> Furthermore, he BRAGGED about rubbing it in AT&T's face, and wanting to cause as much damage as possible. He had malicious intent.
Malicious intent is not criminal.
> That said, weev KNEW for a fact that he was accessing information that should not have been public.
It is massively unfair to put the burden of inferring the intention of a remote system onto the requester.
In fact, he could not have known that he was accessing information that should not have been public (as you claim), because ATT expressly configured their systems to MAKE IT PUBLIC. It wasn't an accident or misconfiguration. Your basic premise doesn't hold up, and neither does the silly physical "unlocked house" analogy.
An unlocked house implies there are locks and doors present, neither of which were in this case.
It's not trespassing, and just because it's non-random doesn't make it criminal.
Malicious intent is not criminal.
> That said, weev KNEW for a fact that he was accessing information that should not have been public.
It is massively unfair to put the burden of inferring the intention of a remote system onto the requester.
In fact, he could not have known that he was accessing information that should not have been public (as you claim), because ATT expressly configured their systems to MAKE IT PUBLIC. It wasn't an accident or misconfiguration. Your basic premise doesn't hold up, and neither does the silly physical "unlocked house" analogy.
An unlocked house implies there are locks and doors present, neither of which were in this case.
It's not trespassing, and just because it's non-random doesn't make it criminal.