eh, this article doesn't paint the whole story.

It doesn't need to paint the whole story. If the dude committed any overly serious crime, he'd still be in custody right now awaiting sentencing. They don't let you out on bail if you're a serious offender. I'm sure there is more than meets the eye here, but given the the spotlight being shined upon hacking cases like this of late, it's not hard to believe that what this guy says isn't what went down. Andrew was obviously a troll in every sense of the word, reckless and irresponsible but by no means did he have to bypass any security measures to get the email addresses. I would argue it's the equivalent of a bank leaving it's doors unlocked, alarm systems deactivated and lights on and someone walking in and taking money, then the bank complaining they got robbed, but this situation is blown way out of proportion and a metaphor like that would be over the top.

What he did is no different to someone writing a script that scours the web looking for email addresses (a tactic spammers have used and gotten away with for years), except no trickery was required to get the addresses AT&T were handing them over unknowingly without recourse. This can't even be considered a hack, more of an exploit if anything.

The stupidity of wanting to embarrass was no doubt a really stupid move to make, but definitely not some security defying hack. People shouldn't be jailed for acting like idiots, AT&T should be the ones being scalded for allowing this to happen in the first place. A company has a responsibility to keep customer data safe, AT&T should be no exception to that rule.

What he did was no different than turning the doorknob of an unlocked door, then getting accused of "breaking and entering". Not even a "Keep Out" sign posted anywhere.

In most cases in the U.S., that would still be considered a crime.

Edit to add: The law is structured this way for a very specific reason--to account for human error. What if I always lock my front door, but this morning I was in a hurry and forgot? Should I give up all rights of private property because of this error? Obviously not, which is why someone walking into my house through my unlocked door would still be a crime (trespassing, at least). If they took anything, it would still be stealing--even though one could argue that if I "really" didn't want anyone to take my stuff, I would have locked my door.

We all know how hard it is to properly write totally secure web services. We read about the failures every day. The question, then, is similar. Should the rights of people and companies be completely dependent on their ability to write invulnerable code? I would submit that that is not a sustain way for the law to operate.

Note that I'm not addressing weev's case specifically, as I'm not familiar enough with the details. Just addressing the general case.

> What if I always lock my front door, but this morning I was in a hurry and forgot? Should I give up all rights of private property because of this error?

You and me would both be alarmed if someone entered our house after we forgot to lock the door, but I wouldn't consider that persons entry into my house a crime in itself (obviously, its probably still a crime whether I agree or not). Do you forfeit rights to your private property for forgetting to lock your door? Not at all. If you wake up in the middle of the night and someone is in your house, and you shoot them, you did nothing wrong. Whether or not you locked the door, your life is at risk if you assess the situation incorrectly (goes for daytime too). When that person entered into somebody else's house uninvited, they made a decision to subject themselves to your discretion.

> If they took anything, it would still be stealing--even though one could argue that if I "really" didn't want anyone to take my stuff, I would have locked my door.

They would be wrong telling you that you forfeited your rights to your belongings for not locking your door. If that were the case, nobody would be obligated to pay for anything at the grocery store or mall.

> Should the rights of people and companies be completely dependent on their ability to write invulnerable code?

It is up to you to defend your rights, nobody else. If you are going to offer a service and want to protect the server, data, code, licenses, etc.. the burden is on you to protect it through whatever means you see fit. It is no one else's job to protect your product.

> I would submit that that is not a sustain way for the law to operate.

The reason for that may be because we shouldn't rely on the law to prevent a crime aside from being a visible deterrent. The purpose of law should be to enforce civil agreements when a crime is committed. If someone causes financial damage to your property, what good does it do to put that person in jail? Wouldn't a better solution be to have your property returned or receive financial compensation equivalent to the value of what was taken/damaged?

China is not naturally terrible, China is just in that kind of shithole phase which any country might get into. It's the wrong direction a civilization evolves into.