>>> No. It's pretty much entirely because he and his group spoke loudly about what a horrible job AT&T was doing.

Nope. It is because he stole tons of private info from AT&T and then boasted about it and then said he would totally do it again and with worse consequences to the victim. Law enforcement usually doesn't like people that say "I'll do it again and worse" too much.

>>> Sure, and a photographer who'd just taken an incriminating picture of the police

Very nice, now do you have anything to say that is not wildly offtopic?

>>> Your main reason for thinking that he's no Ghandi is that he's a douchebag.

My main reason to thing he's a douchebag because I've read about him and his actions. My main reason to think he's no Ghandi is the same - nothing in these actions points at anything but being a docuhebag. Name me what he did that nominates him for being Ghandi - is it GNAA, maybe?

>>> about how the smelly hippy should have given the police the memory card

Very nice, now do you have anything to say that is not wildly offtopic?

>>> They're kicking a hornets' nest.

There's no hornet's nest. There's a bunch of douchebags on the internet that could think of nothing better to do that cause mayhem and suffering to those around them. Those despicable and miserable creatures would be around us forever, probably, but they are not honey-bees. They're more like dung flies - both by their tastes, their places of habitation and their behavior, and their attractiveness. Of course, even dung fly can cause an epidemic, given improper sanitation and bad luck - but I wouldn't be too proud to be one.

> Nope. It is because he stole tons of private info from AT&T and then boasted about it and then said he would totally do it again and with worse consequences to the victim.

Wrong. It wasn't private info, it was email addresses. They aren't treated as private and no harm comes from someone else knowing them. These were on unpassworded, public-facing URLs because nobody cared.

Another way to tell you're just manufacturing outrage here is that you pretend to care about sensitive data but don't give a shit that without the leak the hole would have remained indefinitely. If it really was sensitive, it could have been exploited.

Repeatedly your main complaint about weev has been his disrespect for authority, and your hastily-formed notions about his personality. Nothing about actual harm, because you know there was none - or if there was it was because of AT&T's dereliction of duty.

To the degree that there were victims, they were the customers who were implicitly lied to. Without this security audit they'd still be in the dark.

>>> Someone who didn't want to go to jail would say "... >> Someone who didn't want to get unfairly arrested would say "... > Very nice, now do you have anything to say that is not wildly offtopic?

Sorry, but it's not off-topic, it just shows your point is full of holes the size of a truck. You brought up "what someone who didn't want to go to jail" would say, but upon examination it fails to help your case and now you don't like that tangent.

You're more concerned with jailing those who disrespect your surrogate authority than in patching whatever hole there is.

> There's a bunch of douchebags on the internet that could think of nothing better to do that cause mayhem and suffering to those around them.

God, I know. Don't you just hate idiot politicians who try to control things they don't understand with the same blunt-object laws they fail to fix anything else with.

> Those despicable and miserable creatures

You're conflating what they thought would be funny with what they actually did.

> they are not honey-bees.

Really? They look like it from my point of view. They're useful if farmed with care but harmful if mistreated.

> My main reason to thing he's a douchebag because I've read about him and his actions.

Well, your interpretations of things are pretty weak - that doesn't mean much. Was this before you were told what to think? Because following links from an echo chamber is just going to reinforce your preconceived notions.

You seem easily led by anyone who says something catchy - you're using a juvenile phrase implying weev resembles a menstrual pad. It's like the rash of ideological clones saying "mansion arrest" in any discussion of Wikileaks, indicating not a single one of them had ever had an original thought.

> Law enforcement usually doesn't like people that say "I'll do it again and worse" too much.

It's pretty obvious you're upset because you're an authoritarian and you see someone flouting the rules. You're fixated on it.

>>> It wasn't private info, it was email addresses. They aren't treated as private

Maybe not by you. But for those to whom they belonged they certainly were private and not meant to be disclosed. BTW, somehow I don't see your email address in your profile either even though you could easily put it there.

>>>> Another way to tell you're just manufacturing outrage here

I'm not "manufacturing" anything, I just state the facts - one of the facts is the the emails were private and Auernheimer accessed them without authorization, thus committing a crime.

>>> Repeatedly your main complaint about weev has been his disrespect for authority

This is completely false, it wasn't neither my "main" complaint, not any other complaint - I never complained about anything like that, which is obvious to anybody who read it. Which of course does not prevent you to claim the contrary, as you seem to be an expert at ignoring reality and substituting your own fantasy instead.

>>> Without this security audit they'd still be in the dark.

It was "security audit" the same way as a mugging is "personal belongings safety audit". Word games are not going to change reality anywhere but in your head.

>>> You're more concerned with jailing those who disrespect your surrogate authority

Again, this is completely false - nobody talked about any respect to any authority. What we were talking about is unlawful and unauthorized access to private data - which of course has nothing to do with filming public servants appearing in public and your subsequent fantasies on what may happen next.

>>> God, I know. Don't you just hate idiot politicians

You're trying to change the topic again. By now you should have noticed I would detect such attempts and point them out.

>>> Really? They look like it from my point of view.

This is because your point of view has nothing to do with reality and is completely based in fantasy, which I amply illustrated here. You think if you call something by different words and misrepresent facts, they would actually be something completely different, but that is not going to happen. Bunch of trolls getting into private data store and unlawfully taking data remains a bunch of trolls getting into private data store and unlawfully taking data, call it "audit" or "honey bee" or "bologna sandwich".

>>> You seem easily led by anyone who says something catchy

As I do not know if English is your native language, I give you benefit of the doubt and inform you that calling somebody a "douchebag" in English does not actually implies he looks like a hygienic product and can be used as one. It implies he is an arrogant, insufferable and extremely repulsive personality, compounded with over-inflated self-worth and actions often characterized with complete disregard over the harm they cause to others. There's nothing "juvenile" in using this to describe someone who actually fits this description, it is very common turn of phrase.

>>> It's pretty obvious you're upset because you're an authoritarian

I'm not upset at the least - why would I be? I'm not the one getting in trouble here, so I have nothing to be upset about. I just point out the reasons why Auernheimer is treated like he is, and the fact is that he and his personality the main cause of it. Your attempts to telepathically read my brain over the internet and deduce my political and moral leanings resulted in a miserable failure.