Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'm afriad I have to respectfully disagree with the idea that "he should have known better".

Most analogies fall flat because webservers do EXACTLY WHAT YOU TELL THEM even if what you tell them to do isn't what you actually want them to do.

Our laws are generally organized around the idea of reasonable adults doing reasonable things and being understood by other reasonable people. The average, reasonable person can't comprehend a webserver.

If you give a robot a gun and tell it to shoot anything that comes through that door and it shoots your wife/husband/child/parent, its not them who is at fault nor is it the robot. Its your fault and you should be tried for murder.

I hope the comparison is clear.



>The average, reasonable person can't comprehend a webserver.

But weev could. We don't apply laws as if the defendant is some mythical "reasonable" person. We try each case based on it's unique circumstances. It's not that he "should have known better", it's that he absolutely did know better.

The comparison is clear, but it has no relevance.


> But weev could. We don't apply laws as if the defendant is some mythical "reasonable" person.

What weev could or could not do is 100% irrelevant. What matters with regard to the law is what a reasonable person would do. That's literally a thing.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/reasonable

AT&T's customers had a REASONABLE expectation of privacy in general, and quite likely AT&T had a privacy policy which spelled this out.

AT&T failed to take the proper steps to protect their customers privacy.

AT&T is at fault here, not weev.

Even if weev did know or not know something, AT&T is at fault for the situation where his knowing or not knowing makes a lick of difference.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: