[nonce42]

It's worth reading the criminal complaint and indictment (https://www.eff.org/cases/us-v-auernheimer) to get some background. In particular: the discussions of using the email addresses for a phishing scheme, using them for spam, shorting AT&T stock and profiting off the data release, setting up WiFi routers so they can blame it on a third party, discussing how this was a federal crime, and how to spin themselves as a legitimate security organization. These things make it really hard to view weev as a genuine security researcher who was prosecuted for no good reason.

[lawnchair_larry]

It's not worth reading that, because it's taken completely out of context. As badly as it's taken out of context, you're actually taking it even more out of context in your comment here. Weev actually said that shorting stock would be illegal, and said something to the effect of "if you do it, I don't want to know about it" and discouraged many other "suggestions" from people who didn't appear to have any real part in it, but were cheerleading.

In any case, that is very typical IRC conversation for a large portion of that subculture. They joked about doing these things, but they didn't actually take steps to do them. He considers himself a satirist, so it's not much different than some comedians talking nonsense over beers and having it show up in an indictment.

One of the chatters observing said they should post the list to full-disclosure. Weev replied saying "no, don't do that, its potentially criminal." He then talked about how he gets to spin it in the media and he's won. That says pretty clearly that he was only out to make a scene, which is what he has always done.

[joncfoo]

The entire IRC conversation comes off as jest - nothing actionable from what I read (besides running the scripts). Even so, since when did it become a crime to talk about doing something [illegal]?

Also, Weev himself says that he is unwilling to short AT&T's stock - I think he understood the ramifications that would have.

[victorf]

So because there was some thoughtcrime regarding actual criminal activity we should accept the prosecution for scraping the website? No. Prosecute him for identity theft if and after he commits it.