
The feds are making it hurt in every way for Weev, but for what? - bifrost
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-feds-are-making-it-hurt-in-every-way-for-weev-but-for-what
======
downandout
The horrible treatment of just about anyone that enters the prison system is
the primary driver of our plea-based justice system. While Weev's friends may
think that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is afraid of their public complaints,
the opposite is true. Such public stories help get other defendants to plead
guilty in exchange for reduced sentences, hopefully in minimum security, "Club
Fed" type facilities, before significant resources have to be spent on their
prosecution. By discussing it here and spreading it online, we are actually
advancing the goals of federal prosecutors across the country.

As far as Weev himself, not much can be done. The feds are permitted to house
any inmate in essentially any conditions they want as long as they meet
certain (incredibly low) standards. Once you are in their grasp, you are at
their mercy. Theoretically, they can keep him in segregation for the duration
of his sentence. The bra thing is ordinary for jails and prisons. He is being
threatened with "Diesel Therapy" - being moved from prison to prison - in
order to disrupt his posts to the Internet which violate their rules.

Basically, he hasn't learned (but will soon) that he is no longer in control.
The harder he fights against the rules, no matter how idiotic those rules may
be, the more difficult his life will become. This is true both while in
custody and during the entire term of his Supervised Release. None of this is
necessary or right in the eyes of anyone with half a brain, but it is the
system we have and he exposed himself to it.

~~~
antihero
It amazes me that people aren't revolting over this - how is this not
considered comparable to slavery on an utterly massive and unprecedented
scale?

~~~
cynicalkane
I would differ on the claim that this is an "unprecedented level of slavery".
I can think of a precedent level of slavery in U.S. history.

~~~
rangibaby
The way I grokked is that this is the first thing really comparable to slavery
since it "officially" ended. It's not a novel opinion; blacks are incarcerated
at six times the level of whites (1). <http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-
justice-fact-sheet>

~~~
Shivetya
[http://libertyfight.com/2013/New_York_City_Crime_stats_based...](http://libertyfight.com/2013/New_York_City_Crime_stats_based_on_race.html)

Statistics are what you make them, considering that blacks are more likely to
victims of violence to other blacks, when they are not the majority, how can
the outcome of incarceration rates be remedied?

~~~
bdisraeli
Most people in the prison system are there for non-violent offenses. [1] In
Chicago, blacks were arrested (before decriminalisation last year) for
cannabis consumption at a rate of 15 persons for every 1 white person despite
similar rates of cannabis consumption among blacks and whites. [2] People who
have gone to prison for any of offense have a 40% chance of eventually going
back to prison. [3] I would suggest that the change in incarceration rates
starts with less racist policing.

[1]
[http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1118](http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1118)

[2] [http://m.chicagoreader.com/chicago/chicago-marijuana-
arrest-...](http://m.chicagoreader.com/chicago/chicago-marijuana-arrest-
statistics/Content?oid=4198958)

[3] <http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/08/prison-math>

~~~
DanBC
I don't take drugs. I think there are good reasons for people to not take
cannabis. I am strongly in favour of cannabis legalisation.

The amount of time and money spent dealing with cannabis is mind-boggling.
About 50,000[1] Mexicans have been murdered in the recent drug wars. Some of
those are because cannabis is illegal.

Cannabis prohibition is going to be viewed with horror in the future.

([http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2084224,00.htm...](http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2084224,00.html))

([http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/opinion/hit-mexicos-
cartel...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/opinion/hit-mexicos-cartels-with-
legalization.html?_r=0))

(<http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-war-statistics>)

([http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/05/05/fbi-marijuana-
is...](http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/05/05/fbi-marijuana-is-the-top-
revenue-generator-for-mexican-cartels/))

[1] numbers are hard to check, but some people say 62,000 since 2006.

------
jacquesm
You can tell a lot about a country when you look at the way it treats those
that are in its power, especially those in the prison system.

The conditions of inmates tell you a lot more about the state of affairs
compared to the 500 richest guys/girls or the GNP. America is still very low
on the totempole when it comes to being civilized in this way, and by the
looks of it things are getting worse rather than better. Plea bargaining, the
largest in-jail population of any country (both in absolute numbers as well as
percentage wise), ridiculous legal costs and a prison system that is rife with
structural problems.

It's almost as if America has decided that prisoners are not people.

~~~
why-el
Your first line is similar to a Dostoevsky quote:

"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its
prisons." (The House of the Dead)

~~~
jacquesm
Interesting, I have not read Dostoevsky but I don't think you need to be
particularly smart or well read to come up with that line of reasoning, it
seems common sense to me that when the other side has no power at all the
freedom that gives to the side in power will show them at their worst. If that
worst then is pretty good that would be a hallmark of a good society.

~~~
pi18n
It's also like the common advice that you should watch carefully how your date
interacts with the waitstaff. It's too bad Americans can understand the one
but not the other.

~~~
jacquesm
Interesting, I wrote about exactly that a while ago, it wasn't a date but a
business associate:

<http://jacquesmattheij.com/be-nice-to-those-that-serve-you>

------
quackerhacker
Speaking from experience (myself), I did my time at a camp (10mnths), then
like 2 months at a hold over in Dublin (I got violated at Oakland's halfway
house, because I had an iPhone and I was creating a program on it).

In all honesty, I think Weev pissed off the wrong people. If I remember right,
didn't he even release emails on politicians. So of course the BOP will lean
towards appeasing the parties (gov officials) that can make changes. Being in
the hole is unusual for him, since he was non-violent, unless he showed up
intoxicated (media articles and people for that matter tend to leave out
details).

I know it's the beginning of his sentence, but there's nothing you can
do...start reading, working out, and writing code (that's what I did). Oh, and
everyone in there seems to be studying commodities and currencies (doesn't
hurt, cause getting a job will be hard).

ADDED: just read weev's wiki, the feds hated him, I heard (thankfully heard),
the transfer center he went to (Federal Transfer Center, Oklahoma City) is NOT
somewhere you want to EVER be. And I was told not to talk to the media while I
was doing my case (didn't help that Wired and every other tech blog was
calling)

BTW @downandout, your terms sounds like you know too.

~~~
tripzilch
> In all honesty, I think Weev pissed off the wrong people.

Pissing off people is what Weev does, and every step along the way, pissing
off people is what got him there. And he'll probably keep on doing it, because
it's Weev and not just some average "difficult person", he's really really
_good_ at it.

I don't know what that means, it probably won't make things any easier for
him.

~~~
quackerhacker
An example is, I was assigned a counselor in there (everyone is), and if you
piss them off, they can take away who you can have contact with and how much
good time credit you'll get, or when an "opening," at a halfway house is.

Stay quiet and keep to yourself...to build on my earlier post... the program I
was making on my iphone at the halfway house that violated my time there was
just a probability and statistics auto trade program for forex. I got told on
from inside by someone because I didn't want to plug them in on it. The person
who decided if I stay or not, looked at the code, looked at my offense, and
assumed I was doing dirt...handed my iphone to secret service (who gave it
back to me when I got out).

So for Weev's sake, I hope he simmers down. It'll be easier, he'll get out of
the shoe, get out early, and be trolling in no time.

~~~
stfu
So what you saying is, going to prison (for a non-tech related crime) is a
good way to become a (better) programmer. No distractions, very clear time
schedule, no distraction by everyday bs etc.

~~~
quackerhacker
Not at all. What everyone does when they're inside, really depends on their
own character. Some people work out, others read, become overly religious,
study commodities (and trade from inside).

I wrote code to keep to myself, to distract me from missing my fiance and
kids...and what else could I do when I got out, I lost my honor.

If your implying that mine was non-tech related:
<http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/05/man-allegedly-b/>

------
pyre
1) It sounds like he's not necessarily in 'solitary confinement' because he's
got a cellmate. Sure he's separated from the rest of the prison population,
but it's not the same situation as if he were _really_ in solitary
confinement.

2) Not allowing him access to his lawyer, or allowing his lawyer to be
informed of his situation seems like it has to be against some sort of
rule/law/regulation. If it isn't then we need to start calling up some
legislators.

3) What's the deal with the 'you must wear a bra' rule? Someone in another
thread said that this was standard. Why? I could maybe understand a rule that
said "no bras" if they thought that a bra could be used to smuggled something
somehow, but forcing all women visiting to wear bras seems odd. Are they
afraid of a prison riot over a bra-less woman?

4) Are there really rules against him distributing information to the outside
world via friends or his lawyer? What is the point of such rules? For some
stupid edge-case of suppressing mafia bosses from operating from prison? Are
they trying to stop criticism of the jail conditions from reaching the outside
(i.e. anti-whistle-blower)?

5) If Weev really _did_ break some sort of prison rules, then why will they
not confirm _why_ he was put in administrative detention? He's obviously there
for a reason, why will they not disclose it? Makes it come across like they
feel that disclosing the reason would look worse than just withholding it and
waiting for all this to blow over.

6) Why are they not giving him gluten-free meals if that's 'what the doctor
ordered?' If something is medically necessary, and it's withheld from an
inmate, why is this not a punishable offense?

~~~
sliverstorm
_Are there really rules against him distributing information to the outside
world via friends or his lawyer_

I think you may have misread:

 _The penitentiary also threatened to (list of actions) if he tries to
communicate with the outside world via Internet again._

They don't object to him communicating with friends or his lawyer; they don't
want him active online.

 _What is the point of such rules? For some stupid edge-case of suppressing
mafia bosses from operating from prison?_

That's what comes to my mind as well. Weev isn't a mafia boss, but he _is_ a
black hat hacker, and he _is_ (was?) a part of Goatse Security. The Internet
is his _medium_. If you throw him in prison and grant him free access to the
Internet, have you really done anything? It's actually kind of an interesting
conundrum- a thief is removed from the streets to stop him from thieving. Here
we have a hacker we have tried to put into a system meant for a thief, when
maybe the better analogue would be to remove him from _his_ streets, i.e. the
Interenet, instead of putting him in prison to remove him from the street.

House arrest and monitored or limited access to the Internet has always seemed
like one of the better options the penitentiary system has tried for "Internet
criminals".

~~~
pyre

      | grant him free access to the Internet
    

How? I thought that the Tweets weren't directly from him, but were posted to
Twitter at his request by friends that had his credentials. So he's not
allowed to pass messages to friends that are then distributed to the world via
Twitter?

~~~
sliverstorm
Telling his friends to post a message to Twitter sounds like communicating
with the outside world via his friends.

Perhaps we need more detail here.

------
mosqutip
How does this not violate several Constitutional amendments? Unexplained
solitary confinement sounds like cruel and unusual punishment, and not
allowing his lawyer to see him is clearly a denial of fair representation.

I'm not sure about the legality of the diet, but maybe someone more informed
on prison law could step in.

Rooming him with terrorists and gang members? Denying entry for a woman not
wearing a bra? (which, in addition to making no sense, is also creepy) This is
clear abuse of state power, and I don't understand how people aren't outraged
over it. But then again, the state effectively owns the media, so there's yet
another obstacle in Weev's path.

In a word: disgusting.

~~~
johnpowell
This part confuses me.

>"learned he was sharing a 10x10 cell in solitary with a cellmate"

I'm not sure how that works.

~~~
pavedwalden
I suspect that being locked up alone with one of the world's most obnoxious
trolls is unfair punishment for whoever that cellmate is.

------
hawkharris
There are serious problems with the way this story is reported. It relies
primarily on Tweets, and the author made no effort to contact officials for
comment.

Having worked as an investigative journalist, I know that most authors hold
themselves to finding at least three solid sources. If that's impossible to do
for a given article, the author should either hold off on the lead until it
matures or give the reader a firm caveat that what he or she is reading might
be speculative.

~~~
jff
What's that you say? Vice is using insubstantial reports from one side to
create a sensationalist narrative? Why I never!

------
drawkbox
Yes what he did is wrong. But prison for non-violent offenses is violence
itself, cruel and unusual punishment. This would make monarchies proud.

Hardline can deter people but do you really want to support solitary
confinement and prison for non-violence? The cost is too great on many levels
not just monetary. Money spent on locking up non-violence is money lost for
other public services. We are all going to pay at least $30,000 per year in
taxes for this one instance.

Why create criminals? This is no rehabilitation, this is creating life long
criminals. Maybe there is something I am missing, but find no value in locking
up non-violence unless it is repeat offenses or crimes that result in
violence.

~~~
robflynn
It's really sickening how things play out.

I have a friend who was jailed for counterfeiting. He weed from someone and
received counterfeit bills as change. Next day, he bought a pizza with the
change. After he got home, he realized the money looked weird.

He tried to do the right thing and called the pizza place and told him that he
thinks he received counterfeit bills as change from somewhere and told them
that he was going to bring them some new money.

When he arrived he was jailed. He refused to give up his friend and ended up
jailed for a while.

Thankfully, his attorney was able to work some magic after his initial
sentencing and get him switched to house arrest at a significantly reduced
sentence.

It just seems weird to me that unintentional possession of something can get
you into so much trouble.

What happens if I end up with a counterfeit bill from somewhere and a cop
decides to search me? Does he notice? If so, then what? What if I honestly
don't know where it came from?

~~~
rayiner
He got jail because he refused to give up his friend and thus became an
accessory.

~~~
qwerta
It is basic human right to refuse testify against yourself or family member.

~~~
rayiner
It's a Constitutional right to refuse to give testimony that would incriminate
yourself. In certain contexts it's a statutory or common law privilege to
refuse to give testimony that would incriminate a spouse. There is no
privilege recognized for family members or friends, nor has there ever been in
the Anglo-American tradition, nor am I aware of any other country in which
there is a privilege against testifying against family or friends.

In refusing to tell the police where he got the counterfeit bills, the person
in the story above helped cover up his friend's crime. Helping other people
commit crimes is bad and deserves punishment--whether they are your friends or
not.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
You have a strange sense of justice. He didn't help anyone commit any crimes.
He simply opted out of participating. It's not his problem, and he did nothing
wrong. To punish him defies reason.

There is a threshold at which you could make the argument that there is a
moral obligation to turn in one's friend if they are committing atrocities,
but no one can argue that this is an example.

~~~
rayiner
It's not my particular sense of justice, it's how our justice system is
structured and how it always has been. There is a strong presumption that
individuals will cooperate with police to help investigate crimes. That's why
the 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination even exists--it's an
exception to our general practice that people can be compelled to testify
about crimes. As a general rule, our society does not consider it acceptable
to "opt out" of participating in a criminal investigation, especially in a
case like this one where the person being asked to help is a suspect by virtue
of the circumstances.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
Aside from your argumentum ad antiquitatem, I think it is rather presumptuous
to speak for "society" this way. For starters, I think both left- and right-
libertarians, as well as most journalists, would disagree with you. I would
also guess that society in general would be outraged if a journalist was
jailed for that particular offense, so what you claim is clearly not
universally true.

I also disagree that this person is a reasonable suspect, any more than the
pizza restaurant, who probably either gave it to a customer as change, used it
to pay a vendor, or deposited it.

Although the orwellian term "justice system" is undoubtedly convenient for
such an argument, I'm going to suggest thhat your statement be read with a
substitution of "legal framework" in its place. It's important to remember
that law and justice are not synonymous. In fact, a founding father of our
"society" himself (Thomas Jefferson) made this distinction: "If a law is
unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."

So we must ask, was justice served? An honest man unwittingly committed a
minor crime of minimal or no public harm (at worst, someone was out $20 or so)
and returned to correct his error, making all parties whole. In return, his
life is ruined and he is sent to prison, which cost him and the taxpayers tens
of thousands of dollars, at least. The answer is unequivocally no, justice was
not served.

Edit: It also seems like you're conflating refusing to testify with being an
accessory. Your claim was the latter, which is much more serious than contempt
of court. Passive concealment by non-participation after the fact is in no way
"assisting", by definition, because the crime _already happened_. If that was
the claim, it's absolutely an abuse of the spirit of the law.

~~~
harryh
When you commit a crime it's not just actually doing the thing that's the hard
part. It's also getting away with it. If you don't accomplish the _getting
away with it_ bit, well, then you've pretty much failed as a criminal right?

The main character in this story assisted in the _getting away with it_ part
of the crime. That's an accessory. And it's absolutely a crime to be an
accessory, and I'm confused as to why anyone would have a problem with that.

We can't have a civilized society if people don't help the authorities catch
the bad guys.

------
rosser
Weev is a raging douche, who appears to take a perverse kind of pleasure in
being as brazenly reprehensible as possible, but _no one_ deserves this kind
of treatment.

------
beedogs
Pretty goddamned pathetic, America. You treat your rapists and your murderers
better than your grey-hat hackers. Nice priorities.

~~~
droopyEyelids
Weev was arrested for grey hat behavior, but we should remember he is an 100%
black hat individual.

~~~
jacquesm
As much as I dislike the guy, he's still a human being and he is already being
punished (serving time).

The fact that he is a (black hat) hacker should not make his life any worse
than if he were a bankrobber or a burglar. Weev strikes me as an excellent
touchstone for your own personal ethics, how much can you despise what a
person does or stands for and _still_ demand that we treat him with respect?

~~~
sliverstorm
_treat him with respect_

Is respect the right word? Maybe I'm just socially undeveloped, but while I am
for treating people with _humanity_ , I'm not sure all people deserve my
_respect_ simply by virtue of being people.

~~~
bcoates
He's a citizen and therefore entitled to respect from his government servants.
Everyone else can tell him to piss off.

------
SG-
It's clear that there's no real interest in reforming people and simply
punishing them in any way possible regardless of what it means when they
finally come out of the US jail system.

That just seems to be the way in the US and other countries, however in a lot
of others there's effort to actually reform people instead of punish. A lot of
people also facepalm or complain that criminals in other countries serve a
fraction of time compared to Americans as well as them having really good
living conditions and programs available to them in jail.

------
mcintyre1994
I'm really confused here, what is the use of 'solitary' in a shared cell? He's
either a threat to others or he's not. If he is, he should be on his own, not
with a cell mate, why wouldn't he be a threat to the cell mate? And if he's
not a threat to others, he shouldnt' be in solitary. Isn't that the point of
solitary?

~~~
vidarh
It's intended as punishment, not a protective measure.

~~~
mcintyre1994
Still seems pretty pointless to put somebody else in the cell with him, but I
guess that makes more sense. My speculation would be they have more in
solitary than they have space for, but I'll avoid trying to infer anything
from that.

~~~
vidarh
It's not necessarily intended to get him alone - in fact they might
intentionally want to avoid full isolation because it is massively problematic
not just because of space but because of the dramatic mental health issues it
can cause (have a look at the amount of mental health problems at the Supermax
prisons). Note the restrictions on showering, and presumably there's lots of
other restrictions on access to recreational facilities etc.. Could be abusive
enough even before they decide to withdraw the last shred of human contact.

Though you might very well be right.

------
al1x
Trolls getting trolled. Why is this not hilarious?

~~~
wnight
Because next time he will burn AT&T to the ground instead of revealing their
mistake.

~~~
smsm42
That's why he is in jail for the time he is, and that's why he is in SHU.
Person who doesn't want to be in jail says "Your honor, doing what I did was a
terrible mistake, and I will remember it for the rest of my life and will
behave responsibly in the future and apply my knowledge for good, not for
evil". Person who wants to end up in SHU says "Fuck you, judge, fuck you,
system, you're not the boss of me, I'll keep doing what I want to do and I'll
do it _worse_ next time. Yeah, you thought your puny jail would stop me from
doing it again?! Fuck you!".

If he was some kind of Ghandi that refuses to cooperate with the system for a
noble cause, I'd feel sympathy for him even though his conduct is contrary to
what a reasonable person would do. Struggle for freedom requires people to do
unreasonable things to push the boundaries and improve the system. But he's no
Ghandi, he's a douchebag and the only cause I can see about him is his own
douchebaggery. So my sympathy for him is very minimal.

And repeated proclamations from his supporters in the vein of "oh, he's
treated so badly, he'll burn you all to the ground once he's out" is not
helping either. Threatening is usually not the best way to gain sympathy.

~~~
wnight
> That's why he is in jail for the time he is,

No. It's pretty much entirely because he and his group spoke loudly about what
a horrible job AT&T was doing.

Because other than that they scraped a website and sent a list of email
addresses to journalists.

> Person who doesn't want to be in jail says "Your honor, [...]

Sure, and a photographer who'd just taken an incriminating picture of the
police but who didn't want to go to jail would say "Yes, sir, here's the
card."

> But he's no Ghandi, he's a douchebag

Your main reason for thinking that he's no Ghandi is that he's a douchebag.
Circular reasoning always justifies itself.

You'd probably be one of the many standing around watching, lecturing, about
how the smelly hippy should have given the police the memory card if he didn't
want to be beaten, without asking why the police are trying to confiscate
photographs.

> So my sympathy for him is very minimal.

That's good. Conserve your sympathy. Wait for the moment, then unleash it when
they least expect!

> repeated proclamations from his supporters

Who, me? Doubtful. I'd likely find him to be a douchebag. No, seriously. I
don't know him.

And what's a proclamation then? If it's cold and I say it's cold, have I
proclaimed it or complained about it?

> in the vein of "oh, he's treated so badly, he'll burn you all to the ground
> once he's out" is not helping either.

Gosh no. Not in the vein of - exactly like.

But I don't mean him. He's done here because he's too visible. Weev's final
troll is going to be costing $80k a day forever for a team of secret-service
to follow him around making sure he never tweets anything in violation of his
parole.

I mean the next person who for their own reasons stumbles onto a vulnerability
and realizes what the company is like to other hackers - douchebags or not.

> Threatening is usually not the best way to gain sympathy.

You misread my intent again. It's not to win sympathy for weev, it's to point
out that they've made an enemy of their own choosing.

They're kicking a hornets' nest. If they stopped, it'd stop spewing hornets.
Then maybe they'd discover it was honey-bees after all.

~~~
smsm42
>>> No. It's pretty much entirely because he and his group spoke loudly about
what a horrible job AT&T was doing.

Nope. It is because he stole tons of private info from AT&T and then boasted
about it and then said he would totally do it again and with worse
consequences to the victim. Law enforcement usually doesn't like people that
say "I'll do it again and worse" too much.

>>> Sure, and a photographer who'd just taken an incriminating picture of the
police

Very nice, now do you have anything to say that is not wildly offtopic?

>>> Your main reason for thinking that he's no Ghandi is that he's a
douchebag.

My main reason to thing he's a douchebag because I've read about him and his
actions. My main reason to think he's no Ghandi is the same - nothing in these
actions points at anything but being a docuhebag. Name me what he did that
nominates him for being Ghandi - is it GNAA, maybe?

>>> about how the smelly hippy should have given the police the memory card

Very nice, now do you have anything to say that is not wildly offtopic?

>>> They're kicking a hornets' nest.

There's no hornet's nest. There's a bunch of douchebags on the internet that
could think of nothing better to do that cause mayhem and suffering to those
around them. Those despicable and miserable creatures would be around us
forever, probably, but they are not honey-bees. They're more like dung flies -
both by their tastes, their places of habitation and their behavior, and their
attractiveness. Of course, even dung fly can cause an epidemic, given improper
sanitation and bad luck - but I wouldn't be too proud to be one.

~~~
wnight
> Nope. It is because he stole tons of private info from AT&T and then boasted
> about it and then said he would totally do it again and with worse
> consequences to the victim.

Wrong. It wasn't private info, it was email addresses. They aren't treated as
private and no harm comes from someone else knowing them. These were on
unpassworded, public-facing URLs because nobody cared.

Another way to tell you're just manufacturing outrage here is that you pretend
to care about sensitive data but don't give a shit that without the leak the
hole would have remained indefinitely. If it really was sensitive, it could
have been exploited.

Repeatedly your main complaint about weev has been his disrespect for
authority, and your hastily-formed notions about his personality. Nothing
about actual harm, because you know there was none - or if there was it was
because of AT&T's dereliction of duty.

To the degree that there were victims, they were the customers who were
implicitly lied to. Without this security audit they'd still be in the dark.

>>> Someone who didn't want to go to jail would say "... >> Someone who didn't
want to get unfairly arrested would say "... > Very nice, now do you have
anything to say that is not wildly offtopic?

Sorry, but it's not off-topic, it just shows your point is full of holes the
size of a truck. You brought up "what someone who didn't want to go to jail"
would say, but upon examination it fails to help your case and now you don't
like that tangent.

You're more concerned with jailing those who disrespect your surrogate
authority than in patching whatever hole there is.

> There's a bunch of douchebags on the internet that could think of nothing
> better to do that cause mayhem and suffering to those around them.

God, I know. Don't you just hate idiot politicians who try to control things
they don't understand with the same blunt-object laws they fail to fix
anything else with.

> Those despicable and miserable creatures

You're conflating what they thought would be funny with what they actually
did.

> they are not honey-bees.

Really? They look like it from my point of view. They're useful if farmed with
care but harmful if mistreated.

> My main reason to thing he's a douchebag because I've read about him and his
> actions.

Well, your interpretations of things are pretty weak - that doesn't mean much.
Was this before you were told what to think? Because following links from an
echo chamber is just going to reinforce your preconceived notions.

You seem easily led by anyone who says something catchy - you're using a
juvenile phrase implying weev resembles a menstrual pad. It's like the rash of
ideological clones saying "mansion arrest" in any discussion of Wikileaks,
indicating not a single one of them had ever had an original thought.

> Law enforcement usually doesn't like people that say "I'll do it again and
> worse" too much.

It's pretty obvious you're upset because you're an authoritarian and you see
someone flouting the rules. You're fixated on it.

~~~
smsm42
>>> It wasn't private info, it was email addresses. They aren't treated as
private

Maybe not by you. But for those to whom they belonged they certainly were
private and not meant to be disclosed. BTW, somehow I don't see your email
address in your profile either even though you could easily put it there.

>>>> Another way to tell you're just manufacturing outrage here

I'm not "manufacturing" anything, I just state the facts - one of the facts is
the the emails were private and Auernheimer accessed them without
authorization, thus committing a crime.

>>> Repeatedly your main complaint about weev has been his disrespect for
authority

This is completely false, it wasn't neither my "main" complaint, not any other
complaint - I never complained about anything like that, which is obvious to
anybody who read it. Which of course does not prevent you to claim the
contrary, as you seem to be an expert at ignoring reality and substituting
your own fantasy instead.

>>> Without this security audit they'd still be in the dark.

It was "security audit" the same way as a mugging is "personal belongings
safety audit". Word games are not going to change reality anywhere but in your
head.

>>> You're more concerned with jailing those who disrespect your surrogate
authority

Again, this is completely false - nobody talked about any respect to any
authority. What we were talking about is unlawful and unauthorized access to
private data - which of course has nothing to do with filming public servants
appearing in public and your subsequent fantasies on what may happen next.

>>> God, I know. Don't you just hate idiot politicians

You're trying to change the topic again. By now you should have noticed I
would detect such attempts and point them out.

>>> Really? They look like it from my point of view.

This is because your point of view has nothing to do with reality and is
completely based in fantasy, which I amply illustrated here. You think if you
call something by different words and misrepresent facts, they would actually
be something completely different, but that is not going to happen. Bunch of
trolls getting into private data store and unlawfully taking data remains a
bunch of trolls getting into private data store and unlawfully taking data,
call it "audit" or "honey bee" or "bologna sandwich".

>>> You seem easily led by anyone who says something catchy

As I do not know if English is your native language, I give you benefit of the
doubt and inform you that calling somebody a "douchebag" in English does not
actually implies he looks like a hygienic product and can be used as one. It
implies he is an arrogant, insufferable and extremely repulsive personality,
compounded with over-inflated self-worth and actions often characterized with
complete disregard over the harm they cause to others. There's nothing
"juvenile" in using this to describe someone who actually fits this
description, it is very common turn of phrase.

>>> It's pretty obvious you're upset because you're an authoritarian

I'm not upset at the least - why would I be? I'm not the one getting in
trouble here, so I have nothing to be upset about. I just point out the
reasons why Auernheimer is treated like he is, and the fact is that he and his
personality the main cause of it. Your attempts to telepathically read my
brain over the internet and deduce my political and moral leanings resulted in
a miserable failure.

