We tend to think that's bad and an incorrect definition of cracking that should be overturned around here, right?

> the conviction was vacated by a higher court

> While the judges did not address the substantive question on the legality of the site access, they were skeptical of the original conviction, noting that no circumvention of passwords had occurred and that only publicly accessible information was obtained.

I don't know how it works "over there", but where I'm from "URL-hacking" is not considered hacking, but data publicly available.

...and publishing the personal data they got their hands on this way ("In revealing the flaw to the media, the group also exposed personal data from over 100,000 people")

It was a bit more than that. The attack was against AT&T, there was zero public interest in the information from a whistleblower perspective, the victims were customers of AT&T, a telecommunications provider.

Dumping the contents of a far-right website that helped push for Insurrection against the US Government seems pretty tame by comparison.

Also, Weev is open and proudly a Nazi, so the optics of bringing him up while defending the rights of a Fascist website isn't great.

This is more a postcard than a letter.

Weev's conviction was vacated.