
Hacker (possibly) behind the AT&T Ipad breach has been arrested. And it's weev. - surlyadopter
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20007827-245.html
======
uhhyeahdude
Oh, weev...

<http://weev.livejournal.com/>

weev as the iProphet: <http://the-iprophet.org/>

[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5643217366887354926...](http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5643217366887354926#)
(toorcon talk while tripping)

<http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2009/Oct/82> (some background, dox; sorry
if this sort of thing is frowned upon here)

The E.D. page: <http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Weev>

Antisec: <http://antisec.wordpress.com/>

Goatse Security: <http://security.goatse.fr/>

~~~
illumin8
Wow, nice guy. I watched about 3 minutes of his toorcon talk and he seems to
be advocating destroying internet infrastructure and committing as much crime
as possible. Exploiting 0 days, etc. What a class act. We need more upstanding
individuals like him in the "community."

His livejournal is like looking inside the mind of a drugged out crazy. He
seems to be anti-jew, anti-muslim, anti-gay, and affiliated with the Westboro
Baptist Church somehow. Basically, if there is some psycho hate speech group
on the Internet somewhere, he's probably in it.

Not exactly security professional material, if you get my drift.

~~~
Alex3917
"His livejournal is like looking inside the mind of a drugged out crazy."

IANAD, but wouldn't surprise me if he was developing some sort of mental
illness. He seems to have just about every risk factor, and his writing
combined with the fact that he's gained 50+ lbs in the last two years are
telling.

~~~
bruceboughton
I am not a druggie?

------
sp332
I think the main reason the FBI got involved was not because the leak was
massive or damaging, but to figure out whether he actually broke any laws. Or
more realistically, to find _something_ to charge him with.

~~~
enjo
It's an interstate complaint. I believe only the FBI has the ability to
followup on it in the first place.

------
fletchowns
Is putting random shit at the end of a URL really illegal?

~~~
seiji
There was this from a few years ago too:
<http://www.securityfocus.com/news/10611> \-- I think it was the same sort of
"append a param to the URL" event.

We're at a gaping chasm of misunderstanding here. Tech people see websites as
things to be used and toyed with. Non-tech people see websites as things that
have terms of service that are supposed to legally restrict what you can do.
"YOU MUST NOT ACCESS THIS WEBSITE IN ANY AUTOMATED FASHION WHATSOEVER."

They argue on a basis resembling: "You wouldn't break into the admissions
office and steal the list of accepted candidates, would you?" We counter-argue
that it's like knowing a person who can't lie to you. If you ask them for the
result, they give you the result. Is it illegal to ask for an answer if they
don't even hesitate to give it to you?

~~~
tvon
Doesn't that counter argument amount to "but it's easy, and tempting"?

~~~
seiji
Exactly right. Let's jump further in to not-quite-isomorphic-analogy land.

Consider banks not having vaults and instead leaving their money sitting out
in the open. It would be easy and tempting to swipe some. Doing so may be
"wrong" technically, but by the availability and lack of security, one can
presume the banks are aware of the risks and can tolerate some shrink.

I would argue it's not wrong if they put no security in place, it's in a
public place, and no person is denied a resource by your act of accessing the
public resource with no security.

~~~
warfangle
To take it a liiiittle further:

Like a bank whose tellers (a gatekeeping mechanism) will give you however much
money you ask for as long as you end your sentence with "swordfish" - they
just don't tell anyone about swordfish.

------
chopsueyar
If the scope of the warrant is for computer hardware/software, are his
possession of these substances inadmissable?

~~~
dougmccune
I remember a police officer telling me they like getting warrants for small
things. For example, if they have a bait car they're trying to get someone to
steal they'll have a purse in there. If they can get a warrant that lets them
search for a purse (or something the equivalent size) they can basically
search everything in the house (anywhere a purse could be hidden), which means
free reign to search all drawers, etc. Then anything they find in that search
(drugs, etc) can all be used against the person. But if you're only looking
for something big (like if someone stole a big screen TV) you're not allowed
to search places that it can't possibly be hidden.

But of course I am not a police officer and this was all casual conversation,
so grain of salt you know?

~~~
boredguy8
You're off a little bit, though this is a HUGELY unclear area in law right
now. The term is the "plain View exception" or "plain view doctrine." It's why
your trash is searchable if you put it out for pickup. It's why your trash is
searchable over a fence if the lid is off.

Horton v. California, while executing a narrowly issued warrant, officers
found additional evidence "in plain view" and the Supreme Court ruled the
evidence admissible.

This question is particularly relevant to IT because different courts have
ruled different ways on how "plain view" applies to computer searches.
[http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleFriendlyL...](http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleFriendlyLTN.jsp?id=1202458173965)
for a little on that particular question.

~~~
billswift
The "plain view" issue is one reason to never, ever let a police officer into
your house without a warrant. Especially since it can be hard to know what
they will claim to be evidence of a crime any more.

------
mambodog
Goatse security group? Really?

~~~
nym
"Gaping holes exposed"

~~~
Sukotto
I never thought I'd see a relevant comment about Goatse on HN.

~~~
illumin8
It's actually their slogan: <http://weev.livejournal.com/377701.html>

------
sfall
I think that the best idea of what the security group did was comparable to
calling up a company that does not provide a directory and the group showed
you can easily create that directory but didn't publish it

------
sliverstorm
Kind of ruins my image of hackers, with all those high-profile drugs.

~~~
drivebyacct
Why? Why do people still get hung up on people using drugs? Are you assuming
he is an addict? Do you know he abuses them?

~~~
sliverstorm
I'm not judging, it just doesn't fit IMHO. A hacker using cocaine and
psychedelics? That seems like an Olympic runner smoking cigars, if you follow
my meaning.

~~~
DrJokepu
I don't see how this is related. I know people who are lot smarter than me and
I would call "hackers" who regularly consume cocaine. It's a (quite dangerous)
lifestyle decision with disastrous long-term effects but very little, if any
short-term effects on their intelligence or creativity.

~~~
Alex3917
This article doesn't really tell us anything. He could be drinking coca tea
once every few months, or he could be smoking crack every day. Or he might
just be a collector who doesn't even use the drugs. I wouldn't jump to any
conclusions.

------
Daniel_Newby
From the educational documentary Hackers:

    
    
                      JOEY
          That was me. That was me. I did that.
    
                      DADE
          You did this from your house.
    
     Joey takes a drag from his cigarette and just
     nods, with a big grin on his face.
    
                      PHREAK
          What are you, stoned or stupid? You don't
          hack a bank across state lines from your
          house, you'll get nailed by the FBI. Where
          are your brains, in your ass? Don't you know
          anything?
    
                      CEREAL
          Stupid, man. It's universally stupid.

~~~
blhack
Well how am I supposed to know anything if you guys never tell me anything!?!

------
drivebyacct
Wow. He's crazy, loves God and Fred Phelps.

[http://www.queerty.com/andrew-auernheimer-saved-your-ipad-
fr...](http://www.queerty.com/andrew-auernheimer-saved-your-ipad-from-atts-
security-flaw-he-also-loves-fred-phelps-20100618/)

