontier Foundation worry that should that charge succeed it will become easy to criminalize many online activities, including work by well-intentioned activists looking for leaks of private information or other online security holes.

The road to hell and all that.

It's time for the geek to grow up and discover that life hasn't dealt him a Get Out Of Jail Free card,

Re:Robin In The Hood (2)

flyneye (84093) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049781)

We should push for activists to be interned as thinktivists for a minimum of 4 years before engaging in any activity in support of a " cause".
The prerequisite would demand a cause be examined from points of view other than the "cause" focused individuals involving themselves. This would enable a well rounded person to find solutions beneficial to all while bringing their goal to fruition. This new, well rounded "thinktivist" would then be allowed to replace the ineffective, greasy, dead head wannabees currently carrying out the will of those who think for them and alternately driving away support of the masses with their stoned hijinx, zombie mantras, and personal attention whoring distracting from any good that could have been.

          For instance....Greenpeace. Eventually peopled by thintivists, Greenpeace studies the possibility of setting aside a high tech pasture of Ocean for the purpose of domesticating and breeding whales for the purpose of mass consumption, like cattle. This allows wild whales to live easier and everybody wins, except of course the domestic whales, but then they live to become product. Only PETA was harmed in this scenario, good or bad, by perspective. Peta should fund more lab grown meat if they want to save Porky and Bessie. THINK! Damn, I just can't make them THINK! But, I can continue to ridicule them, till they get it or go away annoyed. WIN WIN! We all benefit!

Prosecutors, these days.... (4, Interesting)

stox (131684) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046503)

seem to be having increasing difficulty distinguishing the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law. Anything to add yet another successful prosecution to their resume with no concern as to the effects on others or the betterment of society.

Re:Prosecutors, these days.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42046523)

The spirit of the law is obviosly to enhance the careers of those in law enforcement.

Wattyathinkpunk.

Re:Prosecutors, these days.... (2)

davester666 (731373) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046759)

Are you kidding me, that is WAY down the list

Above it are things like:
Can I get a conviction? This is pretty much the only performance metric for prosecutors. This includes taking into account how good a defense the accused can afford.
Am I ordered to prosecute by my superior? Will I be fired if I refuse?
Is there pressure from any groups to prosecute, just to harass the accused, even if the prosecution will fail, so in the future the group will help me [for example, the police force]?

The 'for the love of the law' people that aren't independently wealthy are generally removed through burnout by having all the crap dumped on them [because they love it!].

Re:Prosecutors, these days.... (3, Interesting)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046785)

Would you be saying something different if someone found a warehouse door open and reported it on a scrounger web site before they reported it to the owner of the warehouse? Data has value just like merchandise. The issue is not what they did but the way they did it. A true White Hat hacker would have told the company first and given them a chance to fix it before publicizing it.

Re:Prosecutors, these days.... (3, Informative)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046977)

Would you be saying something different if someone found a warehouse door open and reported it on a scrounger web site before they reported it to the owner of the warehouse?

Neither of his charges is about publicizing the the info. I could probably get on board with that

It seems that his charges are:
1. "by being in possession of the e-mails from AT&Tâ(TM)s leaky system he handled 'identification information'"
2. "case is based on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which forbids 'unauthorized access' to a computer." (definitely the equivalent of being charged for trespassing)

Show me which charge involves disseminating information on a scrounger website? Up to 5 years for trespassing in an open warehouse seems ridiculous (each charge carries up to 5 years)

If he is guilty of publishing the info - let's see a law that charges him with disseminating "identification information". But trying to make marginally related things stick is very, very dangerous.

Re:Prosecutors, these days.... (2)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049385)

Show me which charge involves disseminating information on a scrounger website? Up to 5 years for trespassing in an open warehouse seems ridiculous (each charge carries up to 5 years)

How about burglary (1-20 years depending on state) and possession of stolen property (up to 10 years in Washington State) would be the similar charge. They could not disseminate the information if they did not have it. They didn't just trespass, they copied the information and took it away. The charge is not about disseminating the information it has to do the possession of the information. Had they not stored the addresses the problem would have been a lot less severe.

Re:Prosecutors, these days.... (1)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049903)

How about burglary (1-20 years depending on state) and possession of stolen property (up to 10 years in Washington State) would be the similar charge.

Interesting point on possession of stolen property... Possession of copies of stolen property?
But -- can you get charged with burglary if the door was open?

Re:Prosecutors, these days.... (1)

mspohr (589790) | about a year and a half ago | (#42050027)

I don't think he "stole" the email addresses. AFAIK, they are still in ATT hands. No theft, no possession of stolen property. No burglary.
He copied stuff that was on a public web site. ATT probably didn't intend to make it publicly available, but that should be their problem, not his.

Re:Prosecutors, these days.... (2)

westlake (615356) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049025)

Prosecutors, these days seem to be having increasing difficulty distinguishing the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law.

The prosecutor has some discretion.

But there are limits.

He needs convincing and he tends to become cynical.

He has heard it all before.

The "spirit of the law" has to amount to something more --- much more, I afraid --- then the geek's self-serving plea that one of his own kind doesn't deserve to go to jail.

____

The geek is the quintessential outsider.

He ought to have learned by now not to rely on the kindness of strangers.

Re:Prosecutors, these days.... (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049333)

One thinks there must be more, some extortion or plan to misuse the info, that we aren't hearing about.

On the other hand, these are the same people who try to get teens who send cell phone nude shots to each other registered as lifelong sex offenders who produced and distributed child pornography.

Wrecking lives for a notch on the belt. So proud. Elect me!

Note to self (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42046525)

Next time I see a weakness in a system, EXPLOIT it or sell if to criminals. DO NOT report it..

Re:Note to self (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046621)

How about reporting it to the place that can fix it rather than to the public that can exploit it? Oh yeah, one does not have to do it millions of times to prove there is an issue. The script probably sent millions of requests to get the 110,000 valid responses.

Re:Note to self (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047283)

Because many times the company will just bury the problem instead of fixing it (not to mention persecute you anyway).

Re:Note to self (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049475)

Give them time to try fixing it. If they don't fix it and publicize it then go to the press. The right way is to give the company a chance to fix the problem.

It is difficult to bury a data security breach if it is in the courts.

Re:Note to self (1)

Jiro (131519) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047325)

If you report it to the owner they have this habit of either threatening to sue you unless you keep it quiet.

Re:Note to self (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049437)

Maybe maybe not. All web site owners do not react in the same way. Even if they did threaten a law suit they would have to prove it was you who told the press. If the site didn't fix the issue and go public with the problem then go to the press. Projecting what might happen and reacting to a possibility is just wrong.

The place that can fix it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42049185)

The only place that can fix corporate behaviour is the court of public opinion and mass action. The "Courts" are rigged, as is the government.

Weev is not an online activist. (4, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046543)

Weev is a troll [encyclopediadramatica.se]. He's better known to /. as one of the "president" of the GNAA [wikipedia.org]. An all around unpleasant fellow.

The unfortunate thing about this case is that Weev didn't actually do anything wrong here. AT&T published the email addresses, it should be AT&T facing prison time.

Re:Weev is not an online activist. (4, Insightful)

NewWorldDan (899800) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046757)

He did do something wrong here. Whatever his intentions, he was poking around AT&T's web server in a way he knew he shouldn't have been. Just because AT&T was wrong doesn't make him right. As an analogy, I often leave my car unlocked. If you take it, you're still a car thief, even if I should have taken better care of my car. In any event, you don't have to harvest 114k emails to demonstrate a problem.1 or 2 is adequate proof that there's a problem.

Re:Weev is not an online activist. (3, Insightful)

quacking duck (607555) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046897)

Better analogy is if you left confidential info clearly visible and readable in your car, and someone came along and saw it through the window, then told a nearby reporter about it, etc.

This guy didn't steal AT&T, after all.

Unfortunately, the car's owner is politically connected and his prosecutor buddy brings charges against you to cover up the owner's embarrassing blunder.

Re:Weev is not an online activist. (3, Interesting)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047079)

Even better analogy;
1.Leave confidential material in a folder in an unlocked room.(create an mechanism on the server to access info without proper security)
2. Someone come along and search the room (make semi-random requests to the server)
3. Copy the information in the folder (record the server responses)
4. Publish where the room is, where the folder is and the contents of the folder. (put the server name, request format and received data out on the internet)
A true White had would have told the company before publishing the breach and they would not have tried hundreds of thousands of requests. Just because there is not a lock on the door does not mean one can rummage through the room, copy the information and publish it.

Re:Weev is not an online activist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42047347)

A true White? No need to get all racist about this, buddy.

Re:Weev is not an online activist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42050157)

White Hat, White Hat, White Hat!

Re:Weev is not an online activist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42047333)

They weren't left clearly visible though. He had to probe and poke. This would be you sticking a stick through my open car window to leaf through my documents.

Re:Weev is not an online activist. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42047937)

Better analogy is if you left confidential info clearly visible and readable in your car, and someone came along and saw it through the window, got out a cell phone and photographed the page, then turned the page and photographed the next page, over 100 thousand times, then told a nearby reporter about it, etc.

You left out an important part, because intent matters. If they'd seen one or two e-mails and reported it, fine. Instead they put in a huge effort to create a database of such e-mails. Can anyone here honestly say that was done in good faith? Somewhere after collecting the first dozen, hundred, or maybe thousand e-mails they cross the line.

Re:Weev is not an online activist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42048127)

It's more like:
  * Setup a support hotline whereby consumers can ask any question on a list of supported questions.
  * Tell every support rep lots of information that you don't want becoming public, but don't tell them it shouldn't be public
  * Consumer asks their support rep about the non-public info simply by guessing the question that would make them reveal that.

Because remember their webserver is *actively* returning the results that were requested. The only difference between what he did, and clicking a link, is that he had to guess the URL because it wasn't published.

I think the permission to view the info is implicit in the server serving up the request with no authentication. If this is a crime, so is clicking on an old bookmark to a no longer supported URL.

Re:Weev is not an online activist. (1)

isilrion (814117) | about a year and a half ago | (#42050029)

Better analogy is if you left confidential info clearly visible and readable in your car, and someone came along and saw it through the window, then told a nearby reporter about it, etc.

An even better analogy: you left confidential info *about me* clearly visible and readable in your car. I had trusted you to keep it secure and I had not noticed that you were failing to do that. He saw it, and let me know in the only way he could.

I really can't understand all those "hacking victim" apologists (note the quotes). Currently it is illegal for me to accidentally discover that my bank/phone company/isp is leaking my information or allowing transactions in my name. Without that knowledge, I can't even "vote with my wallet" and choose a more secure venue. Yet the "hacking victim" apologists only focus on how wrong the "hacker" was, instead of that his actions were the only way to learn about the "victim"'s gross negligence.

Obviously your post is already receiving comments from apologists, "he had to poke", "he copied the information" (both of which are obvious, specially the copying, which is automatic, and required if you want to give warning). Those replies - people speaking against their own interests in defence of a negligent mega-corporation - sadden me.

Re:Weev is not an online activist. (4, Insightful)

grasshoppa (657393) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046915)

The car analogy doesn't work here, as a website is inherently a publicly offered service, whereas your car is not. There really isn't a good analogy for this situation, as it doesn't really require an analogy in the first place.

AT&T put private information on their public website. Mistake or not, their actions made the information public, not the defendant in this case.

AT&T is obviously to blame here.

Re:Weev is not an online activist. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42048169)

I hope he does jail time and I hope he gets the AIDS rape while in prison. So, beware, the next time you're hanging out in the all male bath house you might run into this AIDS infected faggot trying to get some play from you.

Re:Weev is not an online activist. (1)

hierophanta (1345511) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047065)

a better analogy would be - you are a valet and you left the cars unlocked. then someone told your boss that you do a shit job of valeting the cars. you then and go punch that someone in the face.

Whatever his intentions, he was poking around AT&T's web server in a way he knew he shouldn't have been.

the parallel of above is that the someone was looking at the cars parked in a private area. the valet company sells the idea that no one can do that (look at your car when it is parked with them) but then puts your car on the street.

Re:Weev is not an online activist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42047083)

Leaving your car unlocked is authorizing anyone who wants to enter your car. If they didn't want people snooping around their servers, they should have "locked the doors".

Re:Weev is not an online activist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42047487)

Leaving your car unlocked is authorizing anyone who wants to enter your car.

Citation needed. Where I come from, that's trespassing on private property.
This guy accessed information he knew he had no permission to access. He should be punished for doing it, and AT&T should be punished for not preventing it.

Re:Weev is not an online activist. (1)

tragedy (27079) | about a year and a half ago | (#42048183)

The information was being served by AT&T's servers without any sort of authentication required. The car analogy isn't a very good one. This is more like an entrance in a commercial building, parts of which are open to the public. When you go to a store, you expect to be able to walk into doors that are open to you, provided they're not marked "employees only" or something like that. If you walk into an open side door, discover it doesn't lead to the sales floor, then tell the store manager about it so that they'll close the door, you shouldn't be arrested for it.

Come to think of it, I've actually done something like that years and years ago. I walked into a restaurant once at around 9 in the morning. The place had one main door, which led to a small entry area with a door on the left and a door on the right. There was I was a bit desperate to go to the bathroom and wasn't really looking around, and the bathroom was right inside the door I took. When I was done using the bathroom, I thought I would see about having breakfast there. That turned out to be a problem because the place was closed. No-one was there at all. Seems that they just left the outer door open, and the inner door that I came in wasn't closing properly, so it didn't lock. When I realized that the place was closed, I left right away. I considered leaving a note about the sticking door, but decided against it. What if they had a security camera, checked it because of my note, got my license plate, then had me arrested? Most reasonable people would have recognized it as an honest mistake, but there are an alarming number of unreasonable people out there. I decided I wouldn't be helping them much by leaving a note. It's not as if anyone with a $5 crowbar couldn't have opened that door even if it wasn't sticking. Stories like this one make me more convinced that I was better off just keeping my head down.

Re:Weev is not an online activist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42048445)

Did you then use the bathroom 114,000 times?

Re:Weev is not an online activist. (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049633)

Um your quite wrong according to this site. Goatse Security obtained its data through a script on AT&T's website, accessible to anyone on the internet. When provided with an ICC-ID as part of an HTTP request, the script would return the associated email address, in what was apparently intended to be an AJAX-style response within a Web application. The group wrote a PHP script to automate the harvesting of data. Since a member of the group tells us the script was shared with third-parties prior to AT&T closing the security hole http://gawker.com/5559346/apples-worst-security-breach-114000-ipad-owners-exposed [gawker.com] Running a script is a whole lot different then just typing in a web address which most of the apologist here would have us think.

Re:Weev is not an online activist. (1)

Amouth (879122) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047195)

But taking your car would have deprived you of it. If you left the doors unlocked and i came by opened up and just took pictures of everything in your car without damaging or taking anything (but copying what i find) then I've taken nothing of yours, it isn't theft, and i have not broken and entered in any way.

Trying to use a physical theft as an analogy for digital works doesn't work because they are not the same.

Re:Weev is not an online activist. (2)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047203)

As an analogy, I often leave my car unlocked.

That analogy is so bad, it's dishonest. Your car is not a publically accessible communication system. AT&T's website is. Do you really think they're comparable? Seriously, shame on you.

Re:Weev is not an online activist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42047983)

It's 2012 and you're still using the car analogy

Re:Weev is not an online activist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42048229)

I suspect that, if he'd only harvested 1 or 2 emails, AT&T would have claimed that he couldn't possibly have done any more than that, and so they weren't guilty of any significant violation of confidentiality.

THE PARENT IS CORRECT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42046899)

Look this LOSER up.

Re:Weev is not an online activist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42047133)

Actuall there's some more facinating information about the case here [tinyurl.com]

Sorry about the link, the site is behind a paywall, which I don't like :(

Re:Weev is not an online activist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42047801)

LOL, nice tubgirl. Seriously, does anyone *not* use the preview feature?

Paul J. Fishman (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42046579)

I know little of the case, but it looks like this case is being brought by Paul J. Fishman, the U.S. District Attorney for New Jersey. According to Wikipedia (it's always correct), he used to work for Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman. A firm that represented the Communication Workers of America. Not surprisingly, the CWA regularly deals with AT&T.

Mr. Fishman was appointed by President Obama in 2009. If you don't like his actions, contact the Whitehouse and your representatives and let them know. Not that it'll matter, but maybe it'll make you feel better.

Or if you'd prefer, you can always contact his office directly for more information on the case: http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/contact.html [justice.gov] . Though, again, not that'll it matter.

Re:Paul J. Fishman (1)

alexo (9335) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047593)

If you don't like [...], contact the Whitehouse and your representatives and let them know. Not that it'll matter, but maybe it'll make you feel better.

And that is the most accurate and succinct summary of our(*) representative democracy that I have ever seen.

(*) I'm not from US but the situation in Canada isn't any better.

Re:Paul J. Fishman (1)

Guru80 (1579277) | about a year and a half ago | (#42048907)

In this day and age, it's a shame to say but going so far as to contact a congressman about anything you disagree with is probably just an excuse to add you to some sort of list to have your emails read and all that conspiracy crap. Not that contacting them about anything individually matters anyway. The only way it would even be noticed beyond a the standard generic form reply is if all of a sudden 10 million people emailed them.

So what? (2)

westlake (615356) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049367)

According to Wikipedia (it's always correct), he used to work for Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman. A firm that represented the Communication Workers of America. Not surprisingly, the CWA regularly deals with AT&T.

I would like to meet the man or woman with a senior position in law, finance, tech or government who at one time or another hasn't been friend or foe and often both to AT&T.

Hereabouts, you'll find them mighty thin on the ground.

AT&T Inc. is an American multinational telecommunications corporation headquartered in Whitacre Tower, downtown Dallas, Texas. AT&T is the largest provider both of mobile telephony and of fixed telephony in the United States, and also provides broadband subscription television services. As of 2010, AT&T is the seventh largest company in the United States by total revenue, and the fourth largest non-oil company (behind Walmart, General Electric, and Bank of America). It is the third-largest company in Texas (the largest non-oil company, behind only ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, and also the largest Dallas company). As of 2011, AT&T is the 14th largest company in the world by market value, and the 9th largest non-oil company. It is also the 20th largest mobile telecom operator in the world, with over 100.7 million mobile customers.

AT&T [wikipedia.org]

Wrong move (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42046595)

If he would have done the right thing and sold the information to Chinese hackers they would have given him a little cash and no one would be getting sued.

Playing whack-a-mole... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42046617)

The same argument used against these types of laws is the same thing which prompted even a congress bought and paid for to leave exceptions in the DMCA for scientists:

If identifiable people are caught and strung up, what will happen is that they will reach for the a tor proxy, a pastebin account, and what once was a private matter now is dirty laundry open for all to see.

I see it with the heavy-handed copyright enforcement methods. Those did work, but now most people doing torrents now use offshore VPNs, encrypting clients, and seedboxes. Had this not have been done, the police work needed to catch real crime would be a lot easier. These days, now everyone uses "envelopes" for their data which makes enforcement a lot harder. Now, unless an endpoint is compromised, it is difficult to gather evidence, and even then, even what would be a simple domestic case becomes something that requires the cooperation of multiple governments, each with differing laws, and few liking each other.

What I forsee happening is that security breaches won't be reported by researchers. Either the company a message send to them by someone behind a Guy Fawkes mask, or the exploit gets handed over to bad guys... and then the FBI ends up having to do the notifications.

Time for (un)civil disobedience (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42046629)

So it's just dandy for a company to fuck you over, pay some money to a class action lawyer and fuck you over again (Here's a coupon for your next purchase/upgrade, you're welcome). But when someone else points out, "Hey, this company is fucking you over!" he gets to go to jail.

Screw that. Time for (un)civil disobedience.

Something doesn't make sense to me... (1)

Slyfox696 (2432554) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046639)

According to the article attached to the summary, the way Weev accessed this information was typing in publicly accessible URLs. If that's the case, how in the world can he possibly be prosecuted for accessing a public website?

Something seems to be missing here. I'm guessing there's more to this story than what is written in the article.

if you saw an open bank vault (4, Interesting)

ozduo (2043408) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046765)

do you help yourself, tell the bank, or shout about it from the rooftops? Andrew Auernheimer shouted from the rooftops and deserves punishment.

Re:if you saw an open bank vault (1)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047243)

if you saw an open bank vault ... do you help yourself, tell the bank, or shout about it from the rooftops? Andrew Auernheimer shouted from the rooftops and deserves punishment.

1. Up to 10 years total seems a tad high, since we are talking about emails, not a bank

2. He is being charged with "handling private data" and "unauthorized access" to a computer. Tell me which one of these charges is equivalent to the "shouting from the rooftops".

If only his case involved charges such as "disseminating private information" or "promoting identity theft", but neither one of them looks like that.

Re:if you saw an open bank vault (1)

stafil (1220982) | about a year and a half ago | (#42048439)

do you help yourself, tell the bank, or shout about it from the rooftops?

Out of curiosity, if somebody was shouting about it from the rooftops; what's the law he would be breaking in that case?

Re:if you saw an open bank vault (1)

BrookHarty (9119) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049757)

Going to have to disagree, you can talk about anything you see in normally. If you opened the bank vault door first then yell its open, then you are guilty.

This guy reported a hack he found poking around, that's a crime. If he reported a hack he found while doing normal transaction, then its not a crime. I think its pretty easy to tell the difference.. Buffer overflows and exploits are not normal transactions. This is what makes the difference between white and black hat hackers. White hat doesn't perform intrusion without authorization. They can perform analysis on normal transactions, thus no law is being broke, as you are authorized for "normal use".

Former head of the GNAA (1)

Elbereth (58257) | about a year and a half ago | (#42046821)

I wonder how many of his defenders on Slashdot realize that this is Weev, the former president of the GNAA?

Still, I'm impressed with Slashdot's integrity, for once. After ten years of crapflooding and trolling by the GNAA, I would have thought that Slashdot would be a bit more antagonistic toward him.

Re:Former head of the GNAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42047137)

Most folks here weren't here 10 years ago, and even if they were they're too busy calling everyone Microsoft and Apple shills to notice any trolling. Their own piss in the ocean, etc.

Re:Former head of the GNAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42050777)

Plenty. The leaked iPad emails were a pretty big story.

Anyway, when it comes to the crunch, Weev is ultimately one of us. Whose ideologies do you think most closely match your own? The President of the USA or the President of the GNAA?

Guilty! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42046987)

http://twitter.com/apilosov

For those who didn't RTFA: (1)

random_ID (1822712) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047019)

He's facing 2 charges:

1) Violating an identity theft law by "being in possession of the e-mails." With no evidence that he planned to misuse the information.

2) Violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse act via "unauthorized access to a computer". Even though the information was publicly available on AT&T's website (not behind any kind of protection, not even a password).

I almost hope he's convicted on the latter charge; the publicity that will generate may lead to sane revision of these laws.

Re:For those who didn't RTFA: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42047901)

"With no evidence that he planned to misuse the information."

IRC logs clearly showed weev planned to misuse the information. It even included him talking about using the breach to manipulate AT&T stock...

This indictment includes the IRC log excepts: http://www.scribd.com/doc/113664772/46-Indictment

Jury Nullification. (1)

IMarvinTPA (104941) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047095)

Please, make sure the Jury knows about Jury Nullification. They can still declare him not guilty even if he technically broke the law. Juries are your protection against bad laws. Let them know it.

IMarv

Re:Jury Nullification. (2)

AvderTheTerrible (1960234) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047331)

The big problem with this is that Judges tend to dislike Juries being notified of that right and tend to throw people out for even mentioning it in court.

paladium.net (1)

murder_face (2574275) | about a year and a half ago | (#42047339)

I stumbled across this site when my father-in-law was pissing and moaning about how broke he is(111,000/year). It seems like the information here is far more dangerous than a bunch of leaked emails. Why is "free-speech" in this aspect protected, yet you can't publish a bunch of email addresses?

Re:paladium.net (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42047927)

He was planning to use the data for malicious purposes. Read the IRC logs included in the indictment.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/113664772/46-Indictment

Re:paladium.net (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42048067)

In what sane world are IRC logs admissible evidence? Oh, right...

Verdict: Guilty on both counts. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42047405)

This just in from twitter:

Andrew Auernheimer has been found guilty on one count of conspiracy to access a computer without authorization and one count of fraud.

So telling the truth is a crime now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42047913)

Government is the organized crime of plutocrats.

Re:So telling the truth is a crime now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42048409)

If I ever see you failing to properly shield an ATM from view while you use it, I'll definitely tell everybody I know "the truth" about your pin...

Can you say fascist police state? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42048725)

I know you can.

Regardless of the outcome of the court case against Andrew Auernheimer, his life has already been ruined by the spectre of the case and the time and resources it has taken from his life.

Here's who he screwed up .... (1)

sgt_doom (655561) | about a year and a half ago | (#42049455)

.... he was thoroughly ignorant of who owns AT&T --- had he been so, he would have approached things entirely differently (one hopes?).

Americans are thoroughly idiotized today --- the vast majority are still to eff-tard stupid to understand we live in a corporate fascist state, and that it is by purposeful design that Americans are completely ignorant of the ownership of those ruling corporations (especially the banksters, oil companies, pharmaceuticals and weapons makers, etc.).

Exactly why they re-arrested that Sergey Alenikov fellow (remember the programmer and Goldman Sachs' HFT software???). --- eff with JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, BofA, Citigroup, ExxonMobil, GE, AT&T, etc., and you're effing with the top five families in the Western Hemisphere, perhaps the planet.

conditioning (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42050401)

yeah it's difficulty to stand up like that all he might become is a lesson to others to not try the same thing

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...