I don't know for sure, but if it was an iPad, then why wouldn't it say that in the text which I quoted?
The usage of the word tablet leads me to believe that there is a greater possibility that it was something like an Android tablet instead. And also, I believe that criminal, hacker types of people, the kind who are losers and likes to tinker with things instead of doing anything actually useful are more attracted to an anything goes platform, such as Android.
"The judge handed down the sentence following a minor skirmish in the courtroom when the defendant, Andrew Auernheimer, aka Weev, was pinned and cuffed. Auernheimer was reportedly asked to hand the court a mobile phone he had with him during the hearing, and after handing it to his defense attorney instead, court agents cuffed him."
'The internet, so much info, so little to be found'
While I understand your thinking that he might be using an 'anything goes' platform, it looks like he wrote the script on a PC. Whatever model / OS that might have been...
The fundamental question is: does posting people's email information on the Internet warrant a sentence longer than most rapists get?
If we're talking one account violation v. one rape incident that I don't think even Apple ][, who typically is all-or-nothing when it comes to enforcing the law, would say they should be treated the same. However, we're talking about over 100k incidences. How long is the typical imprisonment for a violent crime? I don't think 41 months to long for a violent crime, especially one that is likely pre-meditated, but let's say it's exactly on-half. Is 1/50,000th that of the rape punishment too much? Doesn't sound like it to me.
Also, what struck me are his comments about "next time." Can you imagine a rapist saying "I won't nearly be as nice next time."
"The judge handed down the sentence following a minor skirmish in the courtroom when the defendant, Andrew Auernheimer, aka Weev, was pinned and cuffed. Auernheimer was reportedly asked to hand the court a mobile phone he had with him during the hearing, and after handing it to his defense attorney instead, court agents cuffed him."
'The internet, so much info, so little to be found'
While I understand your thinking that he might be using an 'anything goes' platform, it looks like he wrote the script on a PC. Whatever model / OS that might have been...
My quote came from the Verge, so either Wired has it wrong or the Verge does.
Or maybe it was one of those phablets, and that could possibly explain the confusion, with one source calling it a phone and the other source calling it a tablet?
Also, what struck me are his comments about "next time." Can you imagine a rapist saying "I won't nearly be as nice next time."
Sounds to me like someone who needs jailed for life.
He has stated, on the record, that he has zero intention of not performing illegal activity in the future. That's fine; now you don't even get the CHANCE to do it.
Also, what struck me are his comments about "next time." Can you imagine a rapist saying "I won't nearly be as nice next time."
Yeah, the guy definitely comes off as a douche with his comments. The judge should add to his sentence just for his douchebag comments. And you are correct, not even Apple ][ thinks that rapists and hackers should be treated the same or that their crimes are equal.
A rape is just one person getting violated. This guy electronically violated the info of 114,000 people.
And just because some rapists might get off light, that doesn't mean that this guy's sentence was too harsh. I support the death penalty for rape, and I don't believe that this guy's sentence was too harsh.
If you read the details, it was only email addresses (not credit card information or the like, which could be used for fraud or identity theft).
For sure he deserves to spend a fair bit of time thinking about what he did and why it's wrong (he clearly doesn't have an understanding of that at the moment). And I agree on stronger sentences for rapists (though I don't believe in the death penalty, but that's a different topic). However, ideal world aside, given the current precedents set for the measure of punishment relative to the severity of the crime in our legal system, this is a harsh sentence.
Sounds to me like someone who needs jailed for life.
He has stated, on the record, that he has zero intention of not performing illegal activity in the future. That's fine; now you don't even get the CHANCE to do it.
At the very least, I think that he should be banned from ever using any computer device for as long as he lives. No desktop, no laptop, no tablet, no phone, not even an Apple TV. He shouldn't even be allowed to own a microwave, if it has a CPU chip inside of it.
At the very least, I think that he should be banned from ever using any computer device for as long as he lives. No desktop, no laptop, no tablet, no phone, not even an Apple TV. He shouldn't even be allowed to own a microwave, if it has a CPU chip inside of it.
That's the problem. The second he's out, he'll just go to a computer cafe and buy one of his own. Letting him out does absolutely nothing. He WILL not only use computing devices, he'll own a ton of them. As many as he wants.
That's the problem. The second he's out, he'll just go to a computer cafe and buy one of his own. Letting him out does absolutely nothing. He WILL not only use computing devices, he'll own a ton of them. As many as he wants.
He was already forbidden from using computers.
Under the terms of his pre-sentence parole, Auernheimer was unable to use a computer with a keyboard.
That sounds very vague and they should make it stricter if he's let out in the future and is on parole.
If we're talking one account violation v. one rape incident that I don't think even Apple ][, who typically is all-or-nothing when it comes to enforcing the law, would say they should be treated the same. However, we're talking about over 100k incidences. How long is the typical imprisonment for a violent crime? I don't think 41 months to long for a violent crime, especially one that is likely pre-meditated, but let's say it's exactly on-half. Is 1/50,000th that of the rape punishment too much? Doesn't sound like it to me.
Also, what struck me are his comments about "next time." Can you imagine a rapist saying "I won't nearly be as nice next time."
Consider that a bot which scours the Internet harvesting email addresses for the purpose of spamming (or information sale) can collect far more email addresses than that in just a few hours. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if many such bots have harvested the exact same email addresses he did based on how easy it was to obtain them.
But regardless, he did what he did (harvested and published information which was not his to do so with), and shows no understanding of why that's wrong. Hence he deserves to be punished. However, I still hold to my original point: the punishment does not fit the crime (relative to the current precedent set for other crimes).
That's like saying you are allowed to take money out of a companies cash register because it popped open once you paid for something, or steal a car because you found the keys on the street.
It's not even remotely like that. It's more like if you called up someone at AT&T and said "hey, give me the email addresses of all the iPad users" and they did. Yes, it's that simple.
At the very least, I think that he should be banned from ever using any computer device for as long as he lives. No desktop, no laptop, no tablet, no phone, not even an Apple TV. He shouldn't even be allowed to own a microwave, if it has a CPU chip inside of it.
This is where I absolutely agree with you. Instead of lengthy prison time, where he'll likely just make connections with organized crime and become a black hat hacker when he gets out, why not just cut off his access to any device with Internet access for anything other than legitimate work (where usage would be closely monitored)? That would be a far more effective punishment IMO.
Interesting argument. What do you mean by "publicly accessible"? My bank offers a "publicly accessible" user access online but you have to have the proper credentials to access that info. If someone breaks into my account and posts my personal, private info can they really use the excuse that it was accessible by the public?
He wrote a script that queried a database with a public portal. It was nothing like hacking into someone's bank account. No passwords were involved. AT&T simply gave him the email addresses the script asked for.
Consider that a bot which scours the Internet harvesting email addresses for the purpose of spamming (or information sale) can collect far more email addresses than that in just a few hours. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if many such bots have harvested the exact same email addresses he did based on how easy it was to obtain them.
Are these other bots grabbing freely published email addresses to the internet or using subversive methods to find back doors into private areas to harvest these numbers. It sounds like arguing that a guy who breaks into a home to steal jewelry is just as guilty as someone who scores the streets after Mardi Gras looking for jewerly someone left behind on the street. They seem very different to me.
Hence he deserves to be punished. However, I still hold to my original point: the punishment does not fit the crime (relative to the current precedent set for other crimes).
I understand what you're saying but I think the first and second part of your comment are illogically stated. For it to be true you have to concede that precedent set for other crimes are fair and just. I don't think I could make that statement, especially if we're talking about someone doing a violent crime such as rape and getting less than 41 months.
He wrote a script that queried a database with a public portal. It was nothing like hacking into someone's bank account. No passwords were involved. AT&T simply gave him the email addresses the script asked for.
Define public portal. Meaning this was a well known site that any ICC-ID inputted that matched an account would spit back the email address? If so, then you may have a good counter-argument, but I have to wonder why his defense attorney was so inept at proving that point and why you didn't start off your comments here with better argument.
Auernheimer and 27-year-old Daniel Spitler (who accepted a plea bargain last year) wrote a script that randomly pinged AT&T's website with ICC-IDs
So if you drop your ATM card on the street, and I pick it up and figure out your pin code, it's ok for me to access your account?
This dipshit intentionally went and stole the info of 114,000 iOS users. Yes, AT&T was lax in their security, but that is no excuse for thievery.
If you dropped your ATM card on the street, a hacker would still need your password for it to be of any use. AT&T's database didn't require anyone's password. It just handed out the email addresses when his script asked for them with ID numbers.
Auernheimer is going to appeal this ruling, and he'll probably win.
Define public portal. Meaning this was a well known site that any ICC-ID inputted that matched an account would spit back the email address? If so, then you may have a good counter-argument, but I have to wonder why his defense attorney was so inept at proving that point and why you didn't start off your comments here with better argument.
That's exactly what happened. His script inputted ICC-IDs, and the database handed him the email addresses. It was ridiculously easy, not rocket science. AT&T deserved to be bitch-slapped over this. But instead they threw the book at Auernheimer.
I agree that his attorney dropped the ball. But even the prosecution admitted that they had little understanding of how computers worked. If anything, it appears that Auernheimer was convicted because of computer illiteracy on everyone's part.
That's exactly what happened. His script inputted ICC-IDs, and the database handed him the email addresses. It was ridiculously easy, not rocket science. AT&T deserved to be bitch-slapped over this. But instead they threw the book at Auernheimer.
OK, I can see a strong case for your point but I really you didn't present your case very well. I asked a question which you replied in post number 35 as being what happened.
If there was no actual digital "breaking and entering" I can completely side with you can auxio's comments about it being too harsh. In fact, I don't see how any jail time would be required or why this is even a criminal case if what you now present is correct.
Honestly I've done more loophole exploitations with my school's network in the form of trying to get certain internet-based services to work in a controlled environment.
Honestly I've done more loophole exploitations with my school's network in the form of trying to get certain internet-based services to work in a controlled environment.
Comments
Says here that it wasn't a tablet, but a phone he was using when being cuffed:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/att-hacker-gets-3-years/
"The judge handed down the sentence following a minor skirmish in the courtroom when the defendant, Andrew Auernheimer, aka Weev, was pinned and cuffed. Auernheimer was reportedly asked to hand the court a mobile phone he had with him during the hearing, and after handing it to his defense attorney instead, court agents cuffed him."
'The internet, so much info, so little to be found'
While I understand your thinking that he might be using an 'anything goes' platform, it looks like he wrote the script on a PC. Whatever model / OS that might have been...
If we're talking one account violation v. one rape incident that I don't think even Apple ][, who typically is all-or-nothing when it comes to enforcing the law, would say they should be treated the same. However, we're talking about over 100k incidences. How long is the typical imprisonment for a violent crime? I don't think 41 months to long for a violent crime, especially one that is likely pre-meditated, but let's say it's exactly on-half. Is 1/50,000th that of the rape punishment too much? Doesn't sound like it to me.
Also, what struck me are his comments about "next time." Can you imagine a rapist saying "I won't nearly be as nice next time."
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Says here that it wasn't a tablet, but a phone he was using when being cuffed:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/att-hacker-gets-3-years/
"The judge handed down the sentence following a minor skirmish in the courtroom when the defendant, Andrew Auernheimer, aka Weev, was pinned and cuffed. Auernheimer was reportedly asked to hand the court a mobile phone he had with him during the hearing, and after handing it to his defense attorney instead, court agents cuffed him."
'The internet, so much info, so little to be found'
While I understand your thinking that he might be using an 'anything goes' platform, it looks like he wrote the script on a PC. Whatever model / OS that might have been...
My quote came from the Verge, so either Wired has it wrong or the Verge does.
Or maybe it was one of those phablets, and that could possibly explain the confusion, with one source calling it a phone and the other source calling it a tablet?
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Also, what struck me are his comments about "next time." Can you imagine a rapist saying "I won't nearly be as nice next time."
Sounds to me like someone who needs jailed for life.
He has stated, on the record, that he has zero intention of not performing illegal activity in the future. That's fine; now you don't even get the CHANCE to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Also, what struck me are his comments about "next time." Can you imagine a rapist saying "I won't nearly be as nice next time."
Yeah, the guy definitely comes off as a douche with his comments. The judge should add to his sentence just for his douchebag comments. And you are correct, not even Apple ][ thinks that rapists and hackers should be treated the same or that their crimes are equal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
A rape is just one person getting violated. This guy electronically violated the info of 114,000 people.
And just because some rapists might get off light, that doesn't mean that this guy's sentence was too harsh. I support the death penalty for rape, and I don't believe that this guy's sentence was too harsh.
If you read the details, it was only email addresses (not credit card information or the like, which could be used for fraud or identity theft).
For sure he deserves to spend a fair bit of time thinking about what he did and why it's wrong (he clearly doesn't have an understanding of that at the moment). And I agree on stronger sentences for rapists (though I don't believe in the death penalty, but that's a different topic). However, ideal world aside, given the current precedents set for the measure of punishment relative to the severity of the crime in our legal system, this is a harsh sentence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Sounds to me like someone who needs jailed for life.
He has stated, on the record, that he has zero intention of not performing illegal activity in the future. That's fine; now you don't even get the CHANCE to do it.
At the very least, I think that he should be banned from ever using any computer device for as long as he lives. No desktop, no laptop, no tablet, no phone, not even an Apple TV. He shouldn't even be allowed to own a microwave, if it has a CPU chip inside of it.
Originally Posted by Apple ][
At the very least, I think that he should be banned from ever using any computer device for as long as he lives. No desktop, no laptop, no tablet, no phone, not even an Apple TV. He shouldn't even be allowed to own a microwave, if it has a CPU chip inside of it.
That's the problem. The second he's out, he'll just go to a computer cafe and buy one of his own. Letting him out does absolutely nothing. He WILL not only use computing devices, he'll own a ton of them. As many as he wants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That's the problem. The second he's out, he'll just go to a computer cafe and buy one of his own. Letting him out does absolutely nothing. He WILL not only use computing devices, he'll own a ton of them. As many as he wants.
He was already forbidden from using computers.
Under the terms of his pre-sentence parole, Auernheimer was unable to use a computer with a keyboard.
That sounds very vague and they should make it stricter if he's let out in the future and is on parole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
If we're talking one account violation v. one rape incident that I don't think even Apple ][, who typically is all-or-nothing when it comes to enforcing the law, would say they should be treated the same. However, we're talking about over 100k incidences. How long is the typical imprisonment for a violent crime? I don't think 41 months to long for a violent crime, especially one that is likely pre-meditated, but let's say it's exactly on-half. Is 1/50,000th that of the rape punishment too much? Doesn't sound like it to me.
Also, what struck me are his comments about "next time." Can you imagine a rapist saying "I won't nearly be as nice next time."
Consider that a bot which scours the Internet harvesting email addresses for the purpose of spamming (or information sale) can collect far more email addresses than that in just a few hours. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if many such bots have harvested the exact same email addresses he did based on how easy it was to obtain them.
But regardless, he did what he did (harvested and published information which was not his to do so with), and shows no understanding of why that's wrong. Hence he deserves to be punished. However, I still hold to my original point: the punishment does not fit the crime (relative to the current precedent set for other crimes).
It's not even remotely like that. It's more like if you called up someone at AT&T and said "hey, give me the email addresses of all the iPad users" and they did. Yes, it's that simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
At the very least, I think that he should be banned from ever using any computer device for as long as he lives. No desktop, no laptop, no tablet, no phone, not even an Apple TV. He shouldn't even be allowed to own a microwave, if it has a CPU chip inside of it.
This is where I absolutely agree with you. Instead of lengthy prison time, where he'll likely just make connections with organized crime and become a black hat hacker when he gets out, why not just cut off his access to any device with Internet access for anything other than legitimate work (where usage would be closely monitored)? That would be a far more effective punishment IMO.
He wrote a script that queried a database with a public portal. It was nothing like hacking into someone's bank account. No passwords were involved. AT&T simply gave him the email addresses the script asked for.
Are these other bots grabbing freely published email addresses to the internet or using subversive methods to find back doors into private areas to harvest these numbers. It sounds like arguing that a guy who breaks into a home to steal jewelry is just as guilty as someone who scores the streets after Mardi Gras looking for jewerly someone left behind on the street. They seem very different to me.
I understand what you're saying but I think the first and second part of your comment are illogically stated. For it to be true you have to concede that precedent set for other crimes are fair and just. I don't think I could make that statement, especially if we're talking about someone doing a violent crime such as rape and getting less than 41 months.
Define public portal. Meaning this was a well known site that any ICC-ID inputted that matched an account would spit back the email address? If so, then you may have a good counter-argument, but I have to wonder why his defense attorney was so inept at proving that point and why you didn't start off your comments here with better argument.
If you dropped your ATM card on the street, a hacker would still need your password for it to be of any use. AT&T's database didn't require anyone's password. It just handed out the email addresses when his script asked for them with ID numbers.
Auernheimer is going to appeal this ruling, and he'll probably win.
That's exactly what happened. His script inputted ICC-IDs, and the database handed him the email addresses. It was ridiculously easy, not rocket science. AT&T deserved to be bitch-slapped over this. But instead they threw the book at Auernheimer.
I agree that his attorney dropped the ball. But even the prosecution admitted that they had little understanding of how computers worked. If anything, it appears that Auernheimer was convicted because of computer illiteracy on everyone's part.
OK, I can see a strong case for your point but I really you didn't present your case very well. I asked a question which you replied in post number 35 as being what happened.
If there was no actual digital "breaking and entering" I can completely side with you can auxio's comments about it being too harsh. In fact, I don't see how any jail time would be required or why this is even a criminal case if what you now present is correct.
Honestly I've done more loophole exploitations with my school's network in the form of trying to get certain internet-based services to work in a controlled environment.
Mr Auernheimer is about to experience the mother-of-all-backdoor-intrusions.
Probably with full nine and a half inch key encryption.
Ouch.
You had internet at school?