[res0nat0r]

>This was a PUBLIC website... you are supposed to be able to visit it. If you make a request to a server without providing authentication and it returns data, that is not your fault. That is what you are SUPPOSED to do to servers. If it asks for authentication and tells you you are unauthorized, but you brute force the password or find an exploit, then THAT is a crime. There was not authentication in this case.

Unfortunately none of these excuses are valid. He knew he was accessing something he shouldn't have been. If he did it once or twice and stopped that is one thing, intent is a major part of the law, and he intended to exploit something he knew he should not have been. That is why he is being found guilty.

[msandford]

If I find a $50 bill on a sidewalk I can INTEND to steal it as much as I want. But no matter how badly I WANT to steal it I cannot because at that point it's not a thing that can be stolen. There is no way to trace it back to it's former owner and as such, the first person to find it is legitimately the new owner.

Weev might have said that he "stole" the information or that he "intented" to perform an unauthorized access but ultimately that doesn't matter. There was no access control to prevent the internet's default of "everything is visible" so that's precisely what happened. It's not a hack no matter how badly he or the government want it to be. Intent matters not one iota.

[res0nat0r]

Of course intent matters. If I run over someone with my car and kill them and it was deemed just a terrible but unfortunate accident, that is 100% different than if I drove over them because I intended to run them down and kill them.

The same applies to this case. He intended to access something he knew he shouldn't have had access to. Thus why he is guilty.

[legutierr]

Yes, but in your example (where someone is killed) there is rather obviously an underlying act that may or may not be criminal depending on the intent. There are infinitely many acts that cannot be considered crimes regardless of how malicious the intent behind them may be.

Furthermore, just because someone feels that they have done something wrong does not make what they have done a crime. The law also must consider that action to have been illegal.

Hopefully, the appeals court will determine that accessing a public unrestricted URL cannot be considered illegal, regardless of the mindset of the person who might choose to access it.

[tedunangst]

Depending on what you find and where you find it, actually, you may have a legal obligation to attempt to return it to the owner. The law is not quite as simple as finders, keepers.

[Robin_Message]

Ahem, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_by_finding

[msandford]

Ahem, there are no less than three examples in the wikipedia page you're trying to cite that back me up:

and cases where the circumstances were held to show no larceny: R. v. Wood (1848) 3 Cox C. C. 277 (banknote found on open land) R. v. Dixon (1855) 7 Cox C. C. 35, 25 L. J. M. C. 39 (lost note without mark) R. v. Shea (1856) 7 Cox C. C. 147; R. v. Christopher (1858) Bell C. C. 27, 169 E. R. 1153 (unmarked notes and purse found in public place)

I used a $50 bill (which is implied to be unmarked) purposefully.