The guys sounds like a social engineering genius.

Perhaps AT&T should have employed him to protect their systems, instead of punishing him.

The indictment at https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/press-release/file/1191031... mentions that they worked with brick and mortar stores that do phone unlocking. I wonder how many of these were stolen phones? Otherwise, it seems like a big number of customers just walking away from their bills.

> At Fahd's sentencing hearing, Judge Robert S. Lasnik said he committed a "terrible cybercrime over an extended period"

Does anyone else picture the old, wrinkly, bribed, tech-illiterate judge who probably made this decision in their head while they read this?

We live in a capitalist dystopian hellscape.

That’s your takeaway from this article?

That's my takeaway as well. What's yours?

An individual committed a sophisticated crime against a business by recruiting employees of that business. He did so at great cost to that business, while knowing it was a crime, to enrich himself. He got caught and prosecuted. How do you get "capitalist dystopian hellscape" from that?

Disagreement with the premise of the law and/or judgement, on the basis of being overwhelmingly unfair to those without capital. And this case is just part of a trend.

unfair in what way? There is no mention that the people getting out of paying their contracts were poor in the article. Even if they were, what should be done about it? Should people creating smart phones not be compensated for the work that they do? Or the employees of companies involved with delivering telecom services? What is "fair" in your mind? Engineers, manufacturers and customer service people being paid below market rate to deliver premium products like smartphones to people without capital? What's wrong with people purchasing devices in their price range? There are smartphones on the market unlocked for $60.

Carrier locking should be illegal. It's anti-choice and anti-competitive. Ideally, everyone would buy phones directly from manufacturers or from retailers. Carriers should be free to sell phones, even at a markup, to customers who don't know any better, but they at least shouldn't be allowed to carrier lock these phones, so the customer is free to move to another carrier at any time. You could argue that the customer is "free" to simply purchase an unlocked phone, but we shouldn't expect the average consumer to be knowledgeable enough to even know what a carrier lock is in the first place. The people having their phones unlocked early through this service probably didn't even realize they were buying a locked phone when they bought it. All they wished to do is free their phone of this arbitrary carrier restriction, so they could have the freedom to switch to another carrier. "Freedom" as in the choice between AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and Sprint... oh wait, scratch that last one.

Disgraceful. This makes me irrationally mad.

Wait what? Did he sold 1.9M unlocks online or he just unlocked everyones phones as part if a robin hood hack?

Any chance at&t can be fined for the fraud they commit on a regular business (like keeping phones locked that have been bought outright).

If your phone is paid for, and your are out of contract, an you are in the US, your carrier must allow you to unlock your phone in regards to carrier locks. This is a requirement from the CTIA Consumer Code for Wireless Service that all major providers in the US are a signature.

see : https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/cell-phone-unlocking-fa...

Will they make it hard, probably, but at the end of the day, they will comply.

They will not unlock Bootloaders and there are no laws to require them to, and the FCC doesn't have authority over this element of phones.