Andrew Auernheimer Case Uncomfortably Similar To Aaron Swartz Case

TrueSatan writes "Andrew Auernheimer doesn't appear suicidal, no thanks to U.S. prosecutors, yet he has been under attack for his act of altering an API URL that revealed a set of user data and posting details of same. 'In June of 2010 there was an AT&T webserver on the open Internet. There was an API on this server, a URL with a number at the end. If you incremented this number, you saw the next iPad 3G user email address. I thought it was egregiously negligent for AT&T to be publishing a complete target list of iPad 3G owners, and I took a sample of the API output to a journalist at Gawker.' Auernheimer has been under investigation from that point onward, with restrictions on his freedom and ability to earn a living that are grossly disproportionate to any perceived crime. This is just as much a case of legislative overreach and the unfettered power of prosecutors as was Swartz's case."

Comments

Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States, collectively, has lost its fucking mind.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

That seems to summarize the root of the problem quite well. Individually, I believe most Americans are quite sane and normal people. But as a whole, the USA has gone insane. It's caught in its own stupid system.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Define sane.

Posted a/c out of agreement with the GP post.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Individually, I believe most Americans are quite sane and normal people.

Normal people are highly unintelligent, so it's not a good thing that they're "normal." Sane? No one sane would accept the TSA, the Patriot Act, free speech zones, or hell, basically warrantless anything. They're both unintelligent and insane.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[havana9]

Read the title in Dalek voice. The World Economic Foum i sel in Davos in 1971. The Dalek's creator is Davos? Coincidence? We think not.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[captainpanic]

Insane is when you post this as AC, because you live in the Land of the Free.

Where I live, Freedom is a reality, not just a marketing slogan.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

That, and, save a few likely-to-be martyred brave souls, it's collective courage.

So many of us are quick to bitch and moan from a safe distance, and so few are willing to put their comfy lifestyles and candy asses on the line to do something about it.

Start with the realization that the system is irrevocably and irreparably broken. You can't vote your way out of a corporatist oligarchy.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Insane is when you post this as AC, because you live in the Land of the Free.

Where I live, Freedom is a reality, not just a marketing slogan.

In a land where the river runs free
In a land through the green country
In a land to a shining sea
And you and me are free to post as AC.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I live, Freedom is a reality

And on which planet do you live?

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[qbast]

"The system" has been built bit by bit by those "sane and normal" American. You live in republic not dictatorship, remember? You can either have that warm feeling of superiority over you "land of free" OR you can pretend that "the system" is something you have no responsibility for. So next time you read about teen hounded to death by "the system", remember: it is also YOUR fault.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[couchslug]

The idea that things have gotten worse implies some magical time when they were different.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Davros, actually

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[bbelt16ag]

"and to those who are to blame you only need look in a mirror..." V

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Rich0]

Agree in part, but as long as 80% of the voters watch Fox News and attack ads and do what the rest of the 80% of America tells them to do we're going to end up with more of the same.

Very few people enter into reasoned debate and bother to understand issues before voting on them. If everybody they associate is talking about death panels, then there must be death panels.

The result is that the only way to get elected is to spend enormous amounts of money on advertising and influencing public opinion. The only way to get that kind of money is to be in bed with special interests. The go-easy-on-the-little-guy group doesn't have much money to give.

Unless we can somehow end bribery there really isn't any way to fix these issues. And corporate interests are just part of the problem - the US takes positions that impose on personal liberty in countless social issues that probably don't have corporate interests behind them. In the US everybody loves to tell everybody else what they can do...

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States, collectively, has lost its fucking mind.

More precisely, the US has collectively been asleep for the last 35 or so years and has morphed into a corporatocracy, in which case the Justice Department is behaving as expected and protecting the interests of AT&T.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

>Agree in part, but as long as 80% of the voters watch Fox News

Uhm, it's the Obama administration, silly.

The sad truth that NO ONE wants to hear or face:

In general, the slashdot crowd voted for this. Obama sold the VP to the copyright industry for two terms before his first election: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html

This issue has always been avoided by the slashdot crowd, and downvoted when Obama needed to be elected.

Biden, however, before Obama's first election, has made very clear that he wants hard prison time for copyright violators. This is his job, he was hired for it by the industry. You know, hard prison time for REAL persons. His sponsors are also public and well known.

So most of you voted for this. And are hypocrites now. Because you choose to ignore it, to get your man elected. Granted, the other man was worse, but had other sponsors. The hard prison time for REAL persons was ignored. So, Swartz' death is the collateral damage of your own actions and vote, and to make it worse, many are totally ignoring this while pointing fingers at "the government" and "the prosecutor", who are just implementing the administration's policy, which you voted for. Or even blame Fox.

How convenient for you.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

I see a flaw in your thinking. If 80 % of the voters watch Fox News, how did Obama get elected President?

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Zemran]

Wrong, it should 'selectively prosecute those who threaten profit, lets not worry about all those crazies with sub machine guns'

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[elfprince13]

MSNBC ;)

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[TheRaven64]

They were too busy watching Fox News to vote.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Can do this with Facebook http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=4 not that you'd want to but im just sayin.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Weev tried to sell this to gawker. The difference between the Swartz case and weev's case is that weev really fucked up. The fact that he's kind of a looney isn't helping his case much.

So, no it hasn't lost it's mind.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[coastwalker]

Idiot, a systemic fail cannot by nature be the responsibility of one person.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[l3v1]

"Very few people enter into reasoned debate and bother to understand issues before voting on them."

My experience - which is failry limited, mind you, and also anecdotal, since of course I can't prove it, so take it as it is, an opinion - is that older generation [i.e. they and some or many of their ancestry is born american] americans seem to be more accepting than debate-oriented, vs. younger- or first-gen. americans, especially who are from mid-western european countries. The latter seem more willing to debate on general-overall political and social issues in a broader context, also seem more willing to voice their opinion in online outlets. And I think of this as something positive, hoping they'll retain their critical nature and agility as they become older :)

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[MightyYar]

Insane is when you post this as AC, because you live in the Land of the Free.

That's insane, alright, but it's not the country with the delusional paranoia. The US is fucking insane, but if there was a rankled bureaucrat that somehow took offense to "define sane", had sufficient power and time to find your post on Slashdot, could then decode your Slashdot identity, and finally track you down to persecute you... don't you think he'd be able to get your IP address?

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[MightyYar]

Probably on a planet where he'd be arrested for hate speech.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Jaysyn]

Please explain what Swartz's death has to do with copyright infringement.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, let's see, I do not watch fox news, I actually don't watch American TV except for a few shows (what was it, Better off Ted, Dexter, Game of Thrones, used to watch Simpsons, Family Guy, Seinfeld, Frasier, Married with Children, Home Improvement, saddened that they didn't continue with the Firefly series).

I liked these American shows, but news? News are just propaganda, regardless of what side they take, in fact the problem is that they only see 2 sides, there is nothing else that they understand. I sometimes watch Jon Stewart and he is funny, but he is completely wrong on economics, just like the rest of the 'liberal' media. But who wants to watch American 'news'?

But you are saying that 80% of American voters watch Fox News, then tell me, why was Obama re-elected? Fox News is a propaganda machine, same as MSNBC and the rest of the 'left news'.

But here is the truth about American elections: USA elections are decided by IDIOTS.

I will tell you why that is so, because most people who consider themselves to be 'left' and most people who consider themselves to be 'right' will not switch their votes regardless of what the 'news' tells them to do. They know they will vote either Republican or Democrat and that's all, nothing else matters.

So those are people with strong opinions or preconceived notions, this doesn't matter, what matters is that it is not those people, who decide the elections.

In America the elections are decided by a small group of people whose opinions are swayed by the advertising that is aimed at them. Those are people without convictions, those are people without knowledge, those are people without idea on what the hell is going on.

American elections are decided by a small number of people who have no clue, no opinion of their own, who can be swayed whichever way that convinces them the best with the most advertising.

In America today, with the self-destructive idiotic notion that democracy is good (it's not, it's a terrible disaster, many dictators were elected quite democratically, politicians are elected democratically who actually promise to steal more freedoms and sell them to the highest bidder, but as long as the voters think they'll get something for free from that deal, they end up voting that way).

Democracy is a disaster, democracy is a completely wrong way to go, suffrage has to be limited, and it especially has to be limited away from people who actually decide on the outcomes of American elections, the idiots who don't hold any of their own opinions, who act only to the advertising that is directed at them.

You are saying this:

Very few people enter into reasoned debate and bother to understand issues before voting on them. If everybody they associate is talking about death panels, then there must be death panels. - so do you agree with me that democracy is a terrible idea or not?

After all, you are actually implicitly talking limiting suffrage, even if it only means limiting it to people who can actually demonstrate that in fact they are familiar with issues and that they have their own opinions on the matter?

Here is what I think about Fiscal Cliff and Debt Ceiling and generally US economy, do you think that a person who has no idea about such things, who gets all of his info from advertising should be allowed to vote?

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Libreal retard.

While I am no fan of Fox News, I gave up browsing news.google.com and started reading more Fox News. The reason... gun control. None of the other networks reported on anything reasonably in favor of the 2nd amendment. Every article they reported about gun control they immediately tied to the recent Newtown tragedy. There was such a libreal anti-gun and anti-2nd amendment bias that it just sickened me.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you joking? Being born into a nation of 300 million makes you obligated somehow to their governance?

I hope you don't actually believe this.

I saw a few posts down someone ranting about Fox News, maybe you are just children.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[usuallylost]

"The system" has been built bit by bit by those "sane and normal" American. You live in republic not dictatorship, remember? You can either have that warm feeling of superiority over you "land of free" OR you can pretend that "the system" is something you have no responsibility for. So next time you read about teen hounded to death by "the system", remember: it is also YOUR fault.

The citizens are responsible for the system. I see two real problems. One is we have an electorate where a major percentage of the people cannot tell you anything much about how the system works. They can't tell you anything useful about the bill of rights or the constitution. Everyone knows about the first amendment and maybe the 2nd but ask them about the others and few can tell you anything. They certainly have no understanding of the issues currently being debated beyond whatever 30 second news byte they have seen. There is a sizable portion of the electorate who votes on things like who is most attractive, who has the best hair, who went on their favorite talk show or who makes the biggest claims about whatever pet cause they have. The end result of all of this is that the political system has effectively been on auto pilot for decades.

The other problem we have is that congress, in large part because the system has been on autopilot, has gotten really lazy and corrupt. A lot of the abuses we see are because of the run away power of administrative agencies. It used to be that congress passed actual laws that said in some detail what was to happen. Now they pass vague laws that say things like "administrative agency X will write regulations to achieve result Y". Where those regulations have the force of the law under which they were written. So a huge percentage of the "laws" that exist in this country are actually administrative regulations. In all probability most members of congress probably could not tell you what actual regulations came out of any given law that they passed. So in effect the vast majority of "laws" that we live under aren't laws at all they are regulations developed by a whole host of agencies that are, at best, minimally supervised by congress.

Where all of this becomes a problem is that the people at the agencies aren't elected. They don't really change, other than the appointed heads, after elections. Other than the budget process congress has very little ability to even impact what these people do. The end result is an ever more powerful bureaucracy. A Bureaucracy which is so vast, so powerful and so entrenched that even the President, who is supposed to control it, can't really tell what it is doing most of the time. Congress, having outsourced most of their job, is free to engage in the kind of shenanigans we have come to expect from them.

I don't know how we fix this. At this point the problem is so vast it maybe beyond fixing. I hope not because it is an ill omen for all of us if that is true. It would help a lot if the various administrative regulations had to be voted on by congress before they could go into effect. Unfortunately I have no idea how we would force them to do that. They certainly aren't going to volunteer since as it stands now they are relieved of all manner of drudgery involved with actually doing their jobs. My only suggestion is encouraging people to actually learn about the system. Learn about the hows and whys of how it is setup and operates. Learn about this history. An informed electorate is our only real hope. Sadly the electorate is going the other way fast.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[crazyjj]

The United States, collectively, has lost its fucking mind.

If you think it's only the United States, you've lost yours. Just look at some of the crazy-ass copyright and monitoring laws that have been popping up all over the first world of late. Shit, I could write a book on the crazy laws that have been popping up just in Australia lately.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are we surprised. When gun discussion comes up, many here sing the same song - why does someone needs x capacity mags.
So the people turn against each other and let the freedoms chip away.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Big Hairy Ian]

One wonders what proportion of the US population have sued or have been sued and what proportion are lawyers. From the rest of the worlds perspective it's very easy to assume that the US population are extremely litigious and sue each other at the drop of a hat, however, I hate stereo types and it certainly doesn't fit with most of the Americans I know but there are a few :)

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[halfkoreanamerican]

USA should probably read US government. The rest, however, I could not agree with you more.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[History's Coming To]

What's so magical about an IP address? Sure, if it's a domestic or work router you could then apply to a court for an order forcing the ISP to give up the information on who was assigned that IP at the time, but the court may refuse, and even if they don't is still only narrows it down to a group of people who may have been using the machine at the time. If the IP is foreign or publicly accessible then all you've got is a 12 digit string, it doesn't really help.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[History's Coming To]

He might still be alive if he'd been suitably charged with copyright infringement and threatened with a few months in prison max, instead of a prosecutor pushing for conviction on charges which carry a higher sentence than rape or murder. Maybe not, it's a tricky area.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

I see a flaw in your thinking. If 80 % of the voters watch Fox News, how did Obama get elected President?

Because maybe 30%-40% of them realize that Fox News is constantly lying to them.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

On Slashdot, just saying the politically incorrect words "Teabagger" or "Redneck" is regarded as hate speech.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[hackula]

Watching 5 minutes of Fox News would make just about anyone vote Obama!

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[the eric conspiracy]

You know how dumb the average person is?

50% are worse.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Theaetetus]

He might still be alive if he'd been suitably charged with copyright infringement and threatened with a few months in prison max, instead of a prosecutor pushing for conviction on charges which carry a higher sentence than rape or murder. Maybe not, it's a tricky area.

Come on, let's not get into FUD here. He was charged with 30 counts, each of which had much lower sentences than rape or murder. The maximum total of all 30, if they were consecutive, was more than the minimum sentence for rape or murder, but it was far lower than the similar maximum, consecutive sentence for 30 counts of rape or murder.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[_anomaly_]

Granted, the other man was worse

So, practically speaking, what would you suggest those who voted for Obama had done instead? Abstain from voting all together? Then they'd be labeled as not participating in the system and "part of the problem". OK then, I guess we have to take it one step further: everyone who voted for Obama because "the other man was worse" should have ran for office themselves? In part, I agree.

I ran for State Representative in my state 4 years ago because my "representative" was running unopposed. Rather than complain for 4 months leading up to the election about how the system is so screwed up that many, many incumbents run unopposed, I paid the $200 (yes, it costs money to be on the ballot) and ran myself. I was a no-name, had no money to spend (I had just under $1k in donations that I used on yard signs and door hangers so I'd have a little chance). I even had a few neighborhood get togethers, one where our Senator attended (for which I was surprised, and very grateful) in support. Let me tell you, it's very disconcerting when you realize just how the parent post is correct, about having to spend enormous amounts of money. Of course, it's usually proportional to the office you're seeking.

What seems to always get overlooked, it seems to me, is that the root of the systematic problem in the US political system is the dire need for campaign finance reform. And I mean severe campaign finance reform. It's such a huge problem, the solution won't be easy, and it certainly won't be perfect. But it must be pushed by "we the people" or we'll be stuck in this two-party freak show.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[wizkid]

Agree in part, but as long as 80% of the voters watch Fox News and attack ads and do what the rest of the 80% of America tells them to do we're going to end up with more of the same.

It's not just Fox News. CNN, MSNBC ABC are all pumping out filtered garbage too. It's sad, but the US is now the land of the sheep. Almost nobody thinks for themselves. The first amendment has become a joke, because the corporations have been allowed to buy all the news outlets, and they only let you see what they want you to see.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Zero__Kelvin]

" lets not worry about all those crazies with sub machine guns'"

Let's not bring the military into this; that is a different subject. On second thought, I guess it isn't.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that exactly what he said? It doesn't matter how many charges it takes, facing a harsher sentence for this compared to manslaughter or rape is abhorrent.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Forty Two Tenfold]

But when the rest of the bill of rights was being disassembled the Faux didn't give a squeal.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I live, Freedom is a reality, not just a marketing slogan.

Do you live in the ocean?

Because every country on Earth has restrictions on growing plants and the free flow of information.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[MightyYar]

You sound entirely too rational to be worried about a government official reading your Slashdot posts.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[MightyYar]

Hate speech is whatever the people in charge deem it to be.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[tehcyder]

Probably on a planet where he'd be arrested for hate speech.

I know, it's funny how in the US there's no problem with the most obnoxious racist, sexist, homophobic, or whatever speech, but as soon as you question your corporate overlords, you're toast.

You've really got the best of both worlds there.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[tehcyder]

a prosecutor pushing for conviction on charges which carry a higher sentence than rape or murder

Since murder carries the death penalty in the US, I find this very, very, very hard to believe.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[tehcyder]

Isn't that exactly what he said? It doesn't matter how many charges it takes, facing a harsher sentence for this compared to manslaughter or rape is abhorrent.

It is the barbaric US concept of consecutive sentences that is the problem. If, say, copyright infringement has a maximum sentence of one year, but you've been found guilty of two hundred counts so you're going to jail for 200 years, that is simply obscene.

But I doubt that many people here would complain if it was for old-fashioned burglary or something. Then everyone would be in full "lock 'em up and throw away the key" mode.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad there are so many stupid people because if there weren't then I would be the stupid one.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[tehcyder]

Ugh, you used the word "agility". The ability to flit between viewpoints and arguments without believing in any of them is one of the problems with the younger generation(s). They don't truly believe in anything except their entitlement to free entertainment and a shiny new phone every year..

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[tehcyder]

Libreal retard.

While I am no fan of Fox News, I gave up browsing news.google.com and started reading more Fox News. The reason... gun control. None of the other networks reported on anything reasonably in favor of the 2nd amendment. Every article they reported about gun control they immediately tied to the recent Newtown tragedy. There was such a libreal anti-gun and anti-2nd amendment bias that it just sickened me.

Did it not occur to you that perhaps the majority of people are actually in favour of gun control and it's not some "libreal" conspiracy?

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[fatphil]

That assumes no skew. If you'd said "median", you'd be right. Assuming a small minority of bright sparks are pulling up the average, the bell-curve will be skewed to the left, and more than half of the population will be below the mean intelligence level. (I've made some assumption about what the curve really looks like, but I know similar logic applies to income levels, where a few mega-earners again pull up the mean.)

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not just the US, this occurs also in Canada.

A former friend of mine who worked at a technology company in Calgary ran into simlar issues.

He found out the company has searious security flaws into the secuirty product which was being sold to countries world wide. When he approached the company owner, he and his family became a target of the Calgary Police.

He lost his employment, and was black listed from working in computers in Calgary. The Calgary Police would appear with in days of working in another field, including retail and low paying jobs.

The Police would appear randomlly at his friends homes and work, as well as people homes who lived around him. They would ask questions such as, 'Do you know anything about the grow up at the house next to you?' and 'What would you say if we told you we were investigating a rape of a young girl?' and the worst one was 'Have you seen any Neo-Nazi, Skin Heads, or KKK entering the house to next you?'. None of these questions made statements which said he was guility of a crime, but were design to make people think or believe him and his family were gulity.

The Police also raid his home at various times.

His story have been told on Slashdot in the comments at various times. News Articles about his story have been submitted but rejected by Slashdot.

Guess, unless you are famous or a Liberal, Slashdot is not interested in your story.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Rich0]

>Agree in part, but as long as 80% of the voters watch Fox News

Uhm, it's the Obama administration, silly.

Read the rest of my post. I wasn't suggesting that this was purely a problem caused by those who run Republican. Fox News just seems to typify the problem - it is just as much an issue on the left.

The problem is that people get super-polarized and elections are more about riling up supporters on hot topics than actually doing stuff that fixes the country. That tends to make it more about spending money.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Rich0]

I just used Fox News as an example as it is easy to pick on. Those who vote Democrat suffer from many of the same problems, just obviously in more left-leaning forums.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I'd be happy with Democrats just accepting this as collateral damage for their decisions rather than trying to pawn it off on "ther re-pig-cans!!", or whatever the latest hip and trendy (and childish) derogatory term for republicans is.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Rich0]

Ok, perhaps in my first sentence I should have used "or" instead of "and" between all three clauses. Fox news was just an example as it is an obvious case of this sort of filter-opposing-views thinking. It happens just as much on the left.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Rich0]

Libreal retard.

Well, you've managed to figure out my politics completely wrong. I'm not sure if I've ever voted for a politician that most would consider liberal - unless you're counting school boards or state reps or something.

None of the other networks reported on anything reasonably in favor of the 2nd amendment.

Well, I happen to fully support the 2nd amendment. If it were up to me just about anything that is man-portable would be legal.

I just used Fox News as an example - those who vote Democrat are just as often guilty of the same kind of thinking.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Rich0]

Yup, Fox News is just an obvious example. The issue happens on the left just as much as on the right. That's why I said 80% and not 49%. If the country were 49% Republican idiots and 51% enlightened Democrats we'd be in much better shape. It is more like 40% Republican sheep and 40% Democrat sheep and maybe 20% if you're lucky that actually consider issues and wish they had some better options.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if that one person is a Democrat anyway.

I'm sure your perfectly reasonable opinion would change if it were a Republican.

 

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[terec]

You should check European news some time. People are thrown in jail for breaking into computer systems and copyright violations all the time.

Under a new proposal, cyberattacks are supposed to get a minimum of 2 years in prison in the entire EU (Google Translate).

At least in the US people complain about it and it's news. Here in Germany, most people don't give a damn and the "public" media and media conglomerates don't even report it much.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[_anomaly_]

This "us vs. them" mentality, coming from a Democrat or a Republican, is a big reason campaign finance reform will probably never happen, and we'll remain a sad, two-party system.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[terec]

If you're living in the EU and you believe that, you're a bloody fool.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[sycodon]

MSNBC, CNN and all the other fringe news channels are not "riling up supporters"?

Ever heard of "fake, but accurate"?

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[terec]

Don't bet that financial reform helps; it may make things worse. In the US, running is expensive, but at least you can do it as an independent candidate. Here in Germany, nominally, running for office is cheap, but no independent candidate has ever been elected to German parliament. If you aren't part of one of the party machines, you don't have a chance. Furthermore, many seats in parliament are just given away by parties to their political cronies. You get an electrician without a college education trying to regulate the Internet, for example. The German system was recently declared unconstitutional by the German court because it was so non-transparent, but it doesn't seem to have gotten fixed.

If there is a better system, I think people would sure like to know about it...

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[ikedasquid]

For the love of all that is holy, mod this up. I've been thinking along these lines for a while, but this puts it in words much better than I have/could.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[CrimsonAvenger]

Since murder carries the death penalty in the US, I find this very, very, very hard to believe.

Please note that murder (and all its variants) are State-level crimes (unless performed on a Federal agent/employee).

As a result, the death penalty for murder only applies in those States which have death penalties.

And even in those States, the death penalty applies much less often than one might think....

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[sycodon]

Did it not occur to you that perhaps the majority of people are actually in favour of gun control and it's not some "libreal" conspiracy?

  Constitutional Rights are not subject to Public Opinion.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[sycodon]

And those who do are called wing-nuts of some kind.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Libreal retard.

While I am no fan of Fox News, I gave up browsing news.google.com and started reading more Fox News. The reason... gun control. None of the other networks reported on anything reasonably in favor of the 2nd amendment. Every article they reported about gun control they immediately tied to the recent Newtown tragedy. There was such a libreal anti-gun and anti-2nd amendment bias that it just sickened me.

Did it not occur to you that perhaps the majority of people are actually in favour of gun control and it's not some "libreal" conspiracy?

Or did it occur to you that perhaps the majority of US citizens is NOT in favor of gun control. Your spelling of favor outs you as someone who isn't in the US and has no idea what Americans are thinking.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Does he have a name, so that we can read more on his struggle?

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[CrimsonAvenger]

Did it not occur to you that perhaps the majority of people are actually in favour of gun control and it's not some "libreal" conspiracy?

By this logic, if 51% of the populace thought that Obama was doing a bad job, then the media should NEVER MENTION the things he does right.

Fact is, the majority of the people in control of the media in this country are anti-gun - which is why there is next to no reporting that even suggests that there might be a reasonable debate on the subject. It's just "pro gun-control == GREAT GUY" and "anti gun-control == EVIL NEANDERTAL"

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter... the 2nd Amendment (and the bill of Rights itself) protect individuals from 'The tyranny of the mob.' (Read the Federalist Papers)

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Xifer]

So, if the two party system is rootkitted by the 0.000063 per cent of voters who fund it and is non constitutional anyway, and is not functioning for most voters,why do we keep using it? It seems that we should recode the system using modern algorithms and data techniques so that it functions as it should for equal rights for humans and is less hackable to moneyed interests. A lot of money has been spent so we will never dare consider challenging that maybe the two party system is not mother or apple pi or the American Way. There are other methods of electoral politics possible.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Jaysyn]

But according to anything I can find related to his indictment, the charges had nothing to do with copyright infringement & everything to do with unauthorized access to a computer.

From Wikipedia:

On July 19, 2011, a federal grand jury indictment was unsealed, charging Swartz with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer and recklessly damaging a protected computer.[52][53] According to the indictment, Swartz surreptitiously attached a laptop to MIT's computer network, which ran a script named "keepgrabbing.py",[9] allowing him to "rapidly download an extraordinary volume of articles from JSTOR."[54] Prosecutors in the case said Swartz acted with the intention of making the papers available on P2P file-sharing sites.[46]

Swartz surrendered to authorities, pleading not guilty on all counts, and was released on US$100,000 unsecured bail.[55] After his arrest, JSTOR put out a statement saying it would not pursue civil litigation against him,[47][55] while MIT did not comment on the proceedings.[56]

The New York Times wrote of the case: "A respected Harvard researcher who also is an Internet folk hero has been arrested in Boston on charges related to computer hacking, which are based on allegations that he downloaded articles that he was entitled to get free."[57]

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Stephen P. Heymann and Scott L. Garland were the lead prosecutors, working under the supervision of U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz[48][58][59] The case was brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which was passed in 1986 to enhance the government’s ability to prosecute hackers who accessed computers to steal information or to disrupt or destroy computer functionality.[60] "[I]f convicted on these charges," said Ortiz, "Swartz faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million."[61]

The original poster has an axe to grind & is doing it poorly.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[sacrilicious]

What seems to always get overlooked, it seems to me, is that the root of the systematic problem in the US political system is the dire need for campaign finance reform.

To this, I would add that another reform that would have profound positive consequences would be run-off voting... essentially, the ability for a voter to rank several candidates, so that the concept of "throwing one's vote away" is eradicated.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[hypergreatthing]

I voted for a third party candidate this year, and will probably every year going forward. Because the two main parties are the same old broken shit and are copies of one another. They pit people against themselves and offer the same exact solution, which is to say, not a solution, but just the same old stuff.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[joelpt]

A good prosecutor can put away a guilty man. A great prosecutor can put away an innocent one. So goes the thinking of many a prosecutor.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[SuricouRaven]

That depends on the state, and even then the sentence for a crime on paper often differs greatly from the time actually served.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Jmc23]

True to some extent. But we all know where the cancer started.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[SuricouRaven]

While most americans are familiar with the first and second amendments, they seem to have wildly differing ideas of what the words actually mean.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

I see a flaw in your thinking. If 80 % of the voters watch Fox News, how did Obama get elected President?

Easy, Obama managed to convince a large block of non-voters to vote. :)

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Jmc23]

Try not to make an ass out of yourself. If you knew anything about IQ you would know it's deemed a regular bell distribution.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[MightyYar]

May I ask what you mean? AFAIK it is much easier to bring a libel or defamation case in Europe.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Jmc23]

An informed electorate is NOT the solution! You, and everybody else, must accept the fact that the majority of the population cannot or willnot understand the system.

Do not pin your hopes on false realities, the bell curve will always be there. So start thinking of a solution that's actually plausible in reality.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Jmc23]

Cancer spreads.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[rsborg]

Agree in part, but as long as 80% of the voters watch Fox News and attack ads and do what the rest of the 80% of America tells them to do we're going to end up with more of the same.

Fox News, while it's still king of cable news, pales in comparison to plain old non-cable news. They literally have a vieweship of single digits of Americans (or maybe in the 10-20% of eligible voters).

The problem isn't just Fox - it's all news, even liberal darling MSNBC - that are effectively owned by the military industrial complex. Until that changes, public opinion is alwasy going to favor the rich corporatist.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[qbast]

Have you noticed that your beloved gun rights were given in amendment?

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Please note that murder (and all its variants) are State-level crimes (unless performed on a Federal agent/employee).

Not quite. From Wikipedia:

"If the victim is a federal official, an ambassador, consul or other foreign official under the protection of the United States, or if the crime took place on federal property or involved crossing state lines, or in a manner that substantially affects interstate commerce or national security, then the federal government also has jurisdiction. If a crime is not committed within any state, then Federal jurisdiction is exclusive: examples include naval or U.S.-flagged merchant vessels in international waters and U.S. military bases worldwide."

God I love to nit pick.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[GregStoltz]

Personally I'm done voting for the less shitty of the two "choices" we are being provided with during presidential "elections." Done. What should you do if you actually care about liberty? Duh, vote for somebody who shares those beliefs, not a guy who won't even get his damn justice system to lay off on going after state legal pot production or his white twin. This time I voted for Johnson. The one choice who actually believes the things he says. Did I toss my vote away. F no. I voted for who I believed was best for the country, it is time for others to begin doing the same.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[dryeo]

While campaign financing reform is important, it is only part of the problem. The other problem is free speech which allows political advertising consisting of lies. People are very easily influenced by lies if they are repeated enough. I find it happening to me even when I know it is a lie. Unluckily there doesn't seem to be a fix for this issue without majorly stepping on peoples freedoms which would be even worse then the current system.
One solution would be an unelected part of government, perhaps the upper house but I can't think of a good way to have that.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[History's Coming To]

I wish they would, there's a few things I really wish they knew. If actually getting through to (bomb) government and getting them (anthrax) to listen to sense (Cameron) means salting my posts with (revolution) a few keywords then it seems easier (overthrow the government) than going through official channels which seem to lead to /dev/null. (enormous nuclear explosion)

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[dryeo]

Yes they are, it just takes a super-majority to change the list of constitutional rights. As the sibling points out, those constitutional rights were added to the constitution.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[flayzernax]

You have always been completely free to piss of the power elite and suffer the consequences.

This has been so since we started living in communities larger then small tribes were politics was anywhere longer then arms reach.

It comes with some benefits. But it does need to be checked on occasion with a good old house cleaning.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Firethorn]

So most of you voted for this. And are hypocrites now. Because you choose to ignore it, to get your man elected. Granted, the other man was worse, but had other sponsors.

1. You're assuming, in the complex web of truth and lies before the campaign, that people knew this
2. As you mention, the other guy was worse, or at least presented the appearance he'd be worse.

I'm a pro-gun pro-choice libertarian. Both candidates scored well under 50% as far as I'm concerned. It was very much a vote for the 'lesser evil'.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

"Granted, the other man was worse"

Really? In terms of individual liberties? Care to provide references?

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[gorzek]

ACORN stole the election for him, obviously.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[rodarson2k]

But first we have to reformat to get rid of the rootkit, and MY ENTIRE LIFE is on the hard drive.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

To cells receptive to it.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Firethorn]

Please note that murder (and all its variants) are State-level crimes (unless performed on a Federal agent/employee).

It would be more correct to say 'unless performed on Federal [i]land or property[/i]'. As a federal employee, if I was murdered in my home, the suspect would be tried in a state court, under state law. If a random civilian was killed on base though, it would go through a federal court.

There are added complexities with jurisdiction - if there's any question as to under who's aegis the act was committed, it's pretty much up to the court/prosecutors as to who will actually press the charges.

An example would be a drunk driver caught driving intoxicated onto base. If civilian, it'll typically be processed by the state - city or county level. If military, generally the military wants a piece of him, and will claim jurisdiction. In some cases, even if it happens downtown. Due to the UCMJ, a military member is ALWAYS under it's jurisdiction.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is the barbaric US concept of consecutive sentences that is the problem. If, say, copyright infringement has a maximum sentence of one year, but you've been found guilty of two hundred counts so you're going to jail for 200 years, that is simply obscene. "

Why? If you commit 200 years worth of offense, then you get 200 years, this is what we call logic here, I don't know how you count where you are.

Now if you want to make the argument that copyright infringement is not worth that much time or should be handled differently that is a different argument you are free to make; I believe you would also be wrong, but then that's not the argument you made anyway.

Anything else you want to rant about like a loony Euro-weenie?

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[VortexCortex]

I don't know how we fix this.

Simple. Outlaw Bribery, i.e. Outlaw Lobbyists, Campaign Contributions, Perks, Promises of Jobs after your term, etc. There should be strict punishments for that type of corruption. Then the only people who'll want to do the job of governing are the people who actually care about people, not corporate and foreign interests. Vastly reduce the amount of classified information -- There's no reason we have to make shady (illegal) deals with enemies for diplomacy, we can put forth a stance and stick by it, and be open about the times when we say, sell a bunch of weapons to warlords for intel; The public will understand if you tell them why (if not, then you shouldn't be doing it, what have they got to hide?). Get rid of the redundant agencies, e.g., we have Police and FBI, we don't need Federal Police (DHS), that's a huge tax burden and they serve no purpose that a well armed public could not. Protip: The police can't protect you, after you or your loved ones are dead then they go after the bad guys; It's the citizen's job to protect themselves. Place a 6mo to 1yr probationary period for new laws so that knee jerk reactions like ridiculous gun control regs or things like the PATRIOT Act, or SOPA can easily get tossed out. Teach civics in school along with US history, EVERY YEAR, not just one course -- If ignorance is a big problem, then education is the answer. Ditch the current voting system and have votes be a prioritized list of candidates, so if your option #1 loses, then the votes are recalculated using your option #2, then repeat for #3 and so on removing candidates until there's one winner. This way you can show support for a 3rd (or 7th) party in your #1 vote, and still use #2 as your fall-back vote. It's not rocket science we have the technology.

Do I think ANY of that will happen? No, not at all. All of this is easier said than done, and most people are lazy and greedy; Unwilling to spend the money to change anything. Read the history books folks, nations begin with people having some degree of power & rights, then governments take those powers for themselves and reduce the citizen's rights and freedoms until shit hits the fan. Every Time. The only way to stop the cycle is to give the people back the control, and make the government accountable for their actions by the people. It seems the US is going the other direction... You can't let the government police itself! You don't put rats in charge of cheese! Rome wasn't built in a day, but it was destroyed in one, that day was September 4, 476.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[anagama]

I voted for Stein -- but the who doesn't really matter. like you, I feel great about the vote because it's better than not voting. The people who just abstain, get lumped in with the people who never could be bothered. But when you vote third party, you show your disdain for the "two" parties in a measurable way. It's not much, but it is something.

It's also better than voting for a candidate for the Republocrat or Demoplican variety -- you may be voting for a lesser evil but the bar has moved so far that "lesser evil" means "insanely evil" -- at some point there is no perceptible difference. I fully realize people want to buy the tripe that Obama is a good guy. He is actually, presuming you thought the same of GWB/Cheney.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

How is the State Militia Amendment related to gun control?

[In the context of recent rebellions (Shays's) which have been put down by State Militias, we believe that] A well regulated Militia being neccessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms [OED: to bear arms : to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight.] shall not be infringed.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

OP here -- posted AC because I find having an account leads to me wasting too much time on here. No delusional paranoia, just practical time management. It's not that bad here (yet, anyway).

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[_anomaly_]

Good for you. I wish more people were involved enough to realize the magnitude of the situation and do the same. Sadly, it seems, most don't care enough because it won't impact them directly (or so they think), so they vote for who they agree with on one certain issue, or the one whose name is more memorable.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[chihowa]

Well, assuming a gaussian distribution with a standard deviation of fifteen points and integer IQ scores, about 4% of the population have an IQ score of exactly 100. So 48% are worse.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[flayzernax]

Part of a solution to this would be to add as much randomness to the selection system as possible. This would ensure that some random politicians with good intentions did get mixed into the system. It would generally decrease the overall bad politician count (though they would always still get through).

I mean if we accept that most people are sane random selection will net you enough sane people that checks and balances will work. Then we could set a meritocratic bar to be randomly selected for to increase sanity. Then the other part of the solution is to stop already selected politicians from being corruptible.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Bing Tsher E]

Yes. Right after the amendment to free speech, and a little before the amendment to not self-incriminate.

You had a point to make??

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Bing Tsher E]

51% enlightened Democrats

I've got the match. Go fetch the kerosene from the shed.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[M4n]

I concur. I have just finished reading an article about a 5 year old girl, suspended from school (after a several hour long interrogation) for shooting bubbles from a hello kitty bubble gun. This has been classed by the school as a terroristic action and she will have a stain on her education record for ever. It's very sad to see what once was the most powerful nation in the world slipping into a mire of paranoia and emotionally driven actions. Fuck knows what sort of state they will be in after another year of this type of behaviour.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[qbast]

Point should be quite obvious: constitution is not written in stone - it can and have been amended when necessary. So yes, constitutional rights are very much subject to public opinion. And that's assuming they are not simply ignored (like protection from unreasonable search gets reduced more and more).

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States, collectively, has lost its fucking mind.

And so we go on with our lives.
We know the truth, but prefer lies.
Lies are simple.
Simple is bliss.
Why go against tradition when we can?
Admit defeat.
Live in decline.
Be the victims of our own design.
The status quo,
Built on suspect.
Why would anyone stick out their neck?
Fellow members
Club "We've got ours"
I'd like to introduce you to your host.
Cause he's got his.
And I've got mine.
Meet the decline.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwGJ0EHdXDc

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, let's not get into FUD here. He was charged with 30 counts, each of which had much lower sentences than rape or murder. The maximum total of all 30, if they were consecutive, was more than the minimum sentence for rape or murder, but it was far lower than the similar maximum, consecutive sentence for 30 counts of rape or murder.

Just out of interest, did Aaron Schwarz perform 30 individual crimes, or did he just do it once but there were 30 copyright holders involved?

I mean, when charging an accused rapist, do they count the number of times he allegedly thrust his penis into the woman (and the number of times he touched her breast inappropriately) and lay a charge for each one or do they just lump it all together and have a single charge??

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[preaction]

You forget the power of "Not My Problem" and "But What Can I Do About It?" See also: Every oppressive regime in the history of humankind.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Not always, there have been legitimate cases were horrible bastards have gotten off with 20 years, while other minor offenders get crushed. It depends on jurisdiction, your jury, the crime, how the judge is feeling that day, what prison you go to, who is paying your lawyer, who you work for, etc...

Justice is far from blind, but it sometimes seems completely haphazard in its application.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Constitutional Rights are not subject to Public Opinion.

Lighten up, Francis. No one's coming after your guns. And the constitution you're talking about doesn't exist. There are restrictions on speech, regulation of guns currently... there are also those uncomfortable words "A well regulated Militia".

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt that many people here would complain if it was for old-fashioned burglary

Well, what are we burglarizing? Pockets (ie, pickpocketing)? Cars? Houses? Was the victim aware of the burglarizing while it was taking place? Did they feel that their life was threatened?

You say that like you're trying to induce some sort of cognitive dissonance or something. But in truth, there is a lot of extra crap surrounding a physical burglary that is not and can not be present in copyright infringement. And it is that extra crap that we take into account when determining if it is right to "lock 'em up and throw away the key".

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[RoknrolZombie]

I have no love of Obama, I voted 3rd party too.

Stupid questions beg to be answered, so here you go:

Romney on Abortion: http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Romney/Abortion.php

Same sex issues: http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Romney/Same-Sex.php

Wiretapping: http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Romney/Civil-Liberties.php

Weed: http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Romney/Marijuana.php

Yes, from an individual liberty perspective Mittens was worse.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[ahabswhale]

Good point, because we all know the Republicans were totally not in the back pockets of the copyright industry.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[ahabswhale]

It's pretty much always been this way. I know people think it's a new phenomenon but it's not. The severity of it ebbs and flows a bit but it's always there. The rich and powerful work very hard to make sure they have a lot of influence in affairs of state. Consequently, short of a revolution, you will never see laws of any significance that challenges that influence.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[6ULDV8]

> Did it not occur to you that perhaps the majority of people are actually in favour of gun control...

Perhaps they are, but the Second Amendment applies to within the U.S, not wherever you may reside. Don't like it? Write an amendment and put it to a vote. Until then, the federal, state and local governments need to stop attempting to erode the Constitution. We already have plenty of laws that affirm shooting people is naughty. People who commit crimes aren't going to worry about one more law.

Gun control is sight alignment, sight picture, breathe, and squeeze the trigger.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like there's just a giant stupid feedback loop going on.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[ganjadude]

if 80% of the american public watched fox news, obama would not be president right now. So your entire premise is flawed.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[ganjadude]

Consecutive sentencing makes sense in some crimes but not in other

your argument concerning copyright of course there is no reason to charge them consecutively. But on the other hand when you catch a rapist for example, and they have raped 20 people. I think it is more than fair that they serve each and every count.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Rakarra]

  Constitutional Rights are not subject to Public Opinion.

The Constitution is also not a religious document to be worshiped for its own sake. The founders intended that should it no longer serve the interests of the people, it be updated. Personally I favor the 'updating' part as opposed to 'ignoring,' a more common practice.

The Second Amendment. Ah, the Second Amendment. Does the ban against nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons violate the Second Amendment? How about rocket-propelled grenades? Those are banned, so it seems like we have no qualms about -some- limitations on the arms one can bear. So far the discussion is where to draw that line that we've already agreed passes constitutional muster.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Creepy]

I believe the copyright issue was he was protesting JSTOR libraries paying the publisher but not the author. What both of these guys are being raked over the coals with is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), though, which is a 1980s era law that existed before the internet.
this is the criminal code (taken from wiki, but it exists elsewhere):

(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—
(A) information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as defined in section 1602 (n) [1] of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);
(B) information from any department or agency of the United States; or
(C) information from any protected computer;.

another section makes that last one a little more specific

The CFAA defines a “protected computer” under 18 U.S.C. 1030(e)(2) to mean a computer:
exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or any computer, when the conduct constituting the offense affects the computer's use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States...

This was meant for ATMs. What it is being used for is terms of service breaches, which is why Zoe Lofgren, D California, has drafted Aaron's Law to ban Terms of Service breaches from using the CFAA.

I personally think the entire law needs to go - if you read the law further, it essentially bans using any computer without authorization, which can be interpreted as making the internet illegal, so congratulations on committing felony wire fraud today along with the rest of us ;)

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[metamarmoset]

Indeed, the powers that be in the states seem to be obsessed with imprisoning their fellow citizens.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Creepy]

Me on abortion - don't care, let states decide
Me on same sex issues - don't care, let states decide
Me on wiretapping US citizens without a warrant - NIMBY, require warrants
Me on weed - don't care, decriminalize federally, end the war on drugs, and let states decide. Federally fund rehabilitation/treatment for drug abuse with war on drugs money. Give no federal funding for prison construction to hold drug offenders (if your state wants to enforce drug crimes rather than treatment/rehabilitation, you pay for the prisons).
Me on fiscal responsibility - this is paramount. Serious austerity needed now.

This is why I don't have a candidate, at least in my state. I voted for a party that vaguely followed those, but they were pro-legalization at a federal level and I am not, and I am in favor of decriminalization of all drugs at a federal level and they were not (and no, not Libertarian - I don't believe in returning to a commodities/gold standard until after the current money has collapsed; I do believe we should have a concurrent currency locked to commodities that can be exchanged for dollars, and use a cash card to make the dollar purchase/commodity sale.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[publiclurker]

Well maybe you shouldn't try stealing 200 things then.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Constitutional Rights are not subject to Public Opinion.

This doesn't change the fact that the clear majority of the public is in favor of gun control. Is the USA a democracy?

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[SourceFrog]

Individually, I believe most Americans are quite sane and normal people

Yet even on this discussion thread there are lots of people arguing to toss the guys in jail and defending the prosecutors. I'm not so sure anymore.

This 'collective system' is nothing more than the sum of its parts - if the system is sick, it's because the people in it are sick.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Rich0]

Yeah, read my replies to the other 14 people who said the same thing... It was an example - Republicans are hardly the only problem.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

It's much easier to drive a few completely bat-shit crazy, or at least frame them that way. So, when anyone espouses even a superficially similar position, all anyone has to do is equate them with "that crazy guy." High profile cases go a long way. And, the persecution part takes care of itself. All anyone would have to do is keep an eye out for the few that also happen to be just anti-social or trained enough to actually be capable of killing.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

You can run for office as an independent candidate, sure. That's an important freedom, but one that only really applies to billionnaires, so not much help to most people. The GP was talking about running for one of the big 2 parties (a senator turned up to support them).

You could try the British system. There, running isn't particularly expensive and many people do stand as independents. Of course they seldom get anywhere, and the government isn't noticeably better than Germany's or America's, but all that suggests is that maybe we haven't agreed on exactly what the problem is.

Which is politics in a nutshell, really...

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why is there a process for amending the constitution?

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

^ inferring that IQ is a good test of intelligence. lol.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't that be "Persecute, Persecute, Persecute"?

FTFY

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Owning an AR-15 is no more a Constitutional Right than owning a tactical nuke is. The SCOTUS has already ruled that limits on what guns you are allowed to have is Constitutional.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Constitutional rights are an artificial construct that only exist insofar that everybody agrees to go along with them. Constitutional rights have changed before thanks to public opinion.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Either they're subject to public opinion in some way (perhaps very indirectly through amendments and such) or they're equivalent to Holy Write - unchangeable because they represent the functional equivalent of divine inspiration that has been lost to the world ever since. Since the second view is utter bullshit, the first must prevail.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Read about weev's behavior around Chloe Dykstra's stolen nude photos.

http://bedizen.livejournal.com/258763.html

Articulate the similarities between Weev & Aaron.
???
profit.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation needed.

Here's some actual citations for you in the meantime:

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, ... or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.

--Thomas Jefferson

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.

-- Samuel Adams

In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

-- James Madison (you know, that guy who wrote the Constitution)

That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state.

-- George Mason (the primary proponent of the Bill of Rights, surely you've heard of him)

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The actual untruncated text of the Second Amendment, as found in the Congressional record.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Jane Q. Public]

"... which is why Zoe Lofgren, D California, has drafted Aaron's Law to ban Terms of Service breaches from using the CFAA."

It goes a little deeper than that. In effect, making anything that violates a TOS illegal would allow anybody who writes a TOS to define their own law, just by including it in the document. That goes against just about every traditional legal principle in the U.S.

For a ridiculous example: I could put in my TOS that you were not "authorized" to use the site when you were accessing it from a tablet while sitting on the toilet. Then visiting the site from your living room would be legal, but walking into the bathroom would be a felony.

Theoretically, I suppose, I could write into my TOS that any agent of the government, or employee or representative of such agent, could not access my site at all.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[diamondmagic]

The American Revolution was won because the Americans had access to weapons as good or better than the British military.

The second amendment exists precisely to protect one from governments, anything less is auxiliary.

I'm making the subtle point yes, yes it unconstitutional. Because the use of them against innocents is already illegal, so how could mere possession be? And consider, you can make "chemical and biological weapons" with stuff under your sink.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Xifer]

I thought that nowadays people kept their entire lives in their smart phones...

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[fatphil]

Try not to make an arse out of yourself. If you knew anything about probability distribution you'd know that "bell" isn't a distribution.

And that bell-curves used to represent a whole range of different distributions are parameterised by mean, standard deviation, and skew. There are higher moments too, but in extreme they can make the bell curve look less bell-like. No-one's ever said a log-normal distribution isn't a bell curve, for example.

And that the 50-th percentile of IQ is at 100, and that the lowest even for severely retarded slashdot posters such as yourself is about 50, and that there are significant proportions with over 150 and the highest is over 200. And therefore there the high out-liers do pull the mean up above the median. Which is what I said above.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said anything about IQ?

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[evultrole]

You seriously believe drugs are more important than human rights? And that the solution to the deficit is cutting public services like schools and medicare? Are you stupid, or just a psychopath?

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Try not to make an ass out of yourself. If you knew anything about IQ you would know it's deemed a regular bell distribution.

intelligence != IQ

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anguirel]

Well, I happen to fully support the 2nd amendment. If it were up to me just about anything that is man-portable would be legal.

If you're willing to draw a line on what armaments are covered by the 2nd Amendment and which are allowed to be restricted by the Federal government, we're just arguing about where the line is drawn. That isn't what the 2nd Amendment says, so if you're not willing to say things over man-portable are legal, you're actually in favor of gun control and having what that part of the Constitution says changed. Tanks? A vehicle, so possibly subject to vehicular restrictions for normal use, but the ownership of the main gun and the shells it uses would fall under the clause. Artillery? Also Arms, the right to keep and bear shall not be infringed. Nuclear Missile? Also an armament, you can own those if you can afford them. It's an all-or-nothing sort of deal there. Seriously. As soon as you allow that maybe some shouldn't be in private hands, you've already accepted that not all weapons are covered, and it's just negotiation over what should be allowed freely and what should be regulated.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Very, very true.

I voted for Obama in 2008 because I figured he was more likely to undo the destruction of domestic and international law that had taken place under George W. Bush. Unfortunately, I was wrong. Obama simply codified the destruction of civil liberty under Bush and even expanded it in his first term and will continue to do so in his second. He is a craven hypocrite and a soulless authoritarian.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Jmc23]

Nope. You even said yourself you were making an ASSumption. Sigh, did your little brain really need me to say that it's a normal distribution that follows a bell curve?

You don't seem to understand how Mu and sigma get set for IQ tests. You have no evidence that the distribution is skewed in either direction and given how mu and sigma are set it would be extremely improbable that outliers would impart skew and if so it would be caught because of it's degree of correlation with other IQ tests.

Really, making assumptions makes an ass out of you.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Rich0]

Perhaps the amendment should be amended in that case, but I don't think a world in which anybody can stockpile nuclear weapons in their garage is really a place we want to live.

I get the principle behind what you're saying. The problem is that progress has tended to further skew the balance between offense and defense and the asymmetry of warfare. It is bad enough that you can't prosecute suicide attacks after they've happened, let alone suicide attacks with arbitrarily powerful weapons.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

The average American unknowingly commits three felonies a day (search "three felonies a day").

The prosecution is selective and driven more by political and economic gain than by justice.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly enough though those bans violate article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution since those sort of bans pretty much eliminate anybody being elgible to receive letters of marque. That section of the constitution has pretty much been ignored for most of the history of the country though. I find it rather odd that there's all sorts of arguments over the 2nd amendment yet nothing is ever really mentioned about a nice little clause in the core document. One REALLY big issue I have over all these "control" issues (not just gun control) is the fact that it is, indeed, CONTROL over the populace and taking away any real freedom we have. Put a nice fluffly face on how some new regulation on freedom will save us from ourselves so we'll forget that we are no longer free. We're basically turning the masses of society into zoo animals with a handful of, oh I guess they'd call them selves "smarter" people, deciding how the masses should leave and then what? No real freedom, no real responsibility (yes true freedom requires responsibility and you can't really have one without the other) and then your very life is at the control of someone else who can decide things like everyone over the age of 30 has to die. Or maybe get turned into Soylent Green. We have had PLENTY of pictures painted of what the society that we are headed towards is like and yet so many are so willing to embrace it with open arms. The most disgusting thing is those who say "If you don't like it move someplace else!" Hello...... That's why we came HERE!!!!!!!! Not to mention some of my ancestors were here LONG BEFORE Columbus ever was born. Yeah we keep getting fucked worse and worse in the land where we have fought, and sometimes died, for freedom and we're supposed to just pack up and leave.. Those of you so eager to give away our rights need to either WAKE UP or go someplace else YOURSELF!!!!! I plan on dying in this land same as my ancestors. If it's in an attempt to keep this land from being taken away well I'm in good company with my ancestors.....

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[lsatenstein]

We have a government Casino in Montreal. My wife likes to play the machines. While she does, I respond to Slashdot. My address is the wifi of the casino.

I suppose I could also do the responses from the library, or a coffee shop. If I do all three, it would only be via video cameras and some guessing that it was me doing the horrendous thing of responding to slashdot comments.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like all the pent up frustration of not being able to prosecute the bankers are being redirected to the peons instead, that or they have been "persuaded" to focus elsewhere where the sun still shines. I seriously doubt these people are that stupid..

Glad I aint livin in the U.S. The shit that happens there does make for an entertaining reality TV.

Re:Prosecute, Prosecute, Prosecute

[Anonymous Coward]

Did it not occur to you that perhaps the majority of people are actually in favour of gun control and it's not some "libreal" conspiracy?

So your defense is that the news should reflect majority opinion and not the facts?

Pandering is not a good defense for any news organization.

Persecute the whistleblower

[Anonymous Coward]

Simply put the guy in court, thus correcting the security hole once and for all.

Appears to be the American way of dealing with security breaches.

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[FriendlyLurker]

I think their aim is to put the guy in Jail, not court. Its worth repeating: this and Swartz's case are just a symptom of the two tiered justice system at work. Persecution ingrained at the Institutional level, it is not not just a few overzealous prosecutors as some apologists try claim.

two-tiered justice system — the way in which political and financial elites now enjoy virtually full-scale legal immunity for even the most egregious lawbreaking, while ordinary Americans, especially the poor and racial and ethnic minorities, are subjected to exactly the opposite treatment: the world’s largest prison state and most merciless justice system.

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[Mister Liberty]

Thanks for the link.

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[SirGarlon]

I'm just an observer (not an attorney or prosecutor), but I suggest the hypothesis that the two-tiered system is attributable to prosecutors being lazy and cowardly. The rich and powerful can take full advantage of legal tactics to draw out a trial and delay an inevitable verdict, even when they're guilty as hell. Thus, it is much costlier and more uncertain to prosecute a banker than a hacker. Prosecutors advance their careers and reputations by getting a lot of convictions. Their incentive is to go after the easy prey.

So, the way to fix this mess is to change the incentives for prosecutors so they are motivated to pursue the most harmful crimes, not the ones that are easiest to convict. Easier said than done.

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[Anonymous Coward]

its a shame he decided to be the good guy. Anon needs more people like this

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly, Auernheimer disagrees with this interpretation.

From TFA: (the techcrunch statement)
"Ivy league educated and wealthy, Aaron dealt with his indictment so badly because he thought he was part of a special class of people that this didn’t happen to. I am from a rundown shack in Arkansas. I spent many years thinking people from families like his [Swartz] got better treatment than me. Now I realize the truth: The beast is so monstrous it will devour us all. None will be spared."

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[JaredOfEuropa]

It's more than going after the most harmful crimes, and requires perhaps a bit of a redefinition of the prosecutor's role. A defense lawyer's role is to get his client off the hook by any (legal) means available. The prosecutor's role should not be the opposite of this, getting a conviction by any means. It should be to have justice prevaiL. That doesn't mean asking for a lighter sentence if there are some irregularities in the investigation, let the defense and the judge worry about that. It does mean understanding what crime has been committed (or having yourself informed if you don't), and then asking for an appropriate punishment.

The idea that people will lose respect for the legal system when sentences no longer fit the crimes is an ago-old wisdom. I think we're seeing that idea in action more and more often.

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[erroneus]

How else can you expect to keep your slaves in order?

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[erroneus]

If he knew the right people, the case would have gotten nowhere.

I think they are desperate to prosecute these cyber-terrorists that they are willing and prepared to go after the lowest hanging fruit.

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[dcollins]

The key part missing in the current system is a check and balance on prosecutors (and who, what, and how much they charge). The original check and balance was supposed to be the jury of peers; but of course these days only 5% or less of people going to prison get a jury trial. So the first part of the solution is fairly simple: ban plea bargains, restore the fundamental right to a jury trial, and require every single charge to be confirmed by a jury of peers without exception.

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[Anonymous Coward]

Easier said than done.
.

Hmmm, let's see. Make the loser pay winner's legal fees, times three. For some reason, gee I wonder why, this is not popular in the U.S. but is common in, for example, Britain.

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[Anonymous Coward]

Ouch. That's not adequately sympathetic to Aaron. He killed himself because he had emotional problems and the country was in a bad state: the national mood during the election season was dark and negative. The Sandy Hook shootings cast a deeper pall over the national mood. Sensitive and depressed people feel these things deeply. Getting prosecuted was simply another chunk of stress. No one is powerful enough to say what Aaron thought inside his mind. It's distasteful and disrespectful to say "he was privileged and couldn't handle it."

I would like to stick up for Auernheimer, but please Auernheimer, have some respect for Aaron and don't try to tell me he was just too wimpy.

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[__aaltlg1547]

This is the kind of case where you demand a speedy trial. Letting the prosecution drag things out won't help you. You need a lawyer who can explaon to a jury how ridiculous it is to prosecute you for pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes.

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[kenh]

The prosecutor's role should not be the opposite of this, getting a conviction by any means. It should be to have justice prevaiL.

I'd much prefer a legal system where the prosecutor is charged with finding the truth, not just stringing together enough facts to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't know if you misspoke or what, but a Prosecutor that is only interested in convictions isn't what I want.

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[kenh]

If he had alerted AT&T instead of peddling his story to gawker there would have been no case.

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[the eric conspiracy]

The problem is the laws. What Aaron did should have never been a felony.

Take away the felony charges and the AG loses interest in a hurry.

The US has more people in prison than any place else in the world for a reason. The penalties for minor crimes are over the top.

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[servognome]

I'd much prefer a legal system where the prosecutor is charged with finding the truth

Philosophers have been working on this for thousands of years. Isn't the court system already slow enough.

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[Anonymous Coward]

If he had alerted AT&T instead of peddling his story to gawker there would have been no case.

That's debatable. There have been some high profile cases of shooting the messenger too.
But you know what? It shouldn't matter. There certainly isn't any official legal requirement preventing open disclosure nor should there be given the consistent non-action we saw back when "responsible disclosure" was the norm. And I say this having been a member of a major unix vendor's CERT team in the 90s, so I've seen the non-results in the first person.

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[servognome]

Prosecutors advance their careers and reputations by getting a lot of convictions. Their incentive is to go after the easy prey.

More often prosecuters advance their careers by going after 'famous' names, check out Rudy Giuliani's career. They want the fish that will have lots of flash bulbs and put them in news conferences. Swartz was a big enough name to be made an example of.

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[jkflying]

How about rewarding a prosecutor based on how accurate their charges are compared to what the judge decides as a suitable settlement/fine/community service/sentence? They can still throw whatever charges they want, but the punishment should reflect something sane.

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I read egregious in a quote I'm practically sure it comes from Glenn Greenwald. :P

Anyway, great link and here's hoping that more people reads articles from writers such as him or Jeremy Scahill.

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[marcosdumay]

Looks like you missed a "not".

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[undeadbill]

You have the incentive correct, but prosecutors view their role as transitory, a step up to a better private law partnership or political office, and also they are paid out a percentage of the fines they are able to levy in court as an annual bonus. They have NO incentive whatsoever to be fair minded or reasonable, or even to care about justice. They want to win, and they have the power of the state apparatus behind them to ensure that.

The defendant? They have whatever lawyer they can afford. Well, after the prosecution freezes their assets and costs him or her their job. So, whatever money is left over after that, that can be used to hire an attorney, who doesn't get paid a bonus unless it comes from his client. That is why the phenomenally wealthy are able to do well when prosecuted, and everyone else gets a 90%+ conviction rate.

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[GregStoltz]

One way to start is to get rid of 3/4 of the laws that turn innocent citizens into criminals and the first thing to do is to end the drug war. Which will free thousands of unjustly jailed people and go along way to helping fight gun violence. There are so many laws on the books that damn near anyone of us could probably end up being charged with something if somebody digs deep enough. This is nuts. Let the civil courts deal with stupid shit like this case and save the criminal courts for murders, rapes, robberies etc. Next, prosecutors must loose their absolute liability protection. Prosecutors acting in bad faith need to personally pay. Next we need to look at the prosecutors office paying for the defense of defendants when those defendants are found not guilty.

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[undeadbill]

That may be because prosecutors view anyone with even a whiff of technical expertise to be the new witch. You know, back before the Enlightenment, people persecuted folks with skills and abilities they didn't understand as witches. Call them a witch, it is ok to do whatever you like to get a conviction. Even if all they know is some trig and geometry, and something about medicinal herbs.

People with any technical abilities are the new witch. Look at the sentencing disparity between other physical crimes, and the putative accusations levied against those with skills. Almost every person accused of using tech skills to commit a crime ends up being owned by the government, either in prison or through snitch deals to stay out, even if their alleged crimes are arguably minor. Most people have absolutely no comprehension of how people can use computers to commit crime, or if a crime was even really committed. It is back down to "He's a hacker. He will always have some special (read magical) way of getting around us. Let's nail him to the wall."

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[Firethorn]

There are so many laws on the books that damn near anyone of us could probably end up being charged with something if somebody digs deep enough.

I remember reading that the majority of average citizens commit, on average, one potential felony a day.

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[qeveren]

Fast. Cheap. Good. Pick two.

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[BitterOak]

Interestingly, Auernheimer disagrees with this interpretation.

From TFA: (the techcrunch statement) "Ivy league educated and wealthy, Aaron dealt with his indictment so badly because he thought he was part of a special class of people that this didn’t happen to. I am from a rundown shack in Arkansas. I spent many years thinking people from families like his [Swartz] got better treatment than me. Now I realize the truth: The beast is so monstrous it will devour us all. None will be spared."

Agreed. Anyone who thinks the federal justice system doesn't steamroll the elite should talk to Martha Stewart or Conrad Black.

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[ahabswhale]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here...

If someone broke into your house and stole $10,000 worth of items, should that be considered a felony? I'm sure you would say that it should. I don't know what the monetary value of the JSTOR catalog is but I'm guessing it's worth well north of that number and he basically robbed the joint. Now, in his case, he had no evil intent but the cops don't care if you steal $10,000 from somebody's house and give it to the poor either. You're gonna get prosecuted.

That said, the law could use some tweaking.

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[H0p313ss]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here...

I'm glad you added the preface. I'm not someone who thinks that massive copyright violations are a good idea, however there is a difference between copyright violations and theft. I really wish people would stop calling copyright violations theft.

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[ahabswhale]

But this isn't a copyright violation issue. How this breaks down into actually charges is like so (courtesy of Wikipedia):

"On July 19, 2011, a federal grand jury indictment was unsealed, charging Swartz with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer and recklessly damaging a protected computer.[53][54] According to the indictment, Swartz surreptitiously attached a laptop to MIT's computer network, which ran a script named "keepgrabbing.py",[9] allowing him to "rapidly download an extraordinary volume of articles from JSTOR.""

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[dcollins]

"The problem is the laws. What Aaron did should have never been a felony."

Well, there's 6 different violations in the indictment. (Wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, aiding and abetting, criminal forfeiture). Change those half-dozen and more, sure, I don't disagree. But the prosecutor can go dig up some slightly more obscure ones whenever they want, and now you're just playing whack-a-mole.

The overriding Constitutional issue is the fundamental right to a jury trial which has been effectively taken away. Until you get a jury trial, the law is whatever the hell the prosecutor says it is, regardless of text or intent of the laws.

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[sjames]

Actually, prosecutors are already supposed to work for justice to prevail. Unfortunately, more and more ignore that and just go for convictions by any means necessary, in many cases pushing well into gray areas and sometimes unambiguously into illegal behavior.

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[sjames]

Or, unfortunately, the AG inflates the charges some more and twists logic even harder until a felony charge pops out.

Making that harder is a good thing, but it won't solve the problem.

Re:Persecute the whistleblower

[sjames]

The Ivy leaguers were safe back when it was 10% of the people that held 50% of the wealth. Now that it's 1%, they don't always make the cut anymore.

And people wonder why hackers often...

[eksith]

Dump and humiliate instead of disclose "responsibly". That word applies to both parties; when a vulnerability is revealed "responsibly", and the end result is for the powers that be to act irresponsibly with no regard to measured response, what's the incentive to do good?

Delicacy is over. Expect nukes.

I'm just gonna grab the popcorn and enjoy how the restless kids will respond to the power high prosecutors expect to get massaged.

Re:And people wonder why hackers often...

[Dr. Evil]

It looks like he was already nuking.

" I took a sample of the API output to a journalist at Gawker."

"I did this because I despised people I think are unjustly wealthy and wanted to embarass them."

"...We were able to establish the authenticity of Goatse Security's data through two people who were listed among the 114,000 names. "

I share his dislike for the telcos... but "Oh look, a leak", then "I'm pulling all the records and sending it to the media" is not responsible disclosure.

" it might be possible to spoof a device on the network or even intercept traffic using the ICC ID."

He was wrong, but despite thinking the breach were more serious than a privacy issue, he still published the information, then speculated on nefarious uses to reporters.

That said, it does not warrant the prosecution... his actions were only unethical.

Re:And people wonder why hackers often...

[gmuslera]

"Responsibly" like the report of a Java vulnerability in August, that exploded in everyone's face after Oracle sit on that report for months?

The problem is not the people that find and report the problem in a way or another (and advising the users too, just because there are too many cases like Oracle). Is the ones that find and exploit it silently.

Law is (in some cases, literally) killing the messenger, if you find something that could be exploited, better don't tell anyone because even reporting it to the company could get you in trouble too. Eventually someone in the dark side will exploit it (if is not doing that already) but is not your problem, maybe is even designed that way to always get fresh 0-day exploits for the new generation of Stuxnet (lawyers are involved, you can't attribute that to stupidity)

Re:And people wonder why hackers often...

[i]

You are wrong. And it seems that you are a friend of security through obscurity. And prioritize economical interests of companies before security interests of the society.

Re:And people wonder why hackers often...

[Lehk228]

There is no more responsible disclosure.

not if you want to stay out of prison anyways

if you find an exploit, maka a metasploit plugin and publish anonymously via TOR

Re:And people wonder why hackers often...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's "responsible disclosure"? Telling AT&T? They put it there to begin with, completely unaware of how stupid they were.

Re:And people wonder why hackers often...

[corbettw]

So publishing personally-identifying data for 114,000 people is in the security interests of society?

Auernheimer should've gone to AT&T to report the problem. I've done that myself several times and they've always been very receptive. They might not fix the problem quickly (they're a big company and move slowly), but I've never had them sic the US Attorneys on me for it.

Re:And people wonder why hackers often...

[argStyopa]

Did he 'disclose responsibly'?
I know nothing of the case aside from the summary, and /. summaries often are entirely wrong.

But: "...I thought it was egregiously negligent for AT&T to be publishing a complete target list of iPad 3G owners, and I took a sample of the API output to a journalist at Gawker.'..."

Posting AT&T exposure details to a journalist?
Telling AT&T their data is exposed, getting ignored/whatever, THEN taking to a journalist - something entirely different.

Re:And people wonder why hackers often...

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet, just sell it to the Russians.

Re:And people wonder why hackers often...

[Velex]

So publishing personally-identifying data for 114,000 people is in the security interests of society?

At this point, yes.

There are three things that could have happened. He could have gone through the "proper channels," and, since a middle manager somewhere would need to be embarrassed, he'd still be up shit creek without a paddle. He could have did what he did, publicly humiliated AT&T and made the 114,000 individuals affected acutely aware that AT&T had failed them.

OR, he could have done nothing. Perhaps that's the correct response. Instead, some black hat in $scary_country would have discovered it and exploited it without making anyone aware.

The whole beef I have with prosecuting for "hacking" in this manner is that he merely asked AT&T's server for information, and it merrily complied. To me, it sounds like this case is even more clear-cut than Swartz's case. He didn't break and enter. He didn't place unauthorized equipment in a network closet. He didn't even abuse a relationship of trust between a publisher and a college. All he did was show that all you need to do is politely ask the server for information, and it would happily give it to you.

Auernheimer should've gone to AT&T to report the problem. I've done that myself several times and they've always been very receptive. They might not fix the problem quickly (they're a big company and move slowly), but I've never had them sic the US Attorneys on me for it.

Consider yourself lucky. Or perhaps they know you'd fight back because you're older and have the resources to do so. Going after successful professionals (I can only assume you are) isn't very good for bullies. Bullies need targets they know they can safely victimize. So here we are.

Re:And people wonder why hackers often...

[Anonymous Coward]

He did nothing more than that New York newspaper to public information.

Re:And people wonder why hackers often...

[kenh]

Like the fellow in the JSTOR case, he decided his crime was OK because he was trying to further his political aims.

Re:And people wonder why hackers often...

[corbettw]

He could have gone through the "proper channels," and, since a middle manager somewhere would need to be embarrassed, he'd still be up shit creek without a paddle.

You clearly don't know how AT&T's internal policies work, then. My personal experience says, if you go through proper channels, they are very receptive to problem reporting.

He could have did what he did, publicly humiliated AT&T and made the 114,000 individuals affected acutely aware that AT&T had failed them.

See eldavojohn's link to a Wired article for why this isn't what his motivation was, at all. He wasn't looking out for those customers, he just wanted to embarrass AT&T.

OR, he could have done nothing.

That's not the final option; he could've kept those addresses to himself and sold them, and any other personally-identifying information, to others, which is exactly what his IRC conversations suggest he was going to do before sending them to Gawker.

This guy is definitely no Aaron Swartz and does not deserve our sympathy, at all.

Re:And people wonder why hackers often...

[tehcyder]

if you find an exploit, maka a metasploit plugin and publish anonymously via TOR

But then you don't get all the publicity and boost to your self esteem of being a cool "hacker".

Re:And people wonder why hackers often...

[Anonymous Coward]

I share his dislike for the telcos... but "Oh look, a leak", then "I'm pulling all the records and sending it to the media" is not responsible disclosure.

"Responsible disclosure" is selling the address list off to Russian spammers, I presume. You'll get a better price, more embarrassment for AT&T, and be safer from prosecution.

Re:And people wonder why hackers often...

[Anonymous Coward]

So publishing personally-identifying data for 114,000 people is in the security interests of society?

And yet, this is exactly what AT&T did.

Re:And people wonder why hackers often...

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly don't know how AT&T's internal policies work, then. My personal experience says, if you go through proper channels, they are very receptive to problem reporting.

Yeah, but never fixing them. Trust me, I should know.

Re:And people wonder why hackers often...

[Sockatume]

What stopped him from going to AT&T, then going to the press when AT&T didn't respond? A lack of executive function?

Re:And people wonder why hackers often...

[Dr. Evil]

He crossed the line when he leeched the full database. It was unprofessional, malicious and potentially was motivated by personal gain. He didn't need to do that to prove there was a problem.

Leeching then apologising, saying that you wanted to see the extent of the vulnerability, that's bad. Sending the output to reporters, that's just stupid.

If he was an "activist", he could have put it up on Wikileaks, skipped out on the credit, called himself "Anonymous" and be done. But it seems he wanted his name to be known.

Penny-ante hack too... they left the door open and he took copies of everything he found.

Re:And people wonder why hackers often...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you approach security testing with the idea that you're going to publicly embarrass a company and intentionally expose innocent customers, you deserve to get fucked in the ass metaphorically and literally.

Re:And people wonder why hackers often...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that he also distributed copies of the program he wrote to harvest this data to other people so they could use it too. this combined with no disclosure to AT&T and the fact that he admitted that he hated them and wanted nothing more than to cause them harm and you have a rational for indictment.

The defense of well I discovered this and tried to inform them so it couldn't be exploited falls flat when you exploit it yourself and allow others to do so.

Re:And people wonder why hackers often...

[DriedClexler]

The whole beef I have with prosecuting for "hacking" in this manner is that he merely asked AT&T's server for information, and it merrily complied

I'm not defending Auernheimer's treatment, obviously, but I don't think you're giving it a fair framing either. A spammer could likewise claim that they "merely" asked your server to store an email from them, and it "merrily complied".

Or someone who stole your private key to break into your account could claim that it "merely" provided the appropriate credentials and "merrily complied" with future requests.

Re:And people wonder why hackers often...

[SourceFrog]

So publishing personally-identifying data for 114,000 people is in the security interests of society?

I realize email addresses loosely qualify as 'personal data', but come on, they were fucking email addresses. Trumping it up to the more scary sounding "personally identifying data" makes you sound a bit like these sociopathic prosecutors.

US Attorneys

[ShakaUVM]

Yes, US Attorneys are the most powerful, and least controlled, people in our government. Even the president has more checks and balances on his power than what these guys get away with.

A US Attorney is trying to seize the assets of a friend of mine, who is guilty of doing nothing but leasing land to some farmers, that grew pot on it without his knowledge. He's running into debt fighting the case, but the US Attorney is going full bore anyway, since it doesn't cost *him* anything to try to make an example out of someone.

I think we should institute loser-pays in all lawsuits involving US Attorneys. (Unless we have this already? I don't know.) There's a reason why 90%+ of all cases with them are plea bargained out - the US Attorneys have effectively unlimited resources, and can drain you dry fighting them.

Re:US Attorneys

[mwvdlee]

try to make an example out of someone.

This is where the problem starts. Nobody deserves or has earned to be treated differently in a legal system.

Re:US Attorneys

[ShakaUVM]

Regardless, US Attorney Wagner seems to think that seizing the assets of non-drug-related landowners will be sufficient to scare them all into doing the police work for him.

Re:US Attorneys

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a reason why 90%+ of all cases with them are plea bargained out - the US Attorneys have effectively unlimited resources, and can drain you dry fighting them.

That's not true. Large corporations kick their asses every day due to the budgetary restrictions on the Justice Department. Large Banks and Investment Firms, Big Pharmaceuticals, etc. can out maneuver and spend the government. They can, and do, drag a case on for years and turn it into a war of attrition. And because everyone in the US loves a winner and abhors a loser, US Attorneys look for easy victories, as picking on David is easier to do than fight Goliath.

As for the the large amount of plea bargains, that relates to all accused persons--not just the innocent ones. The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of folks being prosecuted are guilty of the crime they are accused of. So, if you are guilty, taking a deal for a lighter sentence in return for not costing the government huge sums of money to prosecute your case only makes sense...

Re:US Attorneys

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, it -is- loser pays.

Loser is the individual who gets targeted by the United States Department of Extortion.

Re:US Attorneys

[Mikkeles]

Where is the judge in all this? He certainly has the power to throw out the case.

Re:US Attorneys

[TuringTest]

If it applies to innocents as well as the guilty, taking a deal is completely irrelevant and unrelated to actual guiltiness. Thus, you can't use the number of deals as measure to estimate that a majority is guilty.

Re:US Attorneys

[advocate_one]

it has a chilling effect... it's already been used elsewhere to get medical marijuana stores closed down as the landlords evict the tenants rather than have the authorities fall down on them...

Re:US Attorneys

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we should institute loser-pays in all lawsuits involving US Attorneys. (Unless we have this already? I don't know.)

"loser pays all" just means that the guy with the deeper pockets will spend even more to ensure he doesn't lose. And the little guy remains the one who stands to lose everything.

A better solution would be a system whereby both sides are guaranteed to get legal representation of equal value. The legal costs for both sides should be paid into a central fund and distributed equally between the parties.

That way, if one side has deeper pockets and wants to spend more on getting the best legal help money can buy, then the he ends up subsidising other guy to also get better lawyers.

Yes, there are flaws in this concept as well, and it would need to be worked out in more detail, but if the idea is to protect the little guy from harrassment, then it's definitely a better idea than "loser pays all".

Re:US Attorneys

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a nice incident a few years ago where a New York state attorney persecuted landlords of people convicted of drug offences, seizing their property.

Then it happened to her. Now that's justice.

Re:US Attorneys

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

I disagree with the premise they're making an example out of him, or anyone.

I just don't think they're that organized. I think they're grandstanding, plain and simple. Trying to look impressive and like they're doing something.

The problem with the state isn't this grand notion of state supremacy, well it is in some cases, but overall, it's the electoral system. The one where you can make your boss look bad if you're found to be "wasting tax payer money" by doing nothing or not screwing people to the wall hard enough.

Re:US Attorneys

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly right. I'm glad you pointed out this goes way beyond computer-related "crime". As you pointed out, the Federal "trial" system effectively doesn't exist because 90% of cases are plea-bargained due to:

(1) the wide extent and extremely high penalties of so many new Federal laws regulating so many activities; so if you get 10 charges each carrying a 20-year penalty for accidentally hitting a Bald Eagle with your car, are you going to take the 2-year prison sentence suspended and the $25,000 fine? You bet you are.

(2) the unchecked power of US attorneys.

But US attorneys are just part of the government elite that now rule our lives. I'm a wage slave who pays close to 50% of my salary so I am working 1/2 the year to support government employees who make more money on average than most Americans, have lifetime employment guarantees, and lucrative pensions and health care benefits denied to most Americans in the working (private sector) class.

Re:US Attorneys

[Anonymous Coward]

If it applies to innocents as well as the guilty, taking a deal is completely irrelevant and unrelated to actual guiltiness. Thus, you can't use the number of deals as measure to estimate that a majority is guilty.

The number of deals is not what is being used to gauge the "actual guiltiness". The legal system may have its flaws, but the notion that more than half the people (the majority) on trial are innocent of what they are charged with is a bit supercilious. Sure, the police may get it wrong sometimes and some prosecutors may be overzealous, but that is a far cry from the rampant corruption and injustice necessary to have a majority of innocent people on trial.

Re:US Attorneys

[Anonymous Coward]

That isnt what he said, dipshit.

What he said was cogent and insightful, but that flew right over your head. You had to talk about the painfully obvious stuff that nobody needed you to tell them, because you think the painfully obvious is cogent and insightful. Its not. You are too simple minded to have a meaningful opinion.

Re:US Attorneys

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just resources on the legal defense side that enables corporations to win against federal prosecutors, it's also the way that the laws are written. Corporate lobbyists insure that laws that might be used to prosecute corporate executives have so much wiggle room for the defendant that the burden of proof for the prosecution is so high that it discourages prosecution.

Re:US Attorneys

[Anonymous Coward]

The other side of the coin is land that has been sold off to an irresponsible owner, that either perform illegal activities or lease out to criminals. This is how Anders Behring Breivik got to the point where he was able to assemble AND test his bomb prior to the awful decision to carry out his fanatical plans.

The previous owner of the farm is indeed trying to get it back, because new shady people have settled on the same farm, keeping visitors away and keeping to themselves.

So the other side of the coin is that land that is abused for criminal acts, should indeed be losable.

Re:US Attorneys

[kenh]

The US Attorney is following through on the laws as passed by duly-elected leaders. It's convienient to blame the prosecutor, but they didn't write the laws.

Here's a nice little write-up regarding WY seizure laws - most other states have similar laws in effect, as does the federal government.

Re:US Attorneys

[sesshomaru]

n 2009, the 69-year-old owner, Russ Caswell, received a letter from the DOJ indicating the government was pursuing a civil forfeiture case against him with the intention of seizing his family's motelâ"it was built in 1955 by Russ's fatherâ"and the surrounding property. Ms. Ortiz's office asserted that the motel had been the site of multiple crimes by its occupants over the years: 15 low-level drug offenses between 1994 and 2008 (out of an estimated 125,000 room rentals). Of those who stayed in the motel from 2001 to 2008, .05% were arrested for drug crimes on the property. Local and state officials in charge of those investigations never accused the Caswells of any wrongdoing.

Nor is the U.S. attorney charging Russ Caswell with a crime. The feds are using a vague but increasingly common procedure known as civil asset forfeiture. In criminal forfeiture, after a person is convicted of a crime the state must prove that the perpetrator's property had a sufficiently strong relationship to the crime to warrant seizure by the government. In civil forfeiture proceedings, the state asserts the property committed the crime, andâ"under civil lawâ"the burden of proof is on the defense to demonstrate their property is innocent.

"I've found... I'm responsible for the action of people I don't even know, I've never even met, and for the most part I have no control over them," Mr. Caswell told WBUR Boston. "And when they do something wrong, the government wants to steal my property for the actions of those people, which to me makes absolutely no sense. Itâ(TM)s more like we're in Russia or Venezuela or something."

According to the sworn testimony of a DEA agent operating out of Boston, it was his job to comb through news stories for properties that might be subject to forfeiture. When he finds a likely candidate, he goes to the Registry of Deeds, determines the value of the property in question, and refers it to the U.S. attorney for seizure. It is DEA policy to reject anything with less than $50,000 equity. -- Carmen Ortiz's Sordid Rap Sheet

The US Attorney's office is a breeding ground for monsters, and it certainly isn't any better under the current administration than previous ones.

In the old Roman Empire, this kind of property seizure was done by emperors like Caligula using similar methods.

Re:US Attorneys

[ahabswhale]

There's a reason why 90%+ of all cases with them are plea bargained out - the US Attorneys have effectively unlimited resources, and can drain you dry fighting them.

Actually, almost all court cases in the US, including local jurisdictions, are plea bargained. There's nothing unique at all about this with the US Attorneys. In my county (Hennepin, MN), the number is well north of 90% for plea bargains. Going to trial is something that largely only happens in movies and TV.

Re:US Attorneys

[BoberFett]

Ah yes, the Nuremburg defense. Loved by monsters everywhere.

Re:US Attorneys

[jdwoods]

US Attorneys are the most powerful, and least controlled, people in our government. Even the president has more checks and balances on his power than what these guys get away with.

Heinlein had the right idea in his novel, Number Of The Beast.

Re:US Attorneys

[ShakaUVM]

> It is DEA policy to reject anything with less than $50,000 equity

Yeah, they're going after my friend because his land is all paid off. Mortgaged properties can be protected by the bank's legal team, so the US Attorneys avoid trying to seize them.

It's utterly shocking that our country isn't up in arms over this.

Re:US Attorneys

[tqk]

If you take a deal, you are admitting you are guilty (of a lesser offence) and thus you are not innocent. Therefore, 100% of people taking deals are guilty, by definition.

Ridiculous. If you take a deal, you want to avoid doing the time. That's all, and it's true for both guilty and falsely accused innocents. Plead guilty and get six months, or do the 35 years for the right to insist you're innocent? It's not a difficult choice.

Re:US Attorneys

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we should institute loser-pays in all lawsuits involving US Attorneys.

Legal professionals, as a class in society, are in position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to deciding policies concerning how they get paid.

Unfortunately, in most cases, the people who end up deciding what these policies are and how they work ARE legal professionals.

As long as Americans are stupid enough to let this situation continue, we can not expect ethical conduct from the legal profession in general. In specific cases, yes, ethical conduct does occur, but even in such cases the individuals involved often benefit in indirect ways from the ethics problems the profession has as a while.

The situation is analogues to a cancer that has metastasized: basic, fundamental ethics issues with American law have spread to many areas of the legal system and are poisoning it from within.

A big part of the problem is the inability of our professional press to inform the public regarding the problem. Unfortunately, scandals sell news better than anything that requires a brain to understand. Also, most people who study the law in depth are looking to make a living from it, and have no interest in rocking the boat, which means reporters are generally out of their depth when trying to understand these issues.

a case of legislative overreach and the unfettered

[Anonymous Coward]

a case of a bunch of clueless pricks in the legal system extending jurisdiction to a field they have no knowledge of but feel they need to be responsible for. The fact that the people involved are not so embarrassed that they automatically resign when these acts come to light but instead defend their position also speaks volumes.

It's as if Jen from the 'it crowd' got a law degree.

MORAL OF THE STORY !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't try !!

To Mess With !!

THE MAN !!

He Will !!

Put you down !!

Like the dog you are !!

And all will !!

SUBMIT TO THE MAN !!

Re:MORAL OF THE STORY !!

[MadMaverick9]

Talk to the Hand !!

Who's user agent is it anyway?

[MichaelSmith]

kim.com has his megakey system which works as an ad blocker but replaces existing advertisments on web pages with ads served by mega. There has already been some rumbling from advertisers and web page publishers that changing a web page in this way violates their copyright. So is it always going to be legal for me to view source on a web page and view it in my preferred way?

Likewise, I can put any address I like into the URL bar but these guys are being prosecuted for doing that. Isn't it their web browser?

Re:Who's user agent is it anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can type random bank accounts and passwords into my browser, isn't it their web browser?

Re:Who's user agent is it anyway?

[Rich0]

He embarrassed a large corporation. That makes powerful people upset. He must be punished.

Re:Who's user agent is it anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

there was a case here with an ad blocker that replaced the ads and donated the proceeds to charity, that was quickly shut down for copyright reasons
but then again since they were giving away the money they didn't have much to put a fight with

I miss typed a URL once....

[Anonymous Coward]

and saw something I wasn't expecting to see. I should have told my sorry story to a journalist at The Onion!
"Area man, who miss typed a URL and saw something he didn't expect to see, is now under expensive investigation"
In a comment, average taxpayer stated "This is definitely the right way to spend tax dollars and why I am proud to be a taxpayer."

Re:I miss typed a URL once....

[Anonymous Coward]

this is the sum total of this situation. it's embarrassing and frightening.

Re:I miss typed a URL once....

[rkinch]

Area man added, "Now I can't ever unsee this. I'm screwed."

He's insane.

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason he's not suicidial is probably because he's a morbid prankster and not an idealist. He's had a podcast where he's dressed up as jesus and ranting. He made that speech at defcon about assassination markets while alledgedly high on drugs. He's resilient.

Captcha: mischief

Re:He's insane.

[Anonymous Coward]

yup, saw his tweaked out hack-the-world rant at torcon years back and the weev does not have much of my sympathy.

All a show and the DA is the ring master.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the law makes it a crime for 'unauthorized' access, but allows the 'victim' to detrtmin whatwas 'unauthorized' *after* the fact and for a public offering that is automated.

It is as if someone puts a stack of newspapers on a sidewalk with a sign that says 'free' and then asking the DA to prosecute for 'theft' anyone they don't like that took them upon their offer and took more then one. I.e.they decide afterwards that one is The 'limit' and the sign just says 'free'.

Oh and these sleazy DAs count each URL issued as a separate count of the 'crime' with a penalty of 5 years and $300,000 possible on each count of 'unauthorized access'.

It is all to appear 'tough on crime' for their next election. And, yes, they have all the resources of their office to put on your case against you.

Fair? No. Disproportionate penalty for the 'crime'? Certainly. It is really a contract dispute - a civil matter, not criminal.
The law is just wrong. Make your vote count on these issues and hold your legislators and judiciary oversight officials accountable in the voting booth.

Re:All a show and the DA is the ring master.

[Jade_Wayfarer]

Yes, people should use their voting power to stop this insanity. Only catch here is that most of the people are coming to vote after watching some TV news/shows with the same prosecutor, and not after reading Slashdot. These same people then are found sitting in the jury box, listening to the same prosecutor, who then colorfully portrays the defendant as a master criminal, evil genius hacker on the level of Bond's villains. And the wheel continues to roll.

It is sad for me to say, but I think that it'll take more than one dead "computer guy" to really change this system. Insanity has to be seen and felt on the national level, with major news channels and talk shows picking up the story. Chances of that happening? Almost none.

Re:All a show and the DA is the ring master.

[swalve]

Easiness of access doesn't mean that access is allowed. It's not a zero sum game. If I leave my house unlocked and it gets ransacked, I'm an idiot and deserve blame for the trouble. But the person doing the ransacking doesn't lose any of the blame for his own part.

Re:All a show and the DA is the ring master.

[Sockatume]

Where the access is, in and of itself, the crime, then facilitating that access does become an issue. Not the whole issue - a transgression has still occurred - but something that needs consideration. There's a difference between wandering into someone's home uninvited, and wandering into other rooms after using the bathroom with their permission.

Re:All a show and the DA is the ring master.

[fatphil]

There's history. Humans aren't allowed to hand-edit URLs now, according to the US legal system. The first case I remember was someone going up a directory tree, and then playing clicky with the other directories he found.

In that case, and this, every single 'GET' request they were complaining about was one which was responded to with data, not a 403 (or other) error. In my view, as someone with a technological bent, that means that their webserver had vetted the request, and decided that the access was authorised. And therefore not 'unauthorised'.

Due to the lack of any consideration, this isn't contract law. But you're right, it certainly shouldn't be criminal to edit a URL, or to accept (which is what the client does) what is freely offered (which is what the server does). The courts don't seem to understand that *the server is in control*, it is *responsible for everything that gets transmitted* - that's its sole job.

Re:All a show and the DA is the ring master.

[Jmc23]

OMG an explanation even a judge could understand!

Re:All a show and the DA is the ring master.

[Anonymous Coward]

Editing the URL to find data breaches isn't hacking, it's criminal negligence on the part of the host.

Re:All a show and the DA is the ring master.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's history. Humans aren't allowed to hand-edit URLs now, according to the US legal system.

Why does is seem like 99% of people here don't know any facts of the case. He might have hand-edited a URL, but then he made a harvesting script. Harvested a huge amount of personal information and posted it online. This guy is a black hat. Why are people defending such obviously unethical and illegal behavior?

Re:All a show and the DA is the ring master.

[Anonymous Coward]

More like a ring worm.

Re:All a show and the DA is the ring master.

[tqk]

Oh and these sleazy DAs count each URL issued as a separate count of the 'crime' with a penalty of 5 years and $300,000 possible on each count of 'unauthorized access'.

Yeah. Imagine walking into a bank with a sticky note saying, "I have a weapon. Hand over the cash." They hand over three grand.

Is that three thousand counts of theft under $1500?

Re:All a show and the DA is the ring master.

[tqk]

Easiness of access doesn't mean that access is allowed.

Imagine you're a geek surfing the web. You stumble on this URL (maybe your Mom sent it to you), you look at the address bar, and something doesn't look right. You type something in to see what it would do. "Holy crap! That's *really* wrong!"

Now you're a criminal. That's insane. In what Universe does that scenario make even a lick of sense?

Re:All a show and the DA is the ring master.

[sjames]

But if you leave your place of business unlocked and the lights on, you lose the ability to claim trespassing.

Stephen Heymann

[andydread]

Stephen Heymann is to "computer crime" prosecutorial zealotry like China is to Expionage hacking.
Stephen Heymann is the poster child for this kind of overreach when it comes to prosecuting so called "computer crimes"
He has written papers and lobbied for more harsher penalities and easier access to data without a warrant to prosecute "computer criminals"

Re:Stephen Heymann

[Stirling Newberry]

The get people to sign the petition: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fire-assistant-us-attorney-steve-heymann/RJKSY2nb

Even little things count can, though of course if you want to do something more high profile, that's up to you.

Re:Stephen Heymann

[Anonymous Coward]

Signed. Thank you for sharing this. Mods please upvote.

Re:Stephen Heymann

[Chris Mattern]

You don't seriously think the White House pays any attention to those, do you? If it doesn't fit in with what they want to do, it just gets rubber-stamped "No" and tossed in the trash can.

Re:Stephen Heymann

[Stirling Newberry]

The point is to put the White House on record as saying, "Why Yes, we hound hackers as a matter of policy."

Fucking let Aaron rest in peace

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone is going to be the next Aaron Swartz... This jackass is no Aaron Swart

Act anonymously next time.

[couchslug]

Attaching your name to things is vanity.

Next time you find something amusing, dump it on /b/, post it as fiction, and enjoy the show.

Re:a case of legislative overreach and the unfette

[couchslug]

They aren't clueless. They act as malicious enemies of the people.

The law of unintended consequences

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's too easily possible to get in trouble to an excessive degree for finding security flaws at various companies and institutions, may as well go the black hat route and profit to make that risk worthwhile. Telling people they should fix their shit without anything in return but a smackdown looks pretty stupid at this point.

Just like what happens in regards to other non-violent "crimes" when heavily persecuted. It doesn't go away, it goes underground and may be used to support organizations which actually are criminal. Like with the prohibition and war on (some) drugs, I guess the prosecutors are going to enjoy reaping that which they have sewn.

Enjoy the fallout guys!

Re:The law of unintended consequences

[kenh]

"Finding security flaws" is not what he is being charged with, he published a how-to for others to exploit the weakness and chose to NOT tell AT&T about the vulnerability.

He is being prosecuted for what he did AFTER he found the weakness, not for finding the weakness.

Re:The law of unintended consequences

[Anonymous Coward]

"chose to NOT tell AT&T about the vulnerability" is about as silly a description as "choosing not to tell your neighbor about the vulnerability of his pickup truck" where he is storing his valuables visible in the open.

This is not a vulnerability he exposed. He exposed a conscious choice to not secure anything. If you give customers serially assigned numbers and let your URIs index through these numbers, you are perfectly aware that the data is out in the open for the taking for whoever wants to.

Bought Influence

[slimdave]

$5.3 Million in political contributions from AT&T? http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000076. I doubt that Andrew can match that level of purchased justice.

AT&T nary

[Anonymous Coward]

Its time to prosecute some AT&T execs for gross, criminal negligence in exposing customer data. Period. You know what they say: Ignorantia juris non excusat! And, ignorance of how a URL works is no excuse either. You wanna make money playing around with technology? Pay the price.

Word of advice to the whistle blowers: beware!

Re:AT&T nary

[Anonymous Coward]

never going to happen annon. They are covered in butter head to toe and will slip through what ever noose you put over their head just like the bank and wall street people. The system is broke and broken. The rule of law is a farce that is sold to the highest bidder. The tyranny in this country is enough to make all the founding fathers sick to their stomach, and wish to god they had been excuted by the british. The only thing i can hold up to this modern country and say we don't have is true slavery and genocide. This place makes me sick.

Re:AT&T nary

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding? They were let off the hook for warrantless wiretapping, what gives you the idea they've suddenly become any less above the law?

How we deal with this in The Netherlands

[tsa]

Here in the Netherlands we had a similar thing just before Christmas. Someone had altered a URL on the website of our monarchy and in this way found the Queen's Christmas speech that was to be broadcasted on Christmas Day (logically). He made that public and there was some consternation about whether or not this was a punishable act, but mainly about how our government fails in securing their internet activities tima and time again. The person who had found the speech was not prosecuted and the speech was broadcasted as planned.

Re:How we deal with this in The Netherlands

[corbettw]

Just another good reason to get a transfer to the Netherlands!

Re:How we deal with this in The Netherlands

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in the Netherlands we had a similar thing just before Christmas. Someone had altered a URL on the website of our monarchy and in this way found the Queen's Christmas speech that was to be broadcasted on Christmas Day (logically). He made that public and there was some consternation about whether or not this was a punishable act, but mainly about how our government fails in securing their internet activities tima and time again. The person who had found the speech was not prosecuted and the speech was broadcasted as planned.

One law expert commented the culprit could(!) be liable to persecution, since the video was not intended to be made public, adding however there was likely to be no courtcase.
Even so, it made me shake my head, if only for the (suggested) lack of understanding of website tech.

Re:a case of legislative overreach and the unfette

[Stirling Newberry]

No, this is the system. We have, as a matter of law, declared that "it goes down like the big corporation thought it would go down." So, no proof of mortgage, merely a letter of intent to convey? Foreclose the fuckers, its close enough. No witness to transaction? Robosign. The law is not overly broad by accident, it is overly broad by design.

Just deserts

[symes]

As far as I know - this guy highlighted a security flaw that exposed private data to the world. This meant he knew that that data was private and should not be maliciously exploited. He then wrote an application that accessed that data maliciously. The first bit is laudable. The second bit is as stupid as it gets given that he'd just told the company this sensitive data was exposed.

Re:Just deserts

[Sockatume]

In what way was his access malicious? The word means "with harmful intent" - intent, mind you, not effect, although I don't believe any actual harm has been demonstrated either.

Re:Just deserts

[Anonymous Coward]

He maliciously intended to cause severe embarrassment, with a consequent loss of business and extensive "clean-up" costs. He also succeeded in doing so. I don't think it would be hard to prove either malice or damage.

Re:Just deserts

[Sockatume]

If this was a civil court case then "severe embarrassment" might be malicious intent for some torts*, but this is a criminal case.

*I doubt it

Re:Just deserts

[corbettw]

Grabbing 114,000 bits of personally-identifying information and publishing it through Gawker is malicious. He could've just grabbed a handful and contacted AT&T to say "Hey, you've got a bug". That would've been responsible and ethical, and it's not what he did.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think he belongs in Federal prison, this should've been a civil matter resulting a relatively small loss of income for a few years. But he's not a perfect innocent. Randall Schwatz is a much example of that, IMO.

Re:Just deserts

[Sockatume]

The data was not published! Gawker received and published a story about the data, but it was quite deliberately never publicly disclosed and was eventually destroyed.

Re:Just deserts

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I know - this guy highlighted a security flaw that exposed private data to the world. This meant he knew that that data was private ...

Sorry, but if its on the Internet, it isn't private no matter how many security roadblocks are put up. I really wish people would stop esposing that the Internet is anything other than a massive grey zone when it comes to securing information. Private? Private data, in this context, is something that isn't connected to the Internet in any fashion. But please. Keep cheering for the emporer with no clothes. It's amusing to watch this mayhem from the bleachers while your email address is put on display for the public.

Re:Just deserts

[tqk]

In what way was his access malicious?

Noticing what you can do with a misconfigured web server/URL is one thing. Apparently, they're annoyed that he looped it 114k times. I don't really see the point. That it can be done at all was the real problem. Then doing it another 113,999 times; so what? It just proves the point more times than was needed. Big deal.

Re:Just deserts

[tqk]

Grabbing 114,000 bits of personally-identifying information ...

There are people out there who think their email address is intimate personal information. What information did he actually grab?

Yeah, 114,000 is 113,999 more than he needed to make his case.

Randall [Schwartz] is a much [better?] example of that ...

This is becoming a recurring theme. There's massive loose cannons rolling around on the decks out there, and if you're not watchful, they may squash you like a bug. If we geeks are falling prey to this !@#$, what's the mere mortals out there to do? Just stand there like deer in the headlights and take the hit?

Was AT&T prosecuted?

[SmallFurryCreature]

Under EU law at least AT&T would be in trouble for violating privacy laws, they didn't protect private customer data and that is a violation.

So what was the reason this guy who went to a reporter (not just published the list or sold it) prosecuted? And why is there no link of said reporter defending his source?

This case could not have happened in say my own country. There have been cases were it was TRIED but the judges slapped it down hard. So... what part is missing from the story (we are reading just one side of it) or is the US really that different? I can't imagine the US has no privacy laws at all that AT&T would not have violated by making data so easely available. Can't someone bring a case against AT&T? Making this guy evidence in a far great case, possibly worth some outrageous sum in a settlement and worthy as a bargaining chip to get this case dropped?

What is missing from this story? Because on its own it seems to make no sense. Why should AT&T risk bad publicity when a simple "don't do that again" would have buried the story years ago.

Re:Was AT&T prosecuted?

[ShaunC]

And why is there no link of said reporter defending his source?

It was Gawker...

Re:Was AT&T prosecuted?

[tqk]

So what was the reason this guy who went to a reporter (not just published the list or sold it) prosecuted?

Egregious misconduct (in the eyes of the prosecutors)? "You can't make my Patron look like an incompetent fool and get away with it scot-free! I'll sue!"

... is the US really that different?

The US really is that different. Self-absorbed, ignorant, full of itself, blinkered, convinced of its inherent infallibility (because of "The Constitution!"), and screw you if you don't like it; "We'll sic Seal Team Six on you any time we damned well please, and you'll welcome the result!"

Can't someone bring a case against AT&T?

You'd think, but that's where the US really is different. Do you have the cash to buy enough lawyering to go up against AT&T and the US gov't?

What is missing from this story?

You merely failed to follow the money.

Absolutely wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is "magic" the only way things can change???

Oh my...

[Anonymous Coward]

"In June of 2010 there was an AT&T webserver on the open Internet. There was an API on this server, a URL with a number at the end."
If I leave my house door unlocked and you enter my house and steal some of my stuff, is still considered burglary, despite me not having locked the door?
Oh yes, of course it is - and rightly so!

"I did this because I despised people I think are unjustly wealthy and wanted to embarass them."
So, Mr. Auernheimer, you have been a stupid prick and now get what stupid pricks deserve. Get over it and learn something out of it, so that there is at least a small chance that you are at least a little bit useful to society once you get out of jail.

Re:Oh my...

[Sockatume]

In that scenario there are two crimes, breaking and entering (the act of access) and theft (the act of depriving a person of his/her property). Unfortunately for your analogy he neither accessed a private residence or deprived a person of anything. Its closest real-world analogy would be peeking at your neighbour's unsealed mail in their unlocked mail box on the street, and then putting it back. You know where your mailbox is, you can guess where the other mailboxes are quite easily, and there is no barrier to opening and looking at the contents.

Re:Oh my...

[th3rmite]

Add this to your analogy, copying the contents of said mail and then selling the contents to a reporter.

Re:Oh my...

[Sockatume]

Precisely. And somewhere in there is the act that he should be prosecuted for. It seems that they want to treat it as massive, coordinated security breach however.

Re:Oh my...

[th3rmite]

The real criminals sadly don't get caught because they are harder to catch.

That's why we have a "legal system" not a "justice system".

Re:Oh my...

[kenh]

Really? Anyone is allowed full access to anything in my unlocked mailbox that isn't sealed? You know this how?

Mailboxes are in fact highly-regulated in the United States, I find it hard to believe that I am allowed to go to my neighbors house and read his copy of Sports Illustrated and return it to his mailbox without penalty/repurcussions...

Re:Oh my...

[Sockatume]

You're not getting my point. If I steal from your mailbox I am not charged with multiple counts of grand theft.

Re:Oh my...

[tqk]

In June of 2010 there was an AT&T webserver on the open Internet. There was an API on this server, a URL with a number at the end.

If I leave my house door unlocked and you enter my house and steal some of my stuff, is still considered burglary, despite me not having locked the door?

No. A web server hanging out there on the Internet is not like your unlocked front door. It's job is to serve all comers. If you didn't bother to tell it what and how to serve it, that's on you, not on the stumbling drunk who thought your front door was his home.

Being stupid, ignorant, or incompetent shouldn't get you a pass. Our job is not to consider you first. Your job is to take care of yourself first. Don't blame the unfortunate stumbling drunks for not following your rules. You should have made it impossible for him to succeed. You failed.

Re:Oh my...

[tqk]

Precisely. And somewhere in there is the act that he should be prosecuted for.

Shouldn't we be going after imbeciles who put malconfigured web-servers online instead?

Re:Oh my...

[dywolf]

only because it is not the overriding charge. the primary charges are federal felonies relating to interferring/tampering with the mail. you absolutely could still be charged with theft but they typically dont because one of hte federal charges is along the lines of "theft of the mail" and usually they dont charge you twice for the aspect of the crime.

Slashdot tries to profit From Aaron Schwartz!

[Anonymous Coward]

Film t 11!

About the only thing in common with these cases is that the defendant's names started with the letter A. Schwartz was clearly stealing, he was caught stealing, he tried to hide his stealing, and he caused actual damage to JSTOR services by overwhelming servers and to MIT staff and students by overwhelming the connection, then costing them the JSTOR services. He was due some prosecution, preferably jail time, for the extent of his ongoing abuse.

This is a hacker who published a vulnerability, but didn't use it to steal, didn't keep stealing, and who helped close the dangerous hole by publishing it. This actually *is* a case of judicial overreach. Schwartz got a lot more mercy than he deserved from the court system: this man is being harassed inappropriately.

Re:Slashdot tries to profit From Aaron Schwartz!

[kenh]

He published a how-to on downloading customer info from AT&T, rather than alert AT&T to the vulnerability.

Re:Slashdot tries to profit From Aaron Schwartz!

[Anonymous Coward]

Its like deciding who you want to be prosecuted by.

Re:Slashdot tries to profit From Aaron Schwartz!

[Anonymous Coward]

There are too many stories on the internet these days about how that turns out. Either the company just ignores the bug or sometimes they even go after the person who reported it to them. Even though they are just trying to help! Of course, simply announcing it to the world has the same result. He probably should have just announced it anonymously.

Re:Slashdot tries to profit From Aaron Schwartz!

[Anonymous Coward]

So what? He's not contractually obligated to AT&T.

Re:Slashdot tries to profit From Aaron Schwartz!

[tqk]

Schwartz was clearly stealing, he was caught stealing, he tried to hide his stealing, and he caused actual damage to JSTOR services by overwhelming servers and to MIT staff and students by overwhelming the connection, then costing them the JSTOR services.

Everything he copied (FFS!) had already been paid for by your taxpayers. The only thing "stolen" was connectivity to get at it.

I think it was a brilliant hack. You think it was a travesty. I think $deity would be on Aaron's side, not yours.

Re:Slashdot tries to profit From Aaron Schwartz!

[tqk]

He published a how-to on downloading customer info from AT&T, rather than alert AT&T to the vulnerability.

So? "I am not my brother's keeper." Yes?

Shouldn't a megacorp like AT&T know what it's doing? If not, why not? They cheaped out on tech hiring, at the very least.

Re:a case of legislative overreach and the unfette

[Jade_Wayfarer]

Take any parasite - is it an enemy to its host? Or even simpler - do you feel any strong emotions towards all the animals who were killed to become the contents of your sandwich? They aren't clueless, but "enemy" is too strong a word for them - they consider common people only as food for their ambitions, as some common resource to fuel their careers. Only equals can be enemies, and they do not feel equal to "the people" in any way. We'll have to come up with some other term.

This has been going on for a long time

[CuteSteveJobs]

Federal Prosecutor Oritz said Aaron's suicide won't change how she handles cases:
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/01/ortiz_says_suicide_will_not_change_handling_cases

And Assistant United States Attorney Stephen Heymann 'drove another hacker Jonathan James to suicide in 2008 after he named him in a cyber crime case':
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2262831/Revealed-Aaron-Swartz-prosecutor-drove-hacker-suicide-2008-named-cyber-crime-case.html

Here are some other grubby cases Oritz has been involved in: http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/01/17/carmen-ortizs-sordid-rap-sheet/

Ortiz’s husband attacked the Swartz family on Twitter: "Truly incredible that in their own son's obit they blame others for his death and make no mention of the 6-month offer ... 6 months is not 35 years or lifetime" What an asshole.
http://www.boston.com/business/innovation/blogs/inside-the-hive/2013/01/15/attorney-carmen-ortiz-husband-attacks-swartz-family-twitter/vzxbY5lrrG7BvGjQGnNDtJ/blog.html
http://twitchy.com/2013/01/15/husband-of-mass-attorney-general-deletes-twitter-account-after-defending-prosecution-of-aaron-swartz/

There are "We the people" petitions to remove both Orirz and Heryman, but don't hold your breath. She is an Obama appointee and Heymann's father is a Clinton staffer. How about Someone in the press corps ask Obama what he thinks of his appointees killing off bright young kids?
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-district-attorney-carmen-ortiz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fire-assistant-us-attorney-steve-heymann/RJKSY2nb?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl

Civil liberties attorney Harvey Silverglate said of Aaron: "He was being made into a highly visible lesson, He was enhancing the careers of a group of career prosecutors and a very ambitious — politically-ambitious — U.S. attorney who loves to have her name in lights.” http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57564212-38/prosecutor-in-aaron-swartz-hacking-case-comes-under-fire/

The problem is Federal Prosecutors pick a career-building target and then shop for a crime. Big Criminals are too much work, but small fry like Aaron don't have the resources to fight back so all they have to do is bully them into taking a plea bargain and then bask in the glory. It's been going on for a long time and many people have been swallowed up, but the media usually never reports it:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Tu5RB6YHf10C&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&ots=51Ya4U8XFt&dq=lynch+in+the+name+of+justice (Go to page 43 of this Google Books preview).

Re:This has been going on for a long time

[Rogerborg]

You know what they say. Kill one nerd and you're a monster. Kill a hundred and you're ready to be the Attorney General.

Re:This has been going on for a long time

[kenh]

Ortiz’s husband attacked the Swartz family on Twitter: "Truly incredible that in their own son's obit they blame others for his death and make no mention of the 6-month offer ... 6 months is not 35 years or lifetime" What an asshole.

Oddly, almost no one reports on this offer of a 6 month sentence instaed of 35 years...

There was never any serious question about Swartz commiting the crimes he was charged with (video tape of him doing it, his fingerprints on the HD inside the laptop, etc.), honestly a 6 month sentece would have been about right.

Remember, none of the charges were for copyright infringement.

Re:This has been going on for a long time

[Hatta]

There was never any serious question about Swartz commiting the crimes he was charged with (video tape of him doing it, his fingerprints on the HD inside the laptop, etc.),

There is absolutely reasonable doubt that the actions Swartz took were against the law. There is no doubt that he placed a laptop in a utility closet in MIT and downloaded articles for redistribution. But whether that was against the law is for a jury to decide. Note that no security, physical or electronic, was ever broken.

honestly a 6 month sentece would have been about right.

If a 6 months sentence was appropriate, he should gotten a jury trial on that 6 months charge. But if he wanted to exercise his right to a trial, he'd be hit with 35 years. Do you not see the problem with that? Plea bargaining is plainly unjust.

Re:This has been going on for a long time

[kenh]

If a 6 months sentence was appropriate, he should gotten a jury trial on that 6 months charge.

The Prosecutor can not set the sentences before the trial takes place - they can drop some or all of the charges, but not impose restrictions on the sentence the judge can impose.

The Judge can follow federal sentincing guidelines or not.

The Judge can set the sentences to run concurrently or sequentially.

The Judge can throw the case out.

The Prosecutor is responsible for cataloging the crimes they believe were comitted and then present their case to the court for a decision.

The Prosecutor can make sentencing recommendations once the convictions are made.

Note that no security, physical or electronic, was ever broken.

Was there a sign that said "No Trespassing" on the wiring closet? Is anyone allowed to go anywhere there isn't an actual lock protecting?

Re:This has been going on for a long time

[Hatta]

Excuses, excuses. The fact is 35 years for what Swartz did is absolutely unconscionable. Whatever legalistic reasons you can come up with for the charge of 35 years is simply proof that our legal system is unjust. This is not how a justice system works, this is how a justice system fails.

Re:This has been going on for a long time

[Reverberant]

Note that no security, physical or electronic, was ever broken.

That attitude is one of the reasons that DRM still exists.

Re:This has been going on for a long time

[SourceFrog]

Federal Prosecutor Oritz said Aaron's suicide won't change how she handles cases

Of course it won't, these people are complete sociopaths - if she gave two shits about the people whose lives she wrecks, she wouldn't be wrecking them in the first place.

Re:This has been going on for a long time

[Anonymous Coward]

The judge can do all these things, but he may not to, and probably won't. And this is exactly where plea bargaining comes in:

1. Amass as many ridiculous charges as possible, summing up to a couple of hundred years in jail.
2. Intimidate the accused into accepting a "deal".
3. Profit.

Re:This has been going on for a long time

[tqk]

You know what they say ("I wish I had mod points").

This is nothing like Swartz case.

[flimflammer]

This guy is nothing but an attention whoring internet troll. He did what he did for nothing more than to try to publicly shame AT&T in the most irresponsible way possible, and generally goes out of his way to cause trouble all over the internet. He had no sense of care for the data he was putting under the public spotlight instead of sensibly disclosing the vulnerability to AT&T. For him to suggest he did because of AT&T's "egregiously negligence" yet chose himself to make the most egregiously negligent response is hypocritical to say the least.

I have no sympathy for this Weev guy. Do not liken his situation to Aaron Swartz. That would be doing a massive disservice to his memory. Tools like this should get what is coming to them.

Re:This is nothing like Swartz case.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. It would have made sense to let AT&T know about it when he found it, Why not do that first?

Because he's a jerk.

Re:This is nothing like Swartz case.

[Sockatume]

Given that the issue is not the act but the punishment, I'm curious. Where would you draw the line at "what is coming to" him? What would be unfair?

Re:This is nothing like Swartz case.

[Anonymous Coward]

agreed -
This guy appears to be more than a little paranoid.

To quote "I did this because I despised people I think are unjustly wealthy and wanted to embarass them. I thought this is the United States of America where we have the right to do basic arithmetic and query public webservers."

To quote "The FBI has been after me since I was 15."

He seems to be a little more than an attention mongering troll.

Of course, the issue is, does this mean he should avoid proscutution becuase he is mentally unsound? I do not think so, I want him prosecuted for being a jerk. I am far from convinced that he is being over-prosecuted like Aaron Schwatz. Come on, instead of just demonstrating the security hole, he choose to publish 140,000 addresses. This is like pointing out a non-working sprinkler system by setting a building on fire.

Re:This is nothing like Swartz case.

[Anonymous Coward]

weev is a true monster, arch troll and volcano of gleeful libel. he took cyberbullying and online harassment to levels only a monstrous sociopath could even imagine. Weev is a menace, he is pure, unmitigated Evil - the greatest Cyber Stalker, the inventor and pioneer of internet harassment and wanton cruelty, even to mere children.

Re:This is nothing like Swartz case.

[kenh]

AT&T's crime was thinking their data was secure when it wasn't.

This kid's crime was publishing his "how-to" to enable anyone to exploit AT&T's mistake.

Re:This is nothing like Swartz case.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't particularly like Weev, but in no way does he deserve to be tossed into the American prison system. Embarrassing AT&T doesn't mean that he should be tossed to the wolves and spend the next 20 years fighting off gangs and prison rape. The American "justice" system is truly disgusting.

Re:This is nothing like Swartz case.

[Jmc23]

Yes, let's only fight draconian laws for the people we like.

Re:This is nothing like Swartz case.

[twmcneil]

Totally agree that Weev is not the classiest example in the world.

Totally agree that to liken his actions to those of Swartz is defaming to Swartz.

Still, would like to see how typing a URL is illegal.

In other words...

[kenh]

He discovered a security weakness, went to 'the press' to publicize the failure of the company's security for customer information, and he is now being prosecuted for publicizing how to get customer information from someone else's servers?

Wow, that's shocking. Why didn't AT&T offer him a lifetime job with the company?

Oh yeah, because he choose to embarass the company and explain just how to get their customer information. He never tried to alert AT&T to the flaw, he wanted to be famous for finding it. Bad choice, especially when the law is on the side of the corporation, not the hacker that decides to publish a how-to guide to downloading customer info from AT&T servers...

Re:In other words...

[Sockatume]

I don't think anyone's objecting to AT&T's chagrin, ken.

Simple explanation for all of these cases

[Dcnjoe60]

Fascism

So Completely Different From the Swartz Case!

[eldavojohn]

Yeah and, if what I read on wired is true, this guy should probably get the book thrown at him:

Spitler: I just harvested 197 email addresses of iPad 3G subscribers there should be many more weev: did you see my new project?

Auernheimer: no

Spitler: I’m stepping through iPad SIM ICCIDs to harvest email addresses if you use someones ICCID on the ipad service site it gives you their address

Auernheimer: loooool thats hilarious HILARIOUS oh man now this is big media news is it scriptable? arent there SIM that spoof iccid?

Spitler: I wrote a script to generate valid iccids and it loads the site and pulls an email

Auernheimer: this could be like, a future massive phishing operation serious like this is valuable data we have a list a potential complete list of AT&T iphone subscriber emails



Spitler: I hit fucking oil

Auernheimer: loooool nice

Spitler: If I can get a couple thousand out of this set where can we drop this for max lols?

Auernheimer: dunno i would collect as much data as possible the minute its dropped, itll be fixed BUT valleywag i have all the gawker media people on my facecrook friends after goin to a gawker party

At one point the two discussed the legal risks of what they were allegedly doing:

Spitler: sry dunno how legal this is or if they could sue for damages

Auernheimer: absolutely may be legal risk yeah, mostly civil you absolutely could get sued to fuck

At the same time, others on the IRC chat allegedly discussed the possibility of shorting AT&T’s stock.

Pynchon: hey, just an idea delay this outing for a couple days tommorrow short some at&t stock then out them on tuesday then fill your short and profit

Rucas: LOL

Auernheimer: well i will say this it would be against the law for ME to short the att stock but if you want to do it go nuts

Spitler: I dont have any money to invest in ATT



Auernheimer: if you short ATT dont let me know about it

Spitler: IM TAKIN YOU ALL DOWN WITH ME SNITCH HIGH EVERYDAY

In the wake of news stories about the breach, they allegedly discussed their failure to report the vulnerability to a “full disclosure” mailing list, as well as the opportunity to push their Goetse Security business as a result of the breach:

Nstyr: you should’ve uploaded the list to full disclosure maybe you still can

Auernheimer: no no that is potentially criminal at this point we won

Nstyr: ah

Auernheimer: we dropepd the stock price

Auernheimer: lets not like do anything else we fucking win and i get to like spin us as a legitimate security organization

Sound like some classy fellows there. It's a shame for Swartz that he's being lumped in with this guy. At some point, I hope Slashdot pulls its collective head out of its own ass and realizes that these aren't black and white issues and stops comparing them to things that were like the Civil Rights Movement. Auernheimer: "this could be like, a future massive phishing operation serious like this is valuable data we have a list a potential complete list of AT&T iphone subscriber emails" ... yeah, no criminal intent there.

Re:So Completely Different From the Swartz Case!

[corbettw]

That's pretty damning even if only a portion of it is true. Talking about doing this for financial gain via shorting? Selling the list to others for a profit for phishing? These guys don't have an ethical bone among them, and Auernheimer's protestations of innocence and being picked on just make him sound like a sociopath now.

Re:So Completely Different From the Swartz Case!

[Sockatume]

I'm sure that the fact that they decided doing any of those things makes no difference.

Re:So Completely Different From the Swartz Case!

[SourceFrog]

yeah, no criminal intent there.

I'm not sure you understand how the legal system is supposed to work. If everyone went to prison every time they expressed the intent to do something illegal, we'd all be in jail ... one of the principles of our justice system is that we don't prosecute for crimes you "might commit in the future" (there's a famous movie based on that idea called Minority Report). If they had any evidence that this phishing actually occurred, they would have prosecuted on it. What they did prosecute on was still bullshit - seriously, basically editing the URL.

Re:So Completely Different From the Swartz Case!

[SourceFrog]

Sound like some classy fellows there

Also: Not being classy, isn't illegal. Pointing out that someone "isn't real classy" is usually something you do when you lack anything much more solid to point a finger about.

Fox news has less than 2 million viewers

[Anonymous Coward]

Except Fox News has less than a quarter the viewers of mainstream news, and it's most popular show has fewer viewers than the Daily Show on comedy central.

http://www.politicususa.com/jon-stewart-fox-ratings.html

I think people fear Fox more than the falling viewer figures would require. Look at their attempt to buy the next president of the United States:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/20/bernstein-murdoch-ailes-petreaus-presidency

They tried to recruit General Patreaus to run for President, promising him Fox news as his secret mouthpiece if he ran on a Republican platform. But they failed. They have dreams of being influential, but the biggest trick is fooling advertisers to pay for adverts on their channel.

So I don't think we can blame it on Fox, and just because the FBI has opened an investigation, doesn't mean that *Andrew* is the one who will end up prosecuted for this. After all ATnT did basically publish everyones private details on a public website! Not even attempting to secure it in any way. If that isn't criminal negligence then what is?

Re:Fox news has less than 2 million viewers

[Rich0]

The Daily Show is as much of a problem. Fox News was just one example of this type of thinking - people just filter out anything they disagree with and choose forums that reinforce their already-held beliefs.

Re:Fox news has less than 2 million viewers

[Vancorps]

How is the Daily Show as much of a problem? In all the years of watching they have never outright lied. Fox News was sued over their lying and won by saying they are an entertainment network, not news. So they openly admit that they lie. I would propose a challenge to find an out and out lie ever told on the Daily Show.

Hm...

[betterunixthanunix]

Aaron Swartz wrote a program that automatically downloaded journal articles, and faced 13 felony charges for it. Weev noticed that by adding one to a number in a URL, you could see the information of other people, with no attempt to secure that information.

You're right, totally different! Aaron actually did some hacking; Weev did about as much hacking as a kindergardener might do. Yet he now faces prison time for it.

Re:Hm...

[kenh]

Aaron Swartz wrote a program that automatically downloaded journal articles, and faced 13 felony charges for it.

No, he wasn't.

Have you read the actual charges against him? He comitted up to 13 felonies when he harvested the millions of documents using his program.

That MIT offered free access to the repository via their network didn't give him the right to break into the schools wiring closet, install a computer and hard drive, and download an estimated 20% of the JSTOR archives.

Re:Hm...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fucking moron. Weev just had to spoof a user agent, Aaron just had to put a notebook running curl in a closet. Neither was being more l33t or hackery than the other.

Re:Hm...

[tehcyder]

Yeah, the fact that he published the resulting information rather than trying to do anything about closing the security hole has nothing to do with it.

Clearly, he's not an attention-seeking troll.

Responsible disclosure is dead

[Ignorant Aardvark]

Here's what I've learned recently: If I ever discover a major security hole, do not even attempt to release it responsibly. Instead, layer up behind some proxies and Tor and leak it into a blackhat forum or IRC channel. That way the security hole will eventually get fixed, and I can't be prosecuted.

Re:Responsible disclosure is dead

[scotts13]

Or, shut the heck up and forget you ever saw it. I've done EXACTLY the kind of "hacking" they're talking about; sometimes out of curiosity, more often just trying to get past a broken link. I recall about 10 years ago I came across a list of USN ballistic missile sub deployments... don't know if it was classified, but I backed out of there fast, wiped the browser history and cache, and kept my mouth shut (well, until now).

Re:Responsible disclosure is dead

[bluegutang]

Or post it anonymously to Slashdot...

Re:Responsible disclosure is dead

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly what every freedom loving citizen should do.

It is not my damn fault!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have had zero say in how our system is run because those are not the choices I have at the ballot. I can choose between corporate-sponsored candidate A or corporate-sponsored candidate B. Those have been my choices every vote for over 25 years that I have been of voting age. That is the extent of my "freedom."

So, no, it is not my damn fault that we are sliding into tyranny. (mostly multi-national) Corporations have usurped my representation.

Re:a case of legislative overreach and the unfette

[the eric conspiracy]

The problem with your thesis is that it doesn't work. The banks got hit by tens of billions in fines as the result of robosign abuses.

The thing about the mortgages is that it varies depending on the state. NY for example enforces chain of custody of the note. No note no title no foreclosure.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/02/mers-decision-in-re-ferrel-l-agard-case-no-810-77338-reg/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/23/948986/--Show-Me-The-Note-Foreclosure-Defense-Works

Re:a case of legislative overreach and the unfette

[Stirling Newberry]

The problem with your reply is that it is almost entirely non dispositive. The banks received far more in subsidies that than they were fined, no important players went to jail. Billion sounds like a great deal of money, but compared to the scale of both the profits and the damages, the fines were trivial. The correct way is to look at the scale of penalties to the damages caused. If Banks were held to the same standard as someone who shares a file, they would owe quadrillions of dollars, that is many times the damages caused, and there would be incarceration for thousands of years if each individual action becomes a separate count.

And in New York, where there are the strictest paper trail laws in the nation http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/house_of_cards_hNdx5fNGt6oOl1U9mTW0HN#ixzz1V7KSkSWR 92% of foreclosures lack documentation. For the person being foreclosed upon, they must prove, at their own expense, that this is the case. The cost of litigation becomes to high. So practically, you are simply dead wrong.

At least learn to use google and do some simple multiplication before making declarations.

Uncomfortably similar?

[nstlgc]

Andrew Auernheimer, aka 'weev', former president of the trolling group GNAA, was not doing this out of some kind of altruism. He did not do this to point out the vulnerability. By his own admittance, "[he] did this because [he] despised people [he] think[s] are unjustly wealthy and wanted to embarass them."

If you think Auernheimer is anything like Aaron Swartz, think again.

Re:Uncomfortably similar?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Swartz also did what he did for completely selfish motives and a general anger. Swartz wouldn't have helped anybody either.

So, I think the two are actually very much alike.

aka "weev"

[Anonymous Coward]

Weev is one of the most despicable sociopaths to ever pretend a human face. He is unmitigated, pure Evil. He needs to spend the rest of his life living in a cage.
He is an Arch Troll and the worst cyber bully in the history of the Web.

We need tech jury's and better jury's pay

[Joe_Dragon]

We need tech jury's and better jury's pay.

In a lot of places jury pay is way under min wage and some people can't just pay to miss work for a long trial.

Also there are a lot's of tech cases where a jury made up people who know about tech is needed and the system that we have now may have so you only get 1 person on the jury that knows about IT and can drive there views on to the full group.

Re:We need tech jury's and better jury's pay

[ka9dgx]

We need tech jury's and better jury's pay.

Yes, we need technicians on the juries... but we also need for the jury to KNOW that they also decide if the law being broken was just or not.

If a law is unjust, the jury has the power nullify it. We need to cut off this behavior (out of control prosecution) ourselves, in the jury box.

Let's solve this problem

[MobyDisk]

We need a responsible disclosure law. Following the law should do two crucial things: 1) indemnify the security researcher and 2) indemnify the company if they fix the problem in some reasonable amount of time. Not following the law should leave you at the mercy of the courts.

The law could require the researcher to notify the company/organization, or allow them to notify some responsible body like CERT or the FBI. If the problem is not fixed by some deadline, then the researcher should be able to disclose or sell the information as they choose with no criminal charge or liability.

Re:Let's solve this problem

[Anonymous Coward]

We need a responsible disclosure law. Following the law should do two crucial things: 1) indemnify the security researcher and 2) indemnify the company if they fix the problem in some reasonable amount of time. Not following the law should leave you at the mercy of the courts.

The law could require the researcher to notify the company/organization, or allow them to notify some responsible body like CERT or the FBI. If the problem is not fixed by some deadline, then the researcher should be able to disclose or sell the information as they choose with no criminal charge or liability.

We need a responsible disclosure law. Following the law should do two crucial things: 1) indemnify the security researcher and 2) indemnify the company if they fix the problem in some reasonable amount of time. Not following the law should leave you at the mercy of the courts.

The law could require the researcher to notify the company/organization, or allow them to notify some responsible body like CERT or the FBI. If the problem is not fixed by some deadline, then the researcher should be able to disclose or sell the information as they choose with no criminal charge or liability.

Ok, first of all I'm uneducated and a coward. Seems to me technology has robbed us of empathy and our morality. We think to much and fell to little. The justice system depends on our minds to be kept busy by our techno devices and games.
I voted and did my research. The fact that i can't download songs without getting a piracy add from the DOJ means we are being monitored. Shwatz simply asked for information they had on him and his crime didn't help them targeting him eitheR.
But who can you trust these days. The media or the articles you read online. Every one is a expert with a PhD or a professor at some university.
There's no easy way out of this nonsense. Seems like the gap between the citizen and the government will only get bigger and bigger. Remember I'm uneducated!

Stop knee-jerk reactions

[MobyDisk]

If the guy disclosed to a newspaper then he is a black hat. No sympathy.

If you found my front door unlocked and decided to tell the newspapers instead of telling me, you are potentially aiding a criminal.

Cowardly or elitist justice: pick one

[Anonymous Coward]

Frontline aired Untouchables, a story about how the DOJ has failed to prosecute any bankers following the financial meltdown. It clearly made the case that the DOJ had very little interest, or at the very least, made almost no effort in pursuing criminal charges against the people involved in what amounts to be the biggest case of fraud in history.

Yet they rabidly prosecuted Aaron Swartz where it wasn't even clear that any criminal charges were warranted. I believe this paints a clear picture as to what kind of justice system there is in the United States. BTW, if you haven't seen the documentary Psywar, I highly recommend it.

Tell us, where, please.

[Isaac Remuant]

I'm genuinely curious. Where do you live? Are you sure it's not a case of not noticing the chains due to not actually moving?

No sympathy

[Anonymous Coward]

There are recognised ways of informing companies of security flaws. Going to a journalist and manufacturing fake outrage over them is not one of them.

Re:a case of legislative overreach and the unfette

[Isaac Remuant]

clueless pricks in the legal system extending jurisdiction to a field they have no knowledge of but feel they need to be responsible for

heh, never read Groklaw or you'll get a migraine.

Why do people still do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

The system is broken. It's been pretty obvious for a while now. Why do people still stick their necks out in this way?

If I were going to release information like this I would leave my cellphone and credit cards at home. I would take a device with a fresh OS and Tor on it to a coffee shop in a different city. I'd drive the speed limit the whole way and anything I bought would be in cash.

Re:a case of legislative overreach and the unfette

[Anonymous Coward]

They act as politicians, in point of fact, and execute their function to get the best political outcome rather than uphold the law. Being tough on cybercrime is politically advantageous right now.

It's all the "Phone Company"

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything in this country and most of the developed world is run by and for the "Phone Company".
I refer you to an old movie (1967): "The President's Analyst" with James Coburn.
There is a lot of truth in comedy.

Re:It's all the "Phone Company"

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like it flew right over their heads, kid. /.ers are notoriously shallow minded.

Why contact Gawker?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's where he crossed the line.

Rothbard identified the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard

"[Rothbard] viewed the monopoly power of government as greatest danger to the liberty and the long-term well-being of the populace, labeling the state as "the organization of robbery systematized and writ large" and the locus of the most immoral, grasping, and unscrupulous individuals in any society.[8][9][10][11]

Rothbard asserted that all services provided by monopoly governments could be provided more efficiently by the private sector. He viewed many regulations and laws ostensibly promulgated for the "public interest" as self-interested power grabs by scheming government bureaucrats engaging in dangerously unfettered self-aggrandizement, as they were not subject to market disciplines."

Probably half of them are the same.

[UltraZelda64]

If you take out the relations to technology, you'd find that probably more than half of the lawsuits in this country's corrupt "justice" system are eerily similar. I'm surprised this is now finally coming to light, and the fact that it took the death of a somewhat high-profile person just to flip some light switches in the minds of people who otherwise, it would seem, didn't even care up until that point. Now, the question is, will anything finally be done to attempt to put an end to some of this bullshit--or is there just going to be a new story every other week about someone else being mistreated by the U.S. government, with no real progress made?

Forfeiture negation currency

[Anonymous Coward]

It has occured to me that one of the first acts of the renewed American revolution would be an issue of "forfeiture negation currency". There would be a public announcement posted of the wrong-doing by the attorneys, a printing of notes on behalf of the wronged citizen, and a general acceptance of the notes in exchange for current money, or an equivalent weight in silver. This is a direct violation of the current regime's monopoly on the issuance of money, and hence a revolutionary act.

A more palatable protest (and much more arguably legal) would be to issue a limited edition set of art prints on behalf of the victim.

We could just let them take the property, and issue prints in value of TWICE the appraised value. Thus, not only would the citizen become a cause celebre for liberty, they would also receive a reward for having been harrassed by the government that was supposed to represent them.

Catch 22

[Anonymous Coward]

As for the the large amount of plea bargains, that relates to all accused persons--not just the innocent ones. The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of folks being prosecuted are guilty of the crime they are accused of.

So we get an averaged punishment for everybody alike, regardless whether guilty or innocent.

In Heller's "Catch 22", there is a passage

Clevinger was guilty, of course, or he would not have been accused, and since the only
way to prove it was to find him guilty, it was their patriotic duty to do so.

"Catch 22" was supposed to be satire at one point of time.

Re: seriously???

[almechist]

If it applies to innocents as well as the guilty, taking a deal is completely irrelevant and unrelated to actual guiltiness. Thus, you can't use the number of deals as measure to estimate that a majority is guilty.

If you take a deal, you are admitting you are guilty (of a lesser offence) and thus you are not innocent. Therefore, 100% of people taking deals are guilty, by definition.

If you're innocent, you don't plead guilty. No one is going to believe otherwise, unless you can prove you were actually tortured, or something.

You can't seriously believe this! Or is your post some kind of sarcasm? I listened for the whoosh, but... I have to assume you mean what you say. Clearly you have absolutely no conception of how the US justice system actually works in practice. The truth is that enormous numbers of people who absolutely firmly believe they are completely and factually innocent still plead guilty to a variety of crimes in US courtrooms every day. Frequently they do so on the direct advice of their lawyer. That's how it is, that's the problem, plea bargains are the norm and there is incredible pressure on a defendant not to take it to trial. Given the choice between the possibility of a lengthy prison sentences combined with likely ruinous legal fees, and an offer of a brief or suspended jail sentence and a small fine, it's not difficult at all to see how and why innocent people regularly plead guilty. No, they aren't tortured, but yes, there is an "or something" and I have just described it, it is the very real threat of ruination and long incarceration. The stakes are simply too high, most people fold and take the deal offered. As to the percentage who are actually innocent, no one knows, not you or me or the so-called experts. The system is simply so distorted by now that it is impossible to know the true number of innocent people fed into our meat grinder of a justice system. All you can do is pray it never happens to you.

Aaron Swartz vs. the Phantom Giant

[sgt_doom]

Aaron Swartz versus the Phantom Giant

When Aaron took on SOPA, he took on AT&T and as he was later to find out, Chris Dodd, whose family has been on retainer to the Rockefeller family for generations, dating back to their ancestor, Samuel Calvin Tate Dodd, the attorney to John D. Rockefeller, who created a holding company each time Rockefeller’s Standard Oil supposedly sold off a business unit (during the court-ordered breakup), moving the stock ownership to the holding company, then in turn establishing ownership of said holding company at one of Rockefeller’s foundations and/or trusts.

Chris Dodd’s father, Thomas Dodd, had no less than at least three Acts of Congress passed in futile attempts to curb the famous Dodd corruption (most notably F.A.R.A., or the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and amendments to it).

Are the Dodds still working for the Rockefeller family? Well, that depends on the mystery ownership of AT&T. Going back to the early 1900s, John Moody, the original founder of the infamous Moody’s rating service, said that AT&T was part of the Rockefeller Trust, originally financed by Morgan, but either sold, traded or shifted over to Rockefeller.

We do know that AT&T loves Senator Jay Rockefeller, and that Jay Rockefeller loves AT&T, as witnessed by the manner in which he led the way in the Senate to grant them retroactive immunity regarding the warrantless wiretapping during the Bush Administration (which continues on, BTW).

From the site link below. . . .

http://attpublicpolicy.com/tag/jay-rockefeller/

Posted by: AT&T Blog Team on January 25, 2011 at 4:08 pm

“Chairman Rockefeller has long made public safety and national security a top priority for this country. We applaud his commitment to the public safety community and his tireless efforts to ensure that first responders have the resources they need to support a nationwide wireless broadband network. This legislation will result in a truly interoperable public safety network and will free up new spectrum and establish funding mechanisms to support the operation and maintenance of this critical network.”

Many people don’t realize that the old AT&T has been reconstituted back to its original, albeit even more powerful and richer self, thanks in part to Bill Clinton’s signing of that Telecommunications Act of 1996 --- all except Verizon, but in tracking the circuitous ownership of Verizon it appears to lead back to the same ownership as AT&T!

Why would AT&T target Aaron Swartz, through their federal prosecutor proxies?

We used to marvel, back in the late 1970s, how AT&T set out to destroy the telecom upstart, MCI, which would have shortly gone out of business, had not AT&T pulled their access to long distance lines, thereby allowing MCI legal recourse, eventually netting MCI enough monies (from the legal settlement with AT&T) to continue on with their precarious business existence for a few more years.

AT&T --- and the Rockefeller family --- has only one strategy: the scorched earth policy!

Now, former IMF stooge and presently an economics prof at MIT, Simon Johnson, would have us believe that the Rockefellers, led by the crafty David Rockefeller, gave away their billions to “charity” --- they morphed from murderous robber barons to “philanthropists”?

So the Rockefeller family, worth an estimated $30 billion in 1960 (when one billion was an unimaginable sum), are now only worth $2 billion?

Puuuhlease --- repositioning the Rockefeller fortune to various foundations, trusts and unregistered trusts to hide their wealth and ownership was, and still is, the standard tax dodge; nothing particularly surprising there. (The norm

Correct, Actually Andrew Auernheimer.. aka weev

[Anonymous Coward]

Is not not like Aaron Swartz at all. Weev Is more of a human being, man, worthy person to live a life on earth than Aaron Swartz. You see, Aaron Swartz is a pussy. A selfish, little, insignificant pussy. He took his own life. The argument ends right there, and your perceived altruism about any situation where the word 'altruism' gets tossed around ends right there.

So you are saying in an act of protest, Weev telling the world that 100,000 celebrities and rich people get the good stuff first to promote the snake oil that is Apple with it's deceptive advertising practices is unacceptable to you? That's great!! thanks for caring buddy!

doesn't sound like it's the same

[stenvar]

From the article, Auernheimer was using an API with no access restrictions on it; he didn't physically intrude anywhere. He really shouldn't be facing prosecution at all. That's not the same as Swartz, who physically trespassed, among other things.

Is this right person being prosecuted?

[AmeerCB]

There is a lot of debate here over Auemheimer's character and his true intent. I'm not sure why any of that matters - can we really consider a carelessly designed api a "security exploit?" All he did was increment a number in a url, if I understand this correctly. I don't really care if he sold the information to gawker or if he is a crazy person - changing a url is not "hacking" in any sense. If anyone should be prosecuted here, it's AT&T for being grossly negligent with their customers' private data. The data was openly exposed to the internet - all Auemheimer did was demonstrate how to manipulate the url to get it.

The Lesson To Learn

[Baby Duck]

First the reddit guy and now this guy. Lesson? Don't Trust Gawker journalists.

Adversarial and Inquisitorial Legal Systems

[Pfhorrest]

I'd much prefer a legal system where the prosecutor is charged with finding the truth, not just stringing together enough facts to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

It sounds like you would prefer the inquisitorial systems used in many civil law countries, instead of the adversarial systems more widely used in common law countries like the US.

I've sometimes wished for a hybrid system where there is both a supposed-to-be-neutral party whose job it is to simply find the truth, and two adversarial parties each doing anything they can to win. That way you get the adversarial advantage of not being completely beholden to whatever the inquisitorial party deems in their best opinion to be the truth without anybody on your side trying to stand up for you, and the inquisitorial advantage of having a party interested in seeing true justice prevail (whether that means conviction or acquittal), rather than just winning no matter the cost.

Existing adversarial systems could be retrofitted to implement this simply by having a third lawyer present who represents neither prosecution nor the defense (and has to be mutually acceptable as a neutral party to both of them), whose job is simply to question everything either side says and look for any evidence or argument that would be relevant at all. The rest of the process of convincing a judge and jury go on just as they normally do. You could likewise retrofit an existing inquisitorial system simply by having two people work for the inquisitor being explicitly responsible for finding evidence either for or against the accused, and the rest of that system would work as it does already.

DOJ takeover?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its like the Pakleds have taken over the DOJ.

Auernheimer has been under investigation

[Anonymous Coward]

Under investigation has become a euphemism for open ended harassment by the state security apparatus ..

Wut

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Australia and I have no idea what's going on in these comments lol.

Justice

[SparrowOS]

The world is perfectly just. The judge if fully briefed. God said my operating system is His official temple.

Refuse to indict. Refuse to convict.

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything is illegal now with no sense of proportion whatsoever. Nearly everyone is guilty of enough "data" crimes to net them a near-life sentence now- this is certainly true of everyone under age 30 I talked to a salesperson in Best Buy or some place the other day and he VERY sincerely and earnestly relayed to me that copying music and movies wasn't against the law if you didn't sell it but just gave it away to your friends to watch privately. In our day we made mixed tapes and thought nothing of it at all. So did everyone we knew., Somehow the record industry survived. Now THOSE are the days / profit margins that the music industry wants to get back to via SOPA. It's a joke. We're turning our kids into felons for doing what we know kids WILL do, irrespective of draconic enforcement measures and "making examples (read: corpses) of high profile cases". Same thing with the criminalization of sex. Kids will drop trou and bump fuzz in parks and cars and every chance they get. It's only gone on since the beginning of time. Now they're sex offenders and they can look forward to living under a bridge for the rest of their days

Universal guilt + selective enforcement = political suppression.

You need to rebel. You need to refuse to indict; Refuse to convict. Refuse to fucking let the whoring, thieving coke snorters in the glass skyscrapers turn us against each other and against our kids. Drop your ATT cell phone plan and get with CREDO mobile if you get Sprint reception in your area; they fight for net neutrality. They fought against SOPA.

Don't go to movies. I just can't bring myself to go anymore. I suppose I am no longer the coveted demographic either. Still, fuck you.

Don't buy records from artists whose companies drop nuclear-sized lawsuits on regular people. I am not saying steal, I am saying, like some other artist.

We need to vote with our wallets.We need to vote with our refusal to convict and to indict. Even a little of that goes a long ways.

Luddites: SOME Old man is just OUTDATED, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

You do not get the point of luddites, they ll use and abuse technology so you say NO to technology, because they are scared about it and feel diminished and... they are altogether a different species than Homo tool. If they do not know the difference between hacking and NAVIGATING, they become dog-clench-jaw obssessed. But... I would have doubted Swartz independently just by knowing surely other twins s actions! Maybe he was very involved, right? And it would show up... So... would that be the case of Auren...? If you get a different user by adding one, how many would you visit and for what? But... importantly, is there any Auren... similar guy in a similar situation? And... do they truly use the computer to something else than watch TV and navigate and will have their own stuff removed? These stories say nothing of the people involved around the celebrity and THEIR expertise... Who is the schizophrenic in this case *hearing*?

Weev won't commit suicide

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, while I don't condone Weev's actions at all.
I expect he'll be back to cancelling pizzas and living the ruin lifestyle.
Granted it might be some time before the case is finished.
Governmental thugs won't be able to oppress our man Weev.
Eventually they'll need to try and plea it out or let him go.
Realistically those are the only two options in this particular scenario.
Somehow, I just know our boy Weev is smiling at this post!

Love thy troll

[Anonymous Coward]

What a load of rubbish.

Aaron

[Anonymous Coward]

Please sign the Whitehouse petition to make the DOJ pay for Aaron Swartz death.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/appoint-independent-investigator-subpoena-power-investigate-instances-doj-bullying-extorsion-and/ZrDymCLq