> 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?