Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Weev repetitively accessed information that he knew he was not authorized to access on a server owned by someone else.

These researchers took a phone they owned and setup a situation where a server they controlled sent messages the phone interpreted as coming from Apple. Those messages were used to extract the key from the phone they owned. They then used that key to access an account they owned and were the authorized user of.

Is there a technical case of unauthorized access if they used a non Apple client to access the photo? Maybe. Did they establish the same pattern as Weev, accessing information related to many other users? No.



> Weev repetitively accessed information that he knew he was not authorized to access on a server owned by someone else.

Not to mention giving the hack to Gawker before notifying AT&T, getting caught with cocaine, violating a gag order, and saying "I won't nearly be as nice next time" shortly before his sentencing.


All largely irrelevant to the issue that no real crime was committed. In any rational world, there has to be some difficulty to a hack before it is a "hack".

No locks were broken - not even the weakest 1bit password. Weev only incremented a number of a public endpoint.

The prosecution in his case, as in Aaron Swartz's, conspired to use their legal enforcement powers to intimidate the innocent. They literally, knowingly, tried to charge people for things they knew at the time weren't crimes, because they had been "humiliated" by losing earlier.

(*Innocent of the charges at hand - questions of someone's "other" guilt are out of scope.)


Walking through an open door can be criminal trespass (especially if you know you don't have permission to do so).

The problem isn't that easy hacks can be criminal, it's that the punishments are out of line with the harm done.


A 1-bit lock would be like "Employees only. Are you an employee? Yes/No". It's just enough to establish that you knew you were supposed to stay out.

And yes, a guilty-verdict and a one-cent fine wouldn't be too big of a deal. But ideally the courts just wouldn't even hear the case.


Actually, weev neither wrote the script nor ran it. Those were done by his codefendant.

Weev took the data provided to him by his codefendant and gave it to Gawker.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: