Jail Looms For Man Who Revealed AT&T Leaked iPad User E-Mails 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."
He did it wrong, obviously (Score:4, Informative)
Anon pastebin is the way.
Weev is not an online activist. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Paul J. Fishman (Score:3, Informative)
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:Prosecutors, these days.... (Score:4, Informative)
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.