In Texas, they don't convict homeowners who shoot trick or treaters trespassing on private property: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/In_Texas_can_you_shoot_someone_for....
Don't act so surprised and imposed upon that a culture that very much respects fences sees something wrong with intentionally poking your nose where it doesn't belong, online or offline.
Yes, the distinction is relevant. Taking photos of my wife in public and publishing them? Creepy but not illegal. Walking through my door (locked or unlocked, it doesn't matter) to take photos of my wife in my house? You're lucky if you don't get shot.
The crime in question was accessing a computer system in an unauthorized fashion
You can't anthropomorphize the web server like that. You cannot say this guy reasonably inferred that AT&T intended him to have access to these e-mail addresses. It's a dumb piece of equipment--a broken door lock. An unlocked door does not mean you are invited to come in.
Now the server provider is responsible for having not adequately secured the customers information, and the guy who asked for that information is responsible for what he does with that information. What I won't accept is that you criminalize the mere request for said information and the retrieval of whatever response is returned.
Certainly hacking, and given that he doesn't work for, or is associated with AT&T - some type of criminal trespass - but, we're talking community service here, not a felony. Slap the hand, don't cut it off.
I would hope we can all agree that there is a pretty big difference between a pervasive attack where someone spear-phishes a user inside a company, plants a trojan, and uses that to acquire sensitive intellectual property for financial gain, and/or do damage - versus what weev did - trying some pretty obvious numbers on the public website with an iPad user agent.
I agree, but he's not being charged with felonies for simply poking around. He's being charged with felonies for what he claims he was going to do with the information.
The defense seems to be that he wasn't actually going to do that, but it's the domain of the jury to decide his intentions based on his actions.
When you send packets to an internet-connected device, and that device sends some packets back to you, that is not "trespass". You haven't "gone" anywhere, and you certainly didn't cross any "property lines". Much in the way that the copyright mafia wants to redefine "piracy" from "murder and plunder on the high seas" to "listening to a friend's MP3", numerous other bad people will be thrilled when the public accepts "SYN,SYN-ACK,ACK" as a new meaning of "trespass".
Please clarify. Are you trying to say that there exists any justification for this idiotic Texanity? Because there isn't, and therefore you can't logically use it to justify this other unjustifiable thing.
Also, sending packets to an internet-connected device, and then reading the packets it sends back to you, is in no sense "trespassing". Trespass is being physically present in a physical location in which you aren't welcome. You can't trespass while you're physically in your mother's basement. Please don't mangle the English language.