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 beat up this guy but my only regret is that I didn't break his other arm too". Smart move.

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 prison, you'd probably leave the US if you were doing anything in security research, change how you vote, etc.

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.

> If he doesn't care why should I?

If you pay US taxes you're paying to keep him in jail. I think he's a vile idiot. I don't think he should be in prison.

There's a bunch of stuff that I think he did wrong, but I'll have to read the court documents to see if I agree with them.

For example: He could have written a proof of concept script, and only downloaded a sample 10 pages, rather than grabbing as many as possible.

I might think that would have prevented him going to jail, but would the court agree?

Most likely. He would at least have leverage to say he just needed proof the exploit worked after he notified AT&T (which he claims he did, but I didn't find any clear evidence he had). Once you download over 100,000 records, your intent becomes a lot clearer in the eyes of the law.

Had he only downloaded a few records, chances are he might get some community service and probation. Also, his stupidity in taking to Reddit to proclaim next time he won't be so nice didn't help either.

I believe from extensive conversations with weev that his intent is and was always to fuck with ATT as much as possible without targeting innocents.

Malicious? Sure. Criminal. Not a chance.

He loves manipulating press and media for his own entertainment. The bigger the number, the bigger of an asshole he makes ATT look like by their not protecting it, and the more anguish he causes their management by damage to their brand and stock price.

A valid effort, I think, as manipulating some shitty corporation's reputation with FACTUAL DATA is one of the least underhanded ways of achieving the goal of "fuck with ATT".

I don't know if it prevented him from going to jail, but I'm sure if he'd behave responsibly there would be no way he'd get 3 years. But then he'd not be him, and the whole matter would be different. The whole point here is that he is him, and if he'd get a slap on the wrist he'd probably just decide he's invincible and nobody could harm him and proceed to do more harmful things with a full sense of impunity.

There are some things he deserves serious punishment for. Some of the things he has done have affected other people directly.

So why do those behaviours escape punishment, while this thing gets a prison sentence?

Because our world is imperfect and justice not always finds the guilty. In this case, his karma finally caught up with him. He was guilty, he behaved like an ass and he got 3.5 years, even though if he didn't he probably would get much less. I can see EFFs point that 3.5 years is too much too, though I personally feel very little sympathy to Auernheimer. If he wises up, he'd be out in less than 2 years probably, if he doesn't, well...

Because living at the mercy of the government only not prosecuting you simply because they think you're not a dick doesn't scale to 100% of a free society.

This is why the ACLU defended the Klan.

The ACLU defended the right of the Klan to march.

This is different than a Klansman being on trial for his car crashing into a bus stop full of black kids, and then publicly announcing before sentencing that "I'm only sorry I didn't kill any of darkies."

The Klansman's own words are used to show intent. Without them, he might legitimately argue that it was a honest accident. Maybe believably, depending on other evidence.

Using someone's own words against them in court is not a violation of freedom of speech. Intent matters, and that doesn't mean we have thought-crime.

Show me the case where somebody is prosecuted solely because "they think you're a dick" - as opposed to actually doing something criminal while being a dick - and you'd have much stronger case. I'm not aware of ACLU defending any criminal actions of the Klan. If we talked about Auernheimer's freedom to express his views, however vile may they be, it'd be completely different case.

You will when its your turn.

Somehow I'm not concerned yet. When I'd feel the urge to take personal data of 100K users from AT&T and publish them and then a day before my sentencing I'd feel it necessary to say my only regret is that I didn't do more harm - then I'd be concerned more. Don't foresee it happening soon, though.

The PII was never published by anyone except AT&T.

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.

But how differently did the Justice Dep't. act with respect to the charging of Swartz?

>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.

And to be fair, if he didn't do things like the AMA, he probably would have gotten the 3-6 month sentence.

His comrade got 12-15mo, so I think there was little chance of weev getting less (and probably 24mo was the most likely). I predicted 3y before his last little bit of trolling.

Trolling isn't illegal, and should not be a factor in this discussion.

They didn't sentence him for previous trolling, name calling, or tom foolery.

>>> "This is along troll by him"

The only person he's trolling, is himself.

Watching the prosecutor butcher pronouncing "regexps" in federal court was worth it.

(Seriously, they read his AMA responses in court this morning. Weev's a shithead, but still: 't'was glorious. )

Technological ignorance from the law makers and the judicial system is in part why that law exists and why Weev is locked up. It's funny to hear them butcher technical words and to see the word "Goatse" on CNN.

..But I've stopped laughing. It's time that technologists step up efforts to change things in the favor of communication and free speech.

I put $50k on the line to bail him out and talked him out of aaronsw'ing himself several times during the last few years while this nightmare progressed.

I must've missed you at the sentencing this morning. I was the hungover one in the mirrorshades.

i know you did. More people should stand up like you did.I think if Aaron had a better support network, he'd still be around.

If you're still on this side of the pond, we should grab a drink.

Oh, I didn't read your username until just now.

1. First, it's going to be appealed to an appeals court :)

2. Generally, if you are smart, you don't bring wildly unsympathetic defendants to SCOTUS at all (IE you don't go to war over them). There are cases it doesn't matter, but one of the reason we ended up with so many 4th amendment exceptions is, IMHO, because of the habit of bringing really unsympathetic people/facts to SCOTUS back when we had justices like O'Connor.

Obviously it goes through the process, but I think the feds will push to keep CFAA as well, so it's going to go all the way. 41 months is long enough for that; if he'd gotten a 3-6 month sentence the process wouldn't have had time, so maybe weev's "troll the courts" strategy had some merit.

While weev himself is highly unsympathetic, his actual "crime" in this case is quite sympathetic -- it was technically trivial and the results were given to the press, vs. used for financial gain (even though they talked about it). So maybe it's not the worst possible test case.

His biggest mistake was not being in the 9th circuit, though.

(IANAL though, of course)

FWIW: I don't think SCOTUS will bother taking the case if he loses his first appeal.

IAAL :)

So the most likely route for a case like this to SCOTUS would be split circuit? I doubt this is the last CFAA case.

Assuming he loses, yes, losing elsewhere and having a circuit split is probably the most likely route.

But who knows, maybe scotus would get bored enough to find it interesting.

I'm betting "no" in part because legislative fixes are being considered right now. If one passes, it would reduce the odds SCOTUS would ever take the case.

He needs to win on appeal for this to go to SCOTUS.

That's part of it, but it was a natural reaction to the total collapse of order and the explosion in crime in U.S. cities in the 1970's and 1980's. The fact is that most of the people invoking the 4th amendment were really unsympathetic. They still are.

Of course they're unsympathetic -- if they were merely good citizens who were hassled for no good reason, there wouldn't have been a charge.

Improper search and seizure leading to a trial is going to have found drugs/guns/whatever, by definition. That doesn't mean the rest of us should have our 4th amendment rights weakened.

I don't disagree with you. My point is that it's important to understand the context. The federal courts are absolutely clogged with appeals and habeas petitions from "bad people" who clearly did whatever they were charged with. People who are just trying to get off for serious crimes by grasping at technicalities (because they're in prison and have nothing better to do anyway). For all the skepticism about the police, they don't like losing prosecutions and as a result tend to go after slam-dunk cases.

For the courts charged with maintaining these protections, it can be hard to keep a hard-line stance in favor of 4th/5th amendment protections in face of a docket that is chock full of actual criminals who actually deserve their sentences.

It's an explanation, not a justification.