×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Weev's Attorney Says FBI Is Intercepting His Client's Mail

timothy posted about 8 months ago | from the men-in-the-middle-attack dept.

The Courts 109

Daniel_Stuckey (2647775) writes "The FBI is intercepting the prison correspondence of infamous Internet troll Andrew "weev" Auernheimer, including letters from his defense team, according to his attorney. 'He's sent me between 10 and 20 letters in the last month or two. I've received one,' Tor Ekeland, who had just returned from visiting Auernheimer at the federal corrections institute in Allenwood, PA., told the Daily Dot in a video interview.

Last March, Auernheimer was convicted of accessing a computer without authorization and sentenced to 41 months in prison. As a member of the computer security team Goatse Security, Auernheimer discovered a major security flaw in AT&T's network, which allowed him to download the email addresses of some 114,000 iPad users. Goatse Security reported the flaw to Gawker and provided journalists with the information, who then published it in redacted form."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

How Does He Know it's the FBI? (0)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 8 months ago | (#46591891)

There are multiple other TLA's out there intercepting all of our communiques.

Re:How Does He Know it's the FBI? (5, Informative)

zerostar (3547645) | about 8 months ago | (#46591923)

read the article? “He’s been interrogated by FBI agents who’ve asked him questions about the contents of an attorney letter that he sent to me,”

Re:How Does He Know it's the FBI? (2, Insightful)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 8 months ago | (#46591989)

So it's come to this.

Quoting from the article is officially informative. We are either a time-constrained or a very lazy lot of posters here on Slashdot.

TFA implies only that the FBI had access to what was in the Attorney/client communiques, not who's surveillance arm gathered it.

Re:How Does He Know it's the FBI? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46592459)

Doesn't matter. Would you prefer he randomly speculate as to which other phantom entities are involved? He knows one single fact, that the FBI has read his communications. From that, the only reasonable conclusion is that the FBI intercepted the comms. That is exactly the correct inference based on the given evidence. When some other evidence presents itself, he can modify his conclusion. Do you think if the roles were reversed the FBI wouldn't say that "Weev intercepted FBI communications."? Nope, that's exactly the conclusion they would draw until Weev provided evidence that he wasn't the one who intercepted the comms...

Re:How Does He Know it's the FBI? (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 8 months ago | (#46594557)

It's OK. It's only a problem if the FBI were capturing meta-data about the letters.

Re:How Does He Know it's the FBI? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46592763)

So it's come to this.
Quoting from the article is officially informative.

You have a fairly high user ID, so maybe you don't know this ... but it's been informative for a Very Long Time.

Because nobody ever read the fucking articles, and then proceeds to say things which demonstrate they didn't read it.

TFA implies only that the FBI had access to what was in the Attorney/client communiques, not who's surveillance arm gathered it.

Now, there are exceedingly few cases in which it is legal to intercept Attorney/Client conversations.

No matter who gathered it, it is still likely illegal. That government has been increasingly deciding the law doesn't really apply to them is the problem, but it's hardly a legal justification -- like when Alberto Gonzales said habeus corpus didn't really apply, and half of the other stuff.

Just because you can get a lawyer to issue an opinion that it's legal, doesn't make it so.

Re:How Does He Know it's the FBI? (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | about 8 months ago | (#46593337)

Yeah, you'd need a few Supreme Court Justices for that.

Re:How Does He Know it's the FBI? (2)

jxander (2605655) | about 8 months ago | (#46593685)

TFA implies only that the FBI had access to what was in the Attorney/client communiques, not who's surveillance arm gathered it.

Occam's razor. If the FBI had knowledge of the contents of his private letters, then the FBI did the surveilling.

Re:How Does He Know it's the FBI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46591993)

If he have got proof of that, he is free ! Due process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause ), anybody knows ?

Easier to get a rabbit out of the hat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46593167)

It'll be deemed information "relevant to national security", or accidentally deleted "purely by standard procedure two years ago" with the timestamps on said acts sometime next week.

Or wait, even 'better'! He's a hacker your honor, see, and thus all of this evidence is actually conclusive proof that he has been illegally using Terrorist Hacking abilities to change the FBI's own computers!

Re:How Does He Know it's the FBI? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46592005)

Sounds like good grounds to get the case thrown out, no? This is some of the most unethical shit I have ever heard of...

Re:How Does He Know it's the FBI? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46592055)

No, he's already been found guilty and sentenced. At this point, he is a prisoner, though attorney-client privilege applies to all communication with his lawyers, the rest of his mail is fair game.

That being said, the fact that they're reading his correspondence with his defense team and then interrogating him about it is a big no-no. It definitely serves as a good basis to appeal the conviction.

Re:How Does He Know it's the FBI? (2)

thaylin (555395) | about 8 months ago | (#46592105)

That being said, the fact that they're reading his correspondence with his defense team and then interrogating him about it is a big no-no. It definitely serves as a good basis to appeal the conviction.

Which was the point of the comment you were claiming no to...

Re:How Does He Know it's the FBI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46592709)

Which was the point of the comment you were claiming no to...

Not quite. The post I was commenting on was about getting the case thrown out, not about getting the conviction overturned. But maybe I'm just being overly pedantic.

Re:How Does He Know it's the FBI? (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 8 months ago | (#46592867)

The law is a big fat joke anyways. But, "weev" is a sadistic fuck who manipulates and torments people for his own pleasure, and by his own admission. He should never be allowed to walk free among decent people. Never.

I'm in favor of just killing him, frankly. Prisons are torture, and torture is wrong. He's not fit to walk among us, so lets just bury him and move on.

Re:How Does He Know it's the FBI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46593189)

you're reaching way below his levels of sick mind

Re:How Does He Know it's the FBI? (2)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about 8 months ago | (#46593695)

Well clearly since your views on how society works are entirely non-normative and outside the mainstream you aren't fit to walk among us. So maybe society should just bury you and move on?

Re:How Does He Know it's the FBI? (1)

Aighearach (97333) | about 8 months ago | (#46594999)

The case only gets thrown out when there is Prosecutorial misconduct, that is, misconduct by the prosecutors. Misconduct by law enforcement only gets certain related evidence thrown out; in a situation like this, where he has already been convicted and the misconduct is not related to evidence used in his trial, he isn't going to get anything like that.

He might be able to sue for monetary damages, in a civil rights case.

He might be able to re-start some of his appeals.

Sweet revenge (0)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 8 months ago | (#46591903)

Weev is the last person on earth having a right to complain about anyone accessing his emails. Hypocrite.

Re:Sweet revenge (5, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | about 8 months ago | (#46591947)

Civilised society doesn't work like that.

If someone breaks a rule, and you punish them for it, you cannot them go off and break the same rule for them.

If someone steals something, it's not "justice" to steal something of theirs. That makes you just as bad as they are. And leads to "he did it to me first!" kind of baby-crap.

You show that you are an advanced, modern, civilised country by not breaking your own rules. Not carrying out "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" (where does that come from? Possibly the WORST example of literary fairness/justice there is. Mankind bad? I'll just drown the fucking lot of you in a flood....). And having nobody be above the law, not even courts, judges, or the leader of the country.

It doesn't mean you have to pussyfoot around. It doesn't mean you have to give prisoners playstations and compassionate leave and halve their sentences for good behaviour. It means you have to abide by the same rules that you are punishing others for breaking.

Also, if a populous gets a whiff of "one rule for me, another rule for them" being the actual greater truth of things (rather than an occasional spurious claim), then all the rules can soon become useless anyway and you descend into anarchy.

Unfortunately, this is lost on many "modern" countries.

Revenge is for five-year-olds who had their toy smashed. It invariably ends in tears and nobody having any toys.

This (3, Insightful)

Etherwalk (681268) | about 8 months ago | (#46592021)

Civilised society doesn't work like that.

This.

When someone violates Constitutional Rights in America, two things happen: First, evidence that comes from that violation is inadmissible in court. Second, the person whose rights have been violated can sue the pants off the government.

It is more complicated because of a massive fraud on the part of the prosecution to pretend that the information is not based on that violation.

It is also more complicated because juries, as a whole, care less about the government having violated your constitutional rights when you are a criminal.

It is also more complicated because when they get caught doing something bad enough, cops usually offer a deal where you won't sue and they won't prosecute.

Re:This (1)

Fnord666 (889225) | about 8 months ago | (#46592699)

When someone in the government violates Constitutional Rights in America, two things happen: First, evidence that comes from that violation is inadmissible in court. Second, the person whose rights have been violated can sue the pants off the government.

The US constitution only protects individuals from actions taken by their government or appointees.

It is more complicated because of a massive fraud on the part of the prosecution to pretend that the information is not based on that violation.

Citation needed. What constitutional violations are you referring to here?

It is also more complicated because juries, as a whole, care less about the government having violated your constitutional rights when you are a criminal.

US Juries have no authority to determine whether or not a person's constitutional rights have been violated or not. A judge determines whether any evidence obtained is admissible or not and the jury deliberates based on that decision and the evidence.

It is also more complicated because when they get caught doing something bad enough, cops usually offer a deal where you won't sue and they won't prosecute.

Citation needed please.

Re:This (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46593149)

Citation needed, citation needed. Go fuck yourself. You haven't been paying attention and are not allowed to participate in the conversation the adults are having.

Re:This (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46593357)

US Juries have no authority to determine whether or not a person's constitutional rights have been violated or not.

They could always use jury nullification. Damn fool.

Re:This (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46593961)

Let a judge hear you mention that once during jury selection or a trial and at a minimum you will be kicked off the jury. Entire pools have been dismissed because one candidate mentioned it during voir dire. Judges and prosecutors don't like that idea and many refuse to admit it is a valid and legal action.

Re:Sweet revenge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46592235)

"Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" is Code of Hammurabi, not the Bible. FYI

Re: Sweet revenge (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46593609)

Exodus 21:24

Re:Sweet revenge (2)

DarkOx (621550) | about 8 months ago | (#46592351)

You are right naturally, but look around we stopped living in a civilized society a long time ago. There is a clearly classes of people that are above the law.

I don't know what the answer is but every day it seems a little more hopeless as far as getting anything fixed working with in the system. So more an more I feel inclined towards settling for vengeance because there is little justice to be had.

more equal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46595387)

Nope, nope, nope.... clearly everbody is equal under the law. It's just that some are more equal than others.

Re:Sweet revenge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46595839)

You are right naturally, but look around we stopped living in a civilized society a long time ago. There is a clearly classes of people that are above the law.

I don't know what the answer is but every day it seems a little more hopeless as far as getting anything fixed working with in the system. So more an more I feel inclined towards settling for vengeance because there is little justice to be had.

The answer is for a nearby neighbor who thinks it is severely wrong to vote against it with a rifle. There are people who I would trade my life for to take them out of life if it were a guaranteed event. As a coward, I won't take a 99% success rate as guaranteed though. When you are willing to accept a 99% chance of success, then all it takes is a few hundred for a rifle and a few hours of practice. You've gotta believe in your cause though. Kill the target, kill your yourself. That vote doesn't get discarded, even if that election doesn't get widely publicized.

Someone cuts you off in traffic and you think that's maybe worth dying for? There's a vote labelled road rage. Guy rapes and kills your kid and you garrot him at the trial after he's free to go on a (constitutionally vital) technicality? That's another sort of vote. Not every vote is on a paper or (boo!) e-ballot. Some take your own blood to put forth.

Re:Sweet revenge (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 8 months ago | (#46592373)

"Also, if a populous gets a whiff of "one rule for me, another rule for them" being the actual greater truth of things (rather than an occasional spurious claim), then all the rules can soon become useless anyway and you descend into anarchy."

Are you nuts? Most people firmly believe in the "one rule for me, another rule for them" idea. Human beings are barely civilized, the believe their neighbors should do what they want them to do but they can do something else because "they know better". The Catholic church is based on this as well as Islam and all other religions as practiced.

In fact, if you ask most Americans, If doing something against the law will "protect them from terrorism" they will gladly allow it. the PATRIOT ACT goes against most of the constitution yet most Americans love it and adore it.

Re:Sweet revenge (1)

sycodon (149926) | about 8 months ago | (#46592533)

"one rule for me, another rule for them"

Especially true for Federal officials and politicians.

Re:Sweet revenge (3, Interesting)

lonOtter (3587393) | about 8 months ago | (#46593391)

In fact, if you ask most Americans, If doing something against the law will "protect them from terrorism" they will gladly allow it. the PATRIOT ACT goes against most of the constitution yet most Americans love it and adore it.

And at the same time, they pretend that they want the US to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave," when in reality, they openly despise freedom.

Re:Sweet revenge (1)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about 8 months ago | (#46593715)

"In fact, if you ask most Americans, If doing something against the law will "protect them from terrorism" they will gladly allow it. the PATRIOT ACT goes against most of the constitution yet most Americans love it and adore it."

I'm pretty sure that's a tiny, tiny percentage of people. I'm pretty sure the vast majority have no idea or care as to what it is, and still wouldn't if you explained it to them. Most people who are politically aware are against.

I don't think there are many people who actively like it is what I'm getting at. It's more like..a lack of resistance due to apathy-fed ignorance.

Re:Sweet revenge (1)

meta-monkey (321000) | about 8 months ago | (#46594577)

The Catholic church is based on this as well as Islam and all other religions as practiced.

Eh? What exactly does the Catholic Church say is permitted for Catholics, but not for others? I am Catholic, our rules are strict, but they only apply to us, not others. We choose to live with more restrictions, not more permission than society at large.

Re:Sweet revenge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46592475)

If someone steals something, it's not "justice" to steal something of theirs

Like if someone steals something and you steal their freedom and put them in jail...

Re:Sweet revenge (2)

onkelonkel (560274) | about 8 months ago | (#46592479)

"eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" - that comes from Hammurabi. Commonly misunderstood. It is a legal reform of the existing justice system at the time. It is a limit on punishment to make it not exceed the original crime (and thereby lead to a spiral of ever increasing retribution). "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" is harsh, but is a lot better than "head for an eye, hand for a tooth"

Re:Sweet revenge (0)

NoImNotNineVolt (832851) | about 8 months ago | (#46593159)

Not carrying out "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" (where does that come from? Possibly the WORST example of literary fairness/justice there is. Mankind bad? I'll just drown the fucking lot of you in a flood....).

You seem to be attributing "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" to the Abrahamic religions. The Code of Hammurabi [wikipedia.org] dates to 1772BC, which predates the Hebrew bible. Hammurabi was poking out eyes long before Noah was ever a figment of some writer's imagination.

If this is surprising to you, I invite you to take a look at all the other ways one's perception of reality can be influenced by the beliefs of those around them. I, as an atheist, have been disturbed by this observation for some time now.

Re:Sweet revenge (2)

PRMan (959735) | about 8 months ago | (#46594247)

Hammurabi was poking out eyes long before Noah was ever a figment of some writer's imagination.

Hammurabi is commonly associated with Nimrod, who was the son of Cush, grandson of Ham, and great-grandson of Noah.

Re:Sweet revenge (0)

NoImNotNineVolt (832851) | about 8 months ago | (#46594381)

... What?

Hammurabi was a historical person who existed in time. The others you mention are fictional characters who exist outside of time.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Does the GEICO caveman predate George Washington? I mean, he's a caveman, right?

Re:Sweet revenge (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 8 months ago | (#46595339)

How do you know that Biblical characters never really existed? They're just in a different history book. The fact that it's a religious one rather than a secular one doesn't automatically mean it's 100% lies and fabrications.

Re:Sweet revenge (1)

NoImNotNineVolt (832851) | about 8 months ago | (#46595679)

How do you know that Biblical characters never really existed?

I don't, much like I don't know that a teapot isn't orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars.

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” -- Isaac Asimov

Indeed, how do you know that Frodo never really existed? He's just in a different history book. The fact that it's a ficitonal one rather than a factional one doesn't automatically mean it's 100% lies and fabrication.

I see someone is downmodding my posts in this thread. While I've got karma to spare, this still bothers me. How does an invitation to self-reflection warrant a troll mod?

I didn't mean to suggest that Nimrod, Cush, Ham, and Noah didn't really exist. I did mean to say that the biblical characters bearing those names are just that: characters. We have no evidence of their existence beyond what is written of them in a book with many other claims that are known to be false. If one can claim that, for example, the biblican creation story is not meant to be interpreted literally, how are we to know that Noah wasn't also a metaphor? In any case, the historicity of these characters is not established, unlike the historicity of, say, Hammurabi.

That being said, the earliest evidence of these characters' existence dates from several centuries after the well-documented reign of Hammurabi. "Eye for an eye" is not a concept introduced by the Abrahamic faiths, as even according to the Abrahamic mythology, Moses is predated by Hammurabi.

It's unsettling to me that so many people are offended by this statement. It's not exactly a radical claim, as I'm only repeating common historical knowledge. I fear that this claim, combined with the indoctrination that often accompanies religious belief, causes an uncomfortable amount of cognitive dissonance in some people, which they resolve by discounting what I'm saying.

If you have no problem denying evolution, geology, and cosmology, I shouldn't be surprised if you also have no issues denying known history.

Re:Sweet revenge (1)

NoImNotNineVolt (832851) | about 8 months ago | (#46595691)

s/factional/factual/

/me requests an edit button.

Re:Sweet revenge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46593645)

Eye for an eye when *polite society* no longer works.

Re:Sweet revenge (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 8 months ago | (#46595279)

Civilised society doesn't work like that.

The law doesn't work like that. But as individuals it's absolutely fine for us to be happy when something bad happens to a malicious prick.

Re:Sweet revenge (1)

Ihlosi (895663) | about 8 months ago | (#46596321)

Not carrying out "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" (where does that come from? Possibly the WORST example of literary fairness/justice there is.

Definitely not. "One eye for one eye.", at that time, replaced the proven concept of "You stepped on my toe, so I'm going to kill you, every male in your family, rape every female in your family and kill them, too."

At that time, when ever-increasing vengeance cycles and bloody vendettas were the norm, "One eye for one eye." was a huge limitation on any punishments the injured party could dish out. And don't forget the same piece of literature also demands things like having at least two witnesses in order to sentence anyone to death and forbid the common practice of punishing family members of the offender if the latter proved to be too elusive.

Re:Sweet revenge (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 8 months ago | (#46592001)

What makes him a hypocrite? What right did he invade of others regarding emails, or any thing else? The law he is accused of breaking is silly, accessing a public website should not be against the law.

Re:Sweet revenge (0)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 8 months ago | (#46592297)

What makes him a hypocrite? What right did he invade of others regarding emails, or any thing else? The law he is accused of breaking is silly, accessing a public website should not be against the law.

Oh well, another one going on about how the law is silly... He published the email addresses of 114,000 people who just bought an iPad, at a time when an iPad was something new that only very few people had, by hacking into AT&T's computers. Anyone who hasn't got some major social deficits recognises that what he did is a crime. Seriously, don't you think that a judge knows the law better than you, a random bloke posting on the internet?

Re:Sweet revenge (3, Insightful)

TheP4st (1164315) | about 8 months ago | (#46592395)

I am not familiar with this particular case to comment on the specifics, but I do not agree with:

Seriously, don't you think that a judge knows the law better than you, a random bloke posting on the internet?

It is one thing to know the letter of the law in verbatim, it is another thing to interpret and apply the letters of law into something that resemble a fair and just ruling.

Re:Sweet revenge (2)

pla (258480) | about 8 months ago | (#46592463)

He published the email addresses of 114,000 people who just bought an iPad

So? Every company you do business with does the same. So moving on to the "real" crime...

by hacking into AT&T's computers

Changing a URL to point to a different ICC does not even remotely count as "hacking". It amounts to the same level of security as if GMail let you see another user's email simply by changing "&username=myname" to "&username=yourname" on the address bar.

So yeah, stupid law is stupid.

Re:Sweet revenge (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 8 months ago | (#46592515)

by hacking into AT&T's computers

Except, by most standards, he didn't "hack" anything. AT&T employed pathetic security which a teenager could defeat.

This has been covered [vice.com] quite a bit.

Instead, they effectively discovered a major security flaw in AT&T's network. When given the proper query, the telecom's public website would cough up a registered iPad owner's email address.

"There is no unauthorized access," Kerr said at the beginning of his appeal. When anyone can access data simply by entering an address onto a browser, "it is effectively public," he said.

This is essentially accessing information available to anybody without permission. But to call it "hacking" is a complete joke.

Seriously, don't you think that a judge knows the law better than you, a random bloke posting on the internet?

Seriously, have you seen some court rulings? The ones which go to appeals or the Supreme court and get overturned?

I'm sorry, but my faith in the justice system to be able to competently discuss matters of technology is pretty low. My faith in government prosecutors evenly applying the law or not jurisdiction shopping and inflating the charges ... also pretty low.

Re:Sweet revenge (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 8 months ago | (#46592701)

> This is essentially accessing information available to anybody without permission. But to call it
> "hacking" is a complete joke.

absolutely. It isn't even much of a stretch to call this similar to walking up to the local cable company service center desk and asking for a copy of your account information. You would expect the person at the desk to make some attempt to verify who you are...ask your name... ask to see some ID...something.

If someone goes to the cable company office and says "Say, can I have this persons bill?" who is at fault when they give it up? The person who asked, or the company that handed out the information.

Fact is...he asked in the form of an http query. He made no attempt to obscure who he really was. No attempt to impersonate the legitimate user, he just asked and they gave it to him with no attempt made to ensure its going to the right person.

Re:Sweet revenge (1)

Qzukk (229616) | about 8 months ago | (#46592963)

If someone goes to the cable company office and says "Say, can I have this persons bill?" who is at fault when they give it up? The person who asked, or the company that handed out the information.

I pointed that out in the last weev thread. It's apparent the general consensus is that the receptionist is personally responsible for giving it out and the programmer is not personally responsible for giving it out.

Re:Sweet revenge (1)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about 8 months ago | (#46593785)

I'd gamble on something in that scenario: If that bill was used to perpetrate fraud of some kind, or if that bill was publicly published he'd find himself in court for fraud. I'm not saying it's just or moral or anything...but it does parallel a certain situation pretty well.

Re:Sweet revenge (1)

PRMan (959735) | about 8 months ago | (#46594255)

There was no hack. The items were easily found by typing URLs.

Re:Sweet revenge (1)

Sique (173459) | about 8 months ago | (#46592259)

Especially he has the right to complain. He got in prison for doing what others now do to him. So either his sentence was injustice (because others are allowed for what he serves time in prison), or what the others are doing to him now is injustice and should be punished with prison time.

Re:Sweet revenge (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 8 months ago | (#46592313)

He did not get prison for accessing others communication, it got it for accessing a public website.

Re:Sweet revenge (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 8 months ago | (#46593573)

He got it for accessing information which, while pathetically "secured", he did not have permission to access.

An analogy I like is that you invite a guy around to your house to play Xbox, and instead he goes and looks through your credit card statements. He hasn't been told he can't, and they're not necessarily locked away, but he knows damn well he shouldn't be doing it. He definitely shouldn't post them to the local press.

Re:Sweet revenge (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 8 months ago | (#46594179)

It depends, was the Credit card statements laying out where anyone could see them, on the coffee table, that is the only way yoru analogy works. The website he looked at was public, there was NOTHING blocking accessing it.. What if I put up a website, thaylin.net, then you go to it, can I then claim you hacked my system and went to the page without authorization ?

Re:Sweet revenge (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 8 months ago | (#46592333)

Especially he has the right to complain. He got in prison for doing what others now do to him. So either his sentence was injustice (because others are allowed for what he serves time in prison), or what the others are doing to him now is injustice and should be punished with prison time.

You've got the wrong perspective here. When he hacked others (and what he is in jail for isn't the only thing he's done, and by far not the worst), he had no sympathy for the victims. He not only didn't give a shit, he intentionally hurt others. _You_ haven't done anything like that (I hope), so _you_ absolutely have the right to say that there are two wrongs, which are both wrong, and complain about it. _Weev_ doesn't have that right.

Re:Sweet revenge (1)

lonOtter (3587393) | about 8 months ago | (#46593421)

Completely incorrect. Everyone has that right. To say otherwise is a mere fallacy.

Re:Sweet revenge (1)

dissy (172727) | about 8 months ago | (#46592427)

Weev is the last person on earth having a right to complain about anyone accessing his emails. Hypocrite.

He has every right to complain, a lot more than you or I.

He has been put in prison for a crime that even the US government does not believe is a crime, proven by the fact they SHOW it is OK to do this to other people.

If it is acceptable for this action to be done at all, then clearly Weev has done nothing at all wrong here and shouldn't be in prison in the first place.

You don't get to claim "this person should be punished for doing X to be" and then turn around and expect to be treated differently when you do X to other people.

Re:Sweet revenge (1)

n1ywb (555767) | about 8 months ago | (#46592503)

I'm sorry, who's email did he read exactly?

yeah right (2)

0111 1110 (518466) | about 8 months ago | (#46591937)

Goatse Security? A guy named Tor? It's not April 1st yet is it?

Crazy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46591939)

I love the unkempt appearance. It sells crazy right away.

Must not understand how the internet works. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46591961)

If they intercept it, it is not the same as physically intercepting a piece of paper in an envelope. They will get a copy, and you will still get your copy. There is something else that is preventing the e-mail from being delivered. Tell him to check his spam filter.

Re:Must not understand how the internet works. (2)

davecb (6526) | about 8 months ago | (#46591973)

That's snail-mail he's talking about.

Re:Must not understand how the internet works. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46594035)

Which is a federal felony for ANYONE other than the person it's addressed to or their authorized agent to open. This includes (more so even) federal agents. You go steal someone's mail and read it then let the post office know you did it and see what happens.

Re:Must not understand how the internet works. (1)

davecb (6526) | about 8 months ago | (#46594997)

Yup!
Some days I think judges and (in this case) lawyers are the politest people in the world, even more understated than the English. I'm just hoping this chap is as polite and implacable as an englishman who's luggage has been stolen in a foreign country.

--dave
[* Historically, killing englishman was OK, but stealing their luggage could get your country a new and improved government, or at least a visit from the Fleet (:-)]

Re:Must not understand how the internet works. (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 8 months ago | (#46595393)

an englishman who's luggage

Hey come on, you just got done telling us Englishmen and luggage are two different offenses. Now you're just being mean.

Re:Must not understand how the internet works. (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 8 months ago | (#46592017)

Unless they intercepted it completely, such as by masquerading as the lawyers email.

How clumsy, fire those agents. (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 8 months ago | (#46591963)

Decent sp agencies try to avoid detection. This means not keeping the letters you illegally open.

I would be shocked if they didn't already habe machines to brute scan without opening.

Re:How clumsy, fire those agents. (2)

khallow (566160) | about 8 months ago | (#46592011)

Decent sp agencies try to avoid detection.

Unless they want the target to know. Being obvious is an intimidation tactic.

Re:How clumsy, fire those agents. (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 8 months ago | (#46592587)

Unless they want the target to know. Being obvious is an intimidation tactic.

If violating your right to private communications with your lawyer is a new intimidation tactic, America is pretty much screwed, because law enforcement is selectively deciding that some laws don't really apply to them, and some rights are things which don't really exist when inconvenient.

Banana Republics do this kind of thing. Not countries which have enshrined knowing better in law.

You know how they worry 'bout TV Violence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46593341)

We've been seeing exactly those tactics used, approved and even supported for *years* in various police procedurals*. Law and Order; a dozen varieties of the same show with a subtitle by dick wolf, NCIS, 24, anything involving government agencies really. The only show I recall having either a conscience growing (rather than disappearing off the naive idealistic rookie in the first two or three episodes after their introduction) and/or an admission of the wrongness of what is being committed was Spooks. North American shows though? It's the heroic, righteous, baby-saving thing to do!

The average american (and canadian) citizen increasingly "understands" these violations as being not only something to expect, but completely and totally legit methods.

Give you two guesses as to what that does to our rights here in real life...

*... I think *maybe* Parks and Recreation might possibly be the one exception? Maybe?

Re:You know how they worry 'bout TV Violence? (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 8 months ago | (#46595467)

Yeah, I love how in cop shows the police are always shown to "lose" when they catch a guy who is actually aware of his right to a lawyer. Let's just yell at him and try to pressure him into admitting guilt before his lawyer can get here; then everything will be okay. The "make for the door to get him to admit" maneuver is practically a standardized cinematic technique now. And they usually portray the guys who know their rights as smug sleazebags who "did it but we can't prove it yet."

We're intentionally being conditioned to think that we *shouldn't* ask for a lawyer in those circumstances when the opposite is true.

Re:How clumsy, fire those agents. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46592341)

They have admitted to scanning the outsides.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/monitoring-of-snail-mail.html

If you don't use security envelopes they can see the inside. I can imagine they have programs that will digitally remove the security from the envelopes if they scan it with a powerful enough light. I wonder if we could verify this by including film in a thick dark envelope, and seeing if it gets exposed.

All prison letters screened (3, Informative)

cgfsd (1238866) | about 8 months ago | (#46591997)

In prison, all communication to the outside public is recorded and screened.
Standard protocol.

Re:All prison letters screened (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46592207)

no. all mail coming IN is screened, where it is an issue of security, EXCEPT attorney-client communications where the constitution trumps any more mundane concerns. though outgoing mail often gets stamped that it is being sent from such-and-such prison.

Re:All prison letters screened (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46592685)

No, mail between a prison inmate and his lawyer is privileged. Prison officials can only open mail coming from, or going to a prisoner's attorney in the presence of the inmate, and that's only to determine that the mail doesn't contain any contraband. The prison officials, or other law enforcement are not allowed to read legal correspondence between an inmate and their legal counsel. To do so is to violate the prisoner's civil rights.

Re:All prison letters screened (5, Informative)

D'Arque Bishop (84624) | about 8 months ago | (#46593559)

However, the main universal exception to this rule involves discussions between an inmate and his attorney (just as in this case). Courts have even held that while even legal mail can be searched, it has to be done in the prisoner's presence and they can only glance at the actual correspondence itself.

Jail Mail from Attorney Must Be Opened in Inmate’s Presence, 7th Circuit Says [abajournal.com]

Re:All prison letters screened (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46596107)

Wrong on several accounts.

#1 An inmate who sued the BOP had his correspondence with his lawyer regarding the suit forwarded to the attorney's who were defending the case; the warden invoked prison security rule and the courts upheld it under the guise that the result of his communications would be filed in court and hence, no harm was done.

#2 BOP regularly miscategorizes legal mail between attorneys and clients so that like regular mail, they are opened by staff and handed out to whoever claims them.

#3 BOP has a hidden measure to indicate that all correspondence between an individual is hi-value and hence opened, copied and then forwarded without regard to the legal status.

#4 US can instruct postal service to open all mail, re-close and forward again; it is the precursor to the phone wiretap.

For all intents and purposes, all your communications are monitered by BOP. Just like the NSA is monitering all civilian communications.

You are, for all intents, in a better prison then prison is.

So spare me the cite to a single district ruling.

More Evidence... (1)

carlhirsch (87880) | about 8 months ago | (#46592151)

that Tor is an insecure means of communication.

Re:More Evidence... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46594047)

Wait, what? these are letters, Snail Mail, not encrypted communication, RTFA. Snail Mail is protected and cannot be intercepted with out a warrant, thats why former Pres Jimmie Carter still uses it.

Re:More Evidence... (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 8 months ago | (#46595507)

Tor Ekeland, who had just returned from visiting Auernheimer at the federal corrections institute in Allenwood, PA., told the Daily Dot in a video interview.

Woooosh

Doesn't stack up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46592193)

1) He is a well documented liar, bigot and homophobe.
2) None deliver is not proof of interception.
3) Lawyer clearly ignorant of how email works at best and deliberately miss leading at worst.
4) 10-20 emails is pretty vague, were
5) Convicted criminal have snail mail is read/censored why should email be different.

Re:Doesn't stack up (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46592389)

1. It's current administration practice to discredit people by calling them racist or homophobic.
2. This is mail, not email. You must be in your twenties. Delivery *is* guaranteed. See end of post.
3. See 2.
4. You don't start counting until after you realize there is a problem.
5. Not with their lawyers. Never with their lawyers.
âoeHeâ(TM)s been interrogated by FBI agents whoâ(TM)ve asked him questions about the contents of an attorney letter that he sent to me,â he said. In other words, "the FBI is reading Weevâ(TM)s and my correspondence.â

Re:Doesn't stack up (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46592501)

2. This is mail, not email. You must be in your twenties. Delivery *is* guaranteed. See end of post.

Delivery isn't guaranteed with standard mail, only with certified, signed, etc.

Re:Doesn't stack up (1)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about 8 months ago | (#46593869)

"Delivery isn't guaranteed with standard mail, only with certified, signed, etc."

Which considering the profession of one, and previous of another...they'd probably go ahead and do.

Encyclopedia Dramatica (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46594349)

You've clearly never read Encyclopedia Dramatica

In his own words "racist homophobic trolling is another man's "great art."

Re:Doesn't stack up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46592585)

What a minute, they let this mother fucker send EMAIL from prison? What kind of white collar bourgeois pussy prison is he in? They sure as hell don't let anybody in regular proletarian prison onto the internet. If you get a moldy bible and some water stained Stephen King books out the library.you're lucky!

Laws Don't Apply To Governments (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46592285)

Laws are for the little people. Little people like you.

So we finally know who this goatse guy is? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46592345)

So we finally know who the goatse guy is? He started the Goatse Security... damn dude, what did your wife think about your bleeding hole. Did she sent you to see a a doc?

as someone who's been to the slammer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46592535)

they read ALL your fucking mail and they tell you that on the first damn day. stop being a fucking pussy.

Re:as someone who's been to the slammer... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46592979)

they read ALL your fucking mail and they tell you that on the first damn day. stop being a fucking pussy.

^^^This, also
http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

What a minute, they let this mother fucker send EMAIL from prison? What kind of white collar bourgeois pussy prison is he in? They sure as hell don't let anybody in regular proletarian prison onto the internet. If you get a moldy bible and some water stained Stephen King books out the library.you're lucky!

Weev's being a whiny, entitled little fuckstain.
Let the faggot rot.

"Goatse Security" (2)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 8 months ago | (#46592755)

~ We can plug ANY security hole, no matter how gaping. ~

Copyright your mail (1)

tekrat (242117) | about 8 months ago | (#46592767)

And then sue anyone who reads it without the license fee being paid. Could be worth a million dollars per letter if you follow the RIAA enough. Just to be sure though, make up some song lyrics as part of the letter and you could at least get ASCAP to sue on your behalf.

Re:Copyright your mail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46593235)

As sickeningly twisted as it shows our justice system to be, this is probably the best idea, bar-none, I've read all week on any subject.

Don't forget that by making it available to ANY FBI-Database-connected computer, they've effectively committed distribution of thousands, of copies of your work, which should send what they now owe you for the most horrific of crimes (copyright infringement, not that nasty prison and trial stuff) known to sentience across the universe, well into the six digits of earth american currency.

Re:Copyright your mail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46594089)

Under current US copyright law copyright is automatic upon authoring. Registering makes it easier to defend and to sue over violations but the copyright itself is automatic.

Payback's a bitch ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46595495)

... aint' it weev?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?