Subject: Re: Comments on Aurenheimer/Spitler case? |
From: Joel Durham Jr <joel@joeldurham.com> |
Date: 3/25/11, 13:31 |
To: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> |
Perfect. Thank you so much for your time!
Best,
Joel Durham Jr
On 3/25/2011 1:25 PM, Barrett Brown wrote:
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
<mailto: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of 1986, which has been called outdated (at best; one article on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 <tel:%28585%29%20208-3238>
----------
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