Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Hacker Pleads Guilty in AT&T iPad Breach
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How many e-mail addresses / account did he get? 120,000
He could have stopped at ONE and reported the security hole to AT&T.
How much did he get from Gawker to publish the addresses?
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
Why sympathize with this doo doo head? If he wasn't a criminal he would have taken this to AT&T in the first place and not sell it to a techie tabloid. He wanted glory and now he has it. Gawker are a bunch of techdouches anyway.
Why sympathize with this doo doo head? If he wasn't a criminal he would have taken this to AT&T in the first place and not sell it to a techie tabloid. He wanted glory and now he has it. Gawker are a bunch of techdouches anyway.
Exactly. That's the problem, the hacker does (arguably) a "good" thing by exposing a security hole. Instead of being a Good Samaritan and doing something to help society in general, they post the information for the attention. Now Email addresses aren't NEARLY the same thing as credit card numbers or something, but the gov. should (and did) make a very tough stand against this sort of Cybercrime.
Sorry it doesn't work that way. Bottom line is they caused financial damage to a business. If their intention was not malicious and they were "only doing public service" as you think, they would have contacted AT&T and told them there is a flaw in their system. Which they didn't. Instead they chose to get name and fame (infamy in their case) and published hundreds of SIM IDs and email addresses on the Internet.
Agreed publishing email addresses seems benign. But the news article says there were several high profile personalities among that list and I am sure it affects them more than an average person. It is basically an invasion of privacy and I am glad they went after them and made an example out of them. People need to know they can't do crap like this because they don't have a life and nothing better to do and expect to get away with it.
This is no different than you or me breaking into a local convenience store just because they didn't lock their door before leaving for the night and publishing this information out causing them damage. Hey technically you and I didn't steal anything from the store. We just broke in and announced publicly that they don't lock their door at night which in turn made other crooks steal from the store and cause them financial damage. So are we responsible in any way? Hell yes!
Agreed, this jail time is nuts.
Doesn't AT&T put my name, my phone number and my address in a big book and drop it of at EVERYONES doorstep in my city every single year?
What in the world is criminal about posting email addresses? Don't most people put their email addresses on their business cards and hand them out to people?
The fault lies with AT&T who put a web interface that takes sim numbers and kicks back email addresses.
This is like them posting the email list on the front door of their business and then you getting 18 months in jail for taking a picture of it.
So AT&T screws up and other people are responsible for their financial loss? So, can Microsoft sue Apple for taking advantage of a botched Vista release? Businesses are not more important than people.
Oh, so you're saying if the email addresses belonged to a bunch of poor people, it wouldn't matter? Nice.
And you see absolutely no reason to hold AT&T even partially accountable?
Is that really breaking in? It's illegal to open an unlocked door now?
Here's a more apt comparison: this is like walking into the lobby of AT&T, seeing that someone dropped a stack of papers in the corner, and publishing them on the Internet.
Should they still be held accountable for releasing the information instead of notifying AT&T? Probably. But screaming hackers and throwing them in prison for a year (to ten years) is the wrong way to go about this.
Last edited:
Seems like AT&T should be faced with the bigger punishment, since they are the ones that are not protecting their customers.
