Normally you pick the most compassionate defendant (like they did in Heller in DC) for a test case. Weev is probably the least sympathetic defendant. But I guess you go to war with the weev you have, not the aaronsw you wanted.
If he'd gotten 3-6 month suspended sentence, even if you thought that was a bit much for essentially incrementing numbers, you'd probably not care much.
If he were facing life in prison, you'd probably leave the US if you were doing anything in security research, change how you vote, etc.
If you pay US taxes you're paying to keep him in jail. I think he's a vile idiot. I don't think he should be in prison.
There's a bunch of stuff that I think he did wrong, but I'll have to read the court documents to see if I agree with them.
For example: He could have written a proof of concept script, and only downloaded a sample 10 pages, rather than grabbing as many as possible.
I might think that would have prevented him going to jail, but would the court agree?
Had he only downloaded a few records, chances are he might get some community service and probation. Also, his stupidity in taking to Reddit to proclaim next time he won't be so nice didn't help either.
Malicious? Sure. Criminal. Not a chance.
He loves manipulating press and media for his own entertainment. The bigger the number, the bigger of an asshole he makes ATT look like by their not protecting it, and the more anguish he causes their management by damage to their brand and stock price.
A valid effort, I think, as manipulating some shitty corporation's reputation with FACTUAL DATA is one of the least underhanded ways of achieving the goal of "fuck with ATT".
So why do those behaviours escape punishment, while this thing gets a prison sentence?
This is why the ACLU defended the Klan.
This is different than a Klansman being on trial for his car crashing into a bus stop full of black kids, and then publicly announcing before sentencing that "I'm only sorry I didn't kill any of darkies."
The Klansman's own words are used to show intent. Without them, he might legitimately argue that it was a honest accident. Maybe believably, depending on other evidence.
Using someone's own words against them in court is not a violation of freedom of speech. Intent matters, and that doesn't mean we have thought-crime.
The only person he's trolling, is himself.
And to be fair, if he didn't do things like the AMA, he probably would have gotten the 3-6 month sentence.
They didn't sentence him for previous trolling, name calling, or tom foolery.
(Seriously, they read his AMA responses in court this morning. Weev's a shithead, but still: 't'was glorious. )
..But I've stopped laughing. It's time that technologists step up efforts to change things in the favor of communication and free speech.
I must've missed you at the sentencing this morning. I was the hungover one in the mirrorshades.
If you're still on this side of the pond, we should grab a drink.
2. Generally, if you are smart, you don't bring wildly unsympathetic defendants to SCOTUS at all (IE you don't go to war over them). There are cases it doesn't matter, but one of the reason we ended up with so many 4th amendment exceptions is, IMHO, because of the habit of bringing really unsympathetic people/facts to SCOTUS back when we had justices like O'Connor.
While weev himself is highly unsympathetic, his actual "crime" in this case is quite sympathetic -- it was technically trivial and the results were given to the press, vs. used for financial gain (even though they talked about it). So maybe it's not the worst possible test case.
His biggest mistake was not being in the 9th circuit, though.
(IANAL though, of course)
IAAL :)
But who knows, maybe scotus would get bored enough to find it interesting.
I'm betting "no" in part because legislative fixes are being considered right now. If one passes, it would reduce the odds SCOTUS would ever take the case.
Improper search and seizure leading to a trial is going to have found drugs/guns/whatever, by definition. That doesn't mean the rest of us should have our 4th amendment rights weakened.
For the courts charged with maintaining these protections, it can be hard to keep a hard-line stance in favor of 4th/5th amendment protections in face of a docket that is chock full of actual criminals who actually deserve their sentences.
It's an explanation, not a justification.