Slashdot Mirror
'weev' Conviction Vacated
An anonymous reader writes "A few years back, Andrew 'weev' Auernheimer went public with a security vulnerability that made the personal information of 140,000 iPad owners available on AT&T's website. He was later sentenced to 41 months in prison for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (or because the government didn't understand his actions, depending on your viewpoint). Now, the Third U.S. District Court of Appeals has vacated weev's conviction. Oddly, the reason for the ruling was not based on the merits of the case, but on the venue in which he was tried (PDF). From the ruling: 'Although this appeal raises a number of complex and novel issues that are of great public importance in our increasingly interconnected age, we find it necessary to reach only one that has been fundamental since our country's founding: venue. The proper place of colonial trials was so important to the founding generation that it was listed as a grievance in the Declaration of Independence.'"
He was indicted and tried in NJ, despite none of the involved parties being located there.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
his conviction was BS but he was a blight on the internet
They invoked the writ of Copus Outus.
Free celebratory showings of Gayniggers from Outer Space will be happening near you.
From Wikipedia: "Relief from judgment of a United States District Court is governed by Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.[1] The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit noted that a vacated judgment "place[s] the parties in the position of no trial having taken place at all; thus a vacated judgment is of no further force or effect."[2] Thus, vacated judgments have no precedential effect.[3]"
That seems to say that he is now in a legal position as if the trial had never taken place. So can he be taken to court in the proper place now?
Of course they vacated his conviction based on the wrong venue instead of the merits of the case. This guarantees there is no controversy.
I never understood this. If you break up a rape and beat the crap out of the perpetrator, you are hailed a hero. But expose flaws and you are a criminal. I suppose it's not the crime they are exposing, but the tactics to obtain the information then? So the question would be do the ends justify the means? That would apply to all things governmental/commercial I suppose.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
"Oddly, the reason for the ruling was not based on the merits of the case, but on the venue in which he was tried (PDF)."
This isn't odd at all. If the venue was incorrect, then all the issues raised in the trial become irrelevant.
Think of it this way: if he'd been charged with "being a Mets fan," and the appeal was based on (a) there's no law against being a Mets fan, and (b) the evidence that he was a Mets fan (a cap) was obtained through an illegal search, then whether or not the search was illegal would be irrelevant - he had broken no law, so the "conviction" would be tossed out.
From the decision: "To be found guilty, the Government must prove that the defendant (1) intentionally (2) accessed without authorization (or exceeded authorized access to) a (3) protected computer and (4) thereby obtained information." I haven't read this particular law, but I doubt that it has a provision that gives blanket immunity to government agents/employees. The minute you step over the line of unauthorized access to a computer (assuming you don't have a warrant), you've just committed a crime.
Ooooooh ... where's my popcorn?!
“Though our nation has changed in ways which it is difficult to imagine that the Framers of the Constitution could have foreseen, the rights of criminal defendants which they sought to protect in the venue provisions of the Constitution are neither outdated nor outmoded.” ... Just as this was true when we decided Passodelis in 1980 — after the advent of railroad, express mail, the telegraph, the telephone, the automobile, air travel, and satellite communications — it remains true in today’s Internet age. For the forgoing reasons, we will reverse the District Court’s venue determination and vacate Auernheimer’s conviction.
What the appeals court said is that they could not rule on the merits of the case, as there were none. For them to rule on the merits of the case, it would have to have been properly tried. It wasn't, therefore, there are no merits at all. This is consistent with the "poisoned fruit" doctrine that leads all tainted evidence to be discarded due to having been obtained illegally, whether or not it's relevant.
This King, these Lords, and these Commons, who it seems are too remote from us to know us and feel for us, cannot take from us ... our Right of Trial by a Jury of our Neighbours. ... To annihilate this Comfort, ... let there be a formal Declaration of both Houses, that Opposition to your Edicts is Treason, and that Persons suspected of Treason in the Provinces may, according to some obsolete Law, be seized and sent to the Metropolis of the Empire for Trial; and pass an Act that those there charged with certain other Offences shall be sent away in Chains from their Friends and Country to be tried in the same Manner for Felony. Then erect a new Court of Inquisition among them, accompanied by an armed Force, with Instructions to transport all such suspected Persons, to be ruined by the Expence if they bring over Evidences to prove their Innocence, or be found guilty and hanged if they can’t afford it.
(emphasis his)
I've been trying to find some sort of write up on what was exploited and how it was found.
Does anyone know where to find any of this documentation?
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Actually, it is the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. The District Courts are the federal trial courts, whose decisions the courts of Appeal review.
some dumbass put an email list in the web root, which weev found
I don't think he should have got 41 months...that said he should get a hefty fine,community service. ATT should also receive a fine since they made the mistake of having the thing public when it shouldn't have been. It the kid a criminal i don't think so but he sure is an punk asshole jerk that took advantage of a mistake. You apologist need to rethink your values there was NO reason for the jackass to publish Innocent victims personal information. That is MO....im sticking to it.
Jack of all trades,master of none
If so, then I committed an unlawful act today. Did a Google, search, and soon I was reading a pdf file of section 9 of some code, but it referred to section 10. How do locate section 10? Oh wait - just increment the section number in the URL by 1. Oops - Federal prosecutors knocking on my door, ready to haul me off to NJ for trial. Dang.
They were not logged in to a computer. Thus it's questionable whether repetitively trying different codes, and harvesting information in response, was gaining access. Further, no criminal intent was manifested in that the information was not exploited.
If I walk into your house through your front door, that's trespassing. If I break in, that's B&E.
The CFAA is widely understood to prohibit B&E, not trespassing.
Anyway, I think that sending HTTP queries should never be a crime, since that would make links riskier to click. Though, links to child porn are also illegal to click.
the difference is Black privilege
like what happened in the Rodney King trial