Good find. I left a comment. I'm not sure if they'll publish it, as it is too lengthy.

It seems rather disingenuous to compare Weev-and-Gawker with any sort of legitimate, responsible behavior. There were so very many failures:
1.Weev could have tried to contact AT&T. I understand the reasons for not doing so. One of them is the legitimate fear of being accused of wrong-doing oneself! I know that can happen. Or one may be ignored entirely. I have seen that too, on many professional and not-so-professional information security researchers' websites. One should try though. Otherwise, what was the point in pen testing, beyond self-serving or malicious intent?
2. Weev did not need to provide Gawker with the entire list of 114,000 user IDs. For all practical purposes, 100 or 10 or 1 would have been sufficient, for Gawker's purposes.
3. Gawker behaved in a grossly irresponsible manner, in accepting the list.

I am sympathetic, and find plausible, the argument that Gawker was equally culpable as Weev. If Weev is prosecuted, deemed guilty and sentenced, the same should apply to Gawker, or whomever made the decision to proceed. It isn't an issue of "Freedom of the Press". Gawker is no Wikileaks. Gawker was crucial in disseminating personal, private information, thus victimizing 114,000 people who had committed no wrong.

I guess that it is easier to argue in favor of Weev, instead of against Gawker. I remain unconvinced that this action. taken by the illustrious group of computer scientists and researchers via the Amicus brief, is the correct way to proceed. Who will file an Amicus brief in defense of any individual who, for example, hacks Google servers, and discloses 114,000 account names and passwords to... I was going to say Al Jazeera or The Jerusalem Post or FARS. But I don't believe that we'd have anything to fear or be concerned about, as Al Jazeera, Jerusalem Post, FARS, any and every decent major or minor media outlet with any professional (or amateur!) code of ethics would not facilitate such a betrayal of trust.

Part of e-discovery, as practiced in the legal profession, includes the tenet that one should only accept and keep the bare minimum necessary of data required to do one's work. Accepting and keeping information creates an obligation and responsibility to do the right thing with it, to safeguard it. In this case, it is the data disclosure that caused damage. The only way to require companies to report breaches is through regulatory law. Is that what the end goal is, in this Amicus? I don't know.

The article is a good read. IBM'ls decision to use Watson for this purpose doesn't seem likely to improve customer service at the enterprise level. If you're an enterprise or major corporate customer, you are presumably paying plenty for user support, and will want a person to help you. The not-automated usage scenario could work though. A live customer service person would benefit from Watson type assistance.

This doesn't seem well-suited toward small businesses, but I didn't find anything about the target market.

I laughed at the Simpson's-Trump parody. Unfortunately, I wouldn't recommend visiting that website, as it displays one of the horrific pop-up's when trying to depart every page:

Are you SURE you want to leave?

The last paragraph has a URL with anchor text "mission statement". It is extremely 404:

http://slashdot.org/submission/2665697/Google'ssmissionistoorganizetheworld'sinformationandmakeituniversallyaccessibleanduseful.

Yes! I was wondering when someone would mention this! Anyone who's curious can glance at Moxie's repositories on Github. It is exactly as you described, about his efforts to make a better certificate authority system. I don't know if it was because it gave the U.S. too much power, or because it was not especially reliable (I think DigiNotar or Digi something cert auth break happened around then), many other issues.

I have mixed feelings about Moxie. He's very much the Anarchist, rebel hax00r. But he isn't insufferably arrogant like some of his peers are. He's a good sailor (not yachts!); sometimes I like what he has to say. And he looks sweet, handsome in the one photo I've seen of him, not overstated or hipster-odious. Anyway, the last time I checked, Moxie was a Twitter employee.

Good point too about the oddity that "agents of a foreign power", whether Saudi Arabia or any other, would approach Moxie for such work. It is unlikely that Saudi Arabia would be less informed than you and I. Moxie has a hefty entry in Wikipedia. I even wrote a post on my hobby blog about one of his projects a few years ago! I have no doubt that retaining Moxie's services would be worthwhile. But there are many less visible, less vocal alternatives.

I wish I could say "thank you" to whomever submitted the original post here. Good find!