* "AT&T representative testified its reputation suffered as a result of the hack"
No, their reputation suffered, because they were incompetent. Ironically, without this trial I would have never heard about this.
* "At sentencing, instead of hearing about the effects of the iPad “hack,” the government recounted in detail Weev’s “attitudes” towards others on the internet."
That is because of the adversarial legal system in the US. All that matters is to sway an uninformed jury. The specific matter of the case is almost irrelevant as long as the jury comes to a "guilty" verdict.
Lastly, this reminds of a civil version of the current Snowden debacle: Attempt to prosecute anybody who reveals wrong doing or incompetence.
I was a witness for a trial once and it's kinda bizzare. After all of the lawyers speeches and questions and explanations of the law - in the end it just boils down to how 12 random people feel about it. I left with the feeling that the process is fair only in the sense that it is equally random and unfair to everyone.
If the prosecutor is able to make you seem unlikable, or you do it to yourself, you most definitely increase your risk of being convicted. Mr. Auernheimer strikes me as somebody who enjoys being shocking and perhaps unlikable in the traditional sense, which is not an ideal situation in court.
I don't think I go as far as others here. I am not sure an open door is an invitation to dig through someone's diary; that is, even if someone is incompetent in managing their security, there should probably still be a point at which abusing that crosses a line - though I am very open to discussing just where that point is (and some liability should certainly still sit with those who deployed an insecure system).
All of that said, I wholeheartedly agree that damage to reputation (where such damage comes only from revelation of the insecurity) is the fault of the people failing to live up to their reputation, not those exposing the reality of it.
It would be a violation of privacy to sit down and read it through. Whether this should be legally actionable (as opposed to just socially) is another question, of course, but nevertheless.
* "AT&T representative testified its reputation suffered as a result of the hack"
No, their reputation suffered, because they were incompetent. Ironically, without this trial I would have never heard about this.
* "At sentencing, instead of hearing about the effects of the iPad “hack,” the government recounted in detail Weev’s “attitudes” towards others on the internet."
That is because of the adversarial legal system in the US. All that matters is to sway an uninformed jury. The specific matter of the case is almost irrelevant as long as the jury comes to a "guilty" verdict.
Lastly, this reminds of a civil version of the current Snowden debacle: Attempt to prosecute anybody who reveals wrong doing or incompetence.