Re: Comments on Aurenheimer/Spitler case?
Subject: Re: Comments on Aurenheimer/Spitler case?
From: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>
Date: 3/25/11, 13:25
To: Joel Durham Jr <joel@joeldurham.com>

I used to work with weev at Encylopedia Dramatica on such things as writing articles about a Dallas city councilman who denounced a Boy Scout for building bat houses in the park and thus attracting dangerous bats; weev Photoshopped the asshole's head into some lulzy gay porn pic. At the time we considered this to be a very necessary thing to do. I'd heard he got busted but I didn't realize that it was for messing with AT&T. I have no opinion on what the legality of his actions may have been nor any interest in the subject, as I consider the rule of law to be void due to the selectiveness of its actual application, which is also why I hope he fucked their shit up solid. AT&T gets retroactive immunity for assisting the NSA in illegal and frankly disturbing surveillance programs against the citizenry; weev may very well do time for committing some alleged crime against AT&T. As such, I hope that the relevant executives of AT&T receive the sort of scrutiny commonly reserved for actors who say silly things. And perhaps they will receive that scrutiny, from one direction or another.

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Joel Durham Jr <joel@joeldurham.com> wrote:
Hello Barrett,

I'm pinging you today as a freelancer from Tech News Daily. I've been assigned a feature on the "gray area" surrounding the current case involving the prosecutions of Andrew "weev" Aurenheimer and Daniel "JacksonBrown" Spitler.

If you have a moment to answer a few questions, I'd truly appreciate it!

First, a good number of hackers see this as a case of the government moving to please a huge corporation - AT&T - which basically got embarrassed by a couple of hackers. If you consider the law under which they've been charged, the Computer Fraud Act of 1986, which has been called outdated (at best; one article on DailyTech lambastes it <http://www.dailytech.com/Interview+Goatse+Security+on+FBI+Charges+Following+ATT+iPad+Breach/article20693.htm>)  in a rapidly changing electronic world, can justice really be served?

Whether or not these guys should be on trial, isn't it time for better, more up-to-date legal framework in our criminal justice system for cyber-criminals? And--SHOULD these guys be on trial at all?

Some people don't think weev and JacksonBrown should have even been charged. Their actions ultimately resulted in a more secure network for AT&T and its clients. What do you think - is this a good case? and why?

Thank you very much for your time!

Best,
Joel Durham Jr
Professional Freelance Author, Writer and Editor
----------
1315 King Rd.
Lot 32
Clifton Springs, NY 14432
(585) 208-3238
----------
Find me on Facebook, Twitter and Linkedin!
Please check out my new novel here:
http://joeldurhamjr.com/Slip%20Away%20Preview.html
*Kindness = Intelligence*




--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302