A Week Later: Reflecting On Aaron Swartz
from the memorials-and-continuing-action dept
For those of us who crossed paths, even if briefly, with Aaron Swartz during his short lifetime, this week was certainly a difficult one. He accomplished so much, but the really distressing point is how much more all of us expected him to accomplish in the future, and how we will all be worse off without that happening. I have a big list of people who I've asked to do the weekly Techdirt favorites -- along with many people who I want to ask, and each week I pick people off of that list. Aaron's been on that list for a long, long time, and I never got around to asking him. And now I never will.This week, instead of our usual "favorites of the week" post from the community, I wanted to bring together some of the posts we had about Aaron, and ask people to reflect, and think about how to help continue to build out the legacy of some of what Aaron started.
First off, we had our initial post trying to highlight just how much of a loss this was for everyone. This is a point that many who didn't know him still don't understand. Aaron could be strong-willed and stubborn at times -- and always rubbed some people the wrong way -- but I don't know anyone who knew him who didn't think that he did amazing things and likely would continue to do amazing things going forward.
A key aspect of all of this, of course, was the case against Aaron. Whether or not you believe that triggered the suicide, it was worth exploring the case on the merits -- which we found to be seriously lacking. For what it's worth (because I know people will bring it up), lawyer and legal scholar Orin Kerr -- who I greatly respect, and often agree with -- has published a series of pieces in which he argues that the case and the prosecution had merit, even if he still believes strongly that the law it was based on, the CFAA, is greatly in need of fixing. Kerr's opinion is one such opinion -- and while interesting and well thought out, it fails to convince me for a couple of key reasons.
First, much of it seems to be arguing against a strawman. While he agrees that there are problems with the CFAA, he seems upset that people are focusing on the CFAA because of Aaron, and seems to suggest people should be upset about the larger issues with the act. But... we are. Lots of people are. There have been tons of discussions about how Swartz's case is not unique and how the problems of the CFAA and over-aggressive prosecution are systemic and not outliers. So I'm not sure what he's arguing against there, other than a strawman.
But, more importantly, I think Kerr errs in making statements about some of what happened, which he portrays in the most negative light, not even assuming that there may be perfectly reasonable, non-nefarious, reasons for those actions. Changing your IP address, and later your MAC address, are valid ways of troubleshooting why something stopped working -- to locate where the issue is cropping up. They are not, automatically, suggestions that someone is trying to avoid a block or hide one's identity. I am, of course, not the only one who has a problem with Kerr's analysis. Plenty of legal scholars have spoken up about why they believe Kerr is misguided on this particular case. For example, legal scholar Jamie Boyle does a wonderful job of walking through Kerr's argument and highlighting where his interpretations and understanding of what Aaron may have done (or what his motives were) could very well be mistaken.
Either way, we agree with Kerr that the laws under which Swartz was charged are problematic. As Tim Wu noted, they're so broad that almost anyone can be a felon. In fact, law professor James Grimmelmann noted that he, too, could be guilty of the exact same thing that Aaron was charged with, if a prosecutor decided he or she wanted to take Grimmelmann down. Furthermore, the maximum prison time trumpeted by US Attorney Carmen Ortiz seems so disproportionate not just to the "crime" (if there was one), but also when compared to the maximum punishment people face for real crimes.
While the US Attorneys Office initially stayed silent, Carmen Ortiz's husband, IBM exec Tom Dolan, first started sniping on Twitter, criticizing the Swartz's family just a few days after his suicide. Talk about insulting. The next day, Ortiz finally came out with a statement. Unlike MIT's statement -- which admitted that the institution needed to reflect carefully on what happen and set up an investigation to explore whether it could have done better, Ortiz's statement not only took a very defensive stance, but came across as both tone deaf and completely disconnected from reality. She claimed that she and her colleagues realized that Aaron's "crime" wasn't that big of a deal, which is why they offered him a plea bargain -- whereby he needed to plead guilty to 13 felonies and they'd only recommend 6 months in jail (the judge could choose a different amount of time) -- but ignored how she and her colleagues used the possibility of 35 years or more to threaten and badger Aaron as they tried to coax the plea bargain out of him. Larry Lessig gets it right here in expressing his sheer anger at Ortiz's statement. He berates himself for even thinking that Ortiz might at least be somewhat self-reflective and admit that perhaps the issues should be explored.
The dumbest-fucking-naive-allegedly-smart person you will ever know: that guy thought this tragedy would at least shake for one second the facade of certainty that is our government, and allow at least a tiny light of recognition to shine through, and in that tiny ray, maybe a question, a pause, a moment of “ok, we need to look at this carefully.” I wasn’t dumb enough to believe that Ortiz could achieve the grace of [MIT President] Reif. But the single gift I wanted was at least a clumsy, hesitating, “we’re going to look at this carefully, and think about whether mistakes might have been made.”Of course, if the US Attorney's Office refuses to think twice about this, at least some in Congress are now looking to force them to do so. Rep. Zoe Lofgren promised to reform the CFAA. Rep. Darrell Issa promised to investigate the DOJ's handling of the case. And Senator John Cornyn stepped up to the plate with a series of questions about the case, sent to Attorney General Eric Holder. Hopefully, something actually happens. We need real change, rather than bogus statements... and more people bullied by the increasingly misnamed Justice Department.
But, finally, in all of the anger and frustration and sadness, there is one thing that is most important. Aaron was a builder and a doer (sometimes to a fault). And the best way to honor his memory is to get out there and do stuff: build stuff up and share some knowledge. Thankfully, it's already inspired many researchers to free their own research. It's inspired Dan Bull to write a song, and should have us all thinking about the difference between content and knowledge -- and which is more important.
Finally, yesterday was Internet Freedom Day, commemorating the day the internet went dark to protest SOPA and PIPA. Aaron Swartz was a huge part of making that happen, and yet he didn't live to see the one year anniversary. Many of us in San Francisco gathered last night to celebrate the day, but the memory of Swartz was a big part of it as well. Peter Eckersly told the flip side of Swartz's great video about his own role in stopping SOPA and PIPA. Of all the people who deserved to bask in the success of that day last year, it's Swartz, who should have been at one of these gatherings telling his own story, rather than having to have someone else share it.
This week, these are not my favorite posts. Far from it. These posts are a lament for what we've lost, a plea to prevent any more such losses, and a smidgen of hope that within all this tragedy, true reform might blossom. From my interactions with Aaron, I believe it's exactly the sort of response he'd want -- even if we'd all prefer that he were still around to lead the charge, rather than merely be the inspiration for it all. Aaron's gone and the world is worse off for it. But let it be a challenge to all of us to do more, to do better, and to at least try to replace some tiny piece of what we've lost.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: aaron swartz
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
MIT and Journals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MIT and Journals
Whoever provided the research grants paid for the journals, which includes a significant taxpayer contribution.
Does this answer your question?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MIT and Journals
I’ve heard some taxpayer funded research is being locked up behind paywalls, which is BS!
I searched “journals” in TechDirt and got an eye-full of the academic zealots. (make sure you use the custom search link after the box)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MIT and Journals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MIT and Journals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YUP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YUP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YUP
SOPA was interesting in a lot of ways. Perception is still important in politics. Enough attention gets things rolling.
This country needs a LOT of reform, and people are just nowhere NEAR angry enough. I remember from all the way back in the 90's, people complaining, "where's the outrage?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YUP
If you subvert Justice how the hell do you still have a job with DOJ?
I think the old adage of lets nuke it from orbit and start over is better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I honestly would never wish such a feeling on anyone, nor can I fathom the sort of person who thinks that such actions are reasonable or called for.
I recognize why you are doing it, but I sincerely hope you never get to be on the other side of such treatment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think we all should be grateful that you have enough grace, fortitude, and strength to even have done any posts this week let alone not bring down a rain of abuse on any of these people (and I won't even call them trolls any more since they are worse) who have nothing better to add to a discussion then vitriolic hate against anything or anyone that doesn't conform to their world view.
Kudos to you my, even though we have never met, friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Seems like it's the later, as you did not even pick him for a post of the week !.
Never got around to it, how many times have you had dark hamlet on it ?? 10 or 20 ??
You have not even tried to honour his memory you are trying very hard to honour his cause as you perceive it.
I have been on the other side of it, and I am sure they were closer friends to me that this person was to you.
But I did not try to use their death's to advance my own goals, as you have done here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I honestly would never wish such a feeling on anyone, nor can I fathom the sort of person who thinks that such actions are reasonable or called for.
I recognize why you are doing it, but I sincerely hope you never get to be on the other side of such treatment.
Nobody is milking this more than you. Nobody. That should tell you something. There's talking about it in a productive way, and then there's milking it for everything you can get out of it. You're doing the latter, and you know it. Can you point to any other person on earth who has written about it even half as much as you? No. That's your answer. You're abusing this just like you did everything during the SOPA debacle. You grab onto anything you can and milk it for all it's worth. You should be ashamed of yourself, but I know you lack whatever it is that allows normal people to feel shame. All you know how to do is manipulate people. All you do is capitalize on everything you can to further your agenda. An agenda, of course, that you're too scared to talk about substantively and productively. Stop being such a fucking coward. Start actually being open, human, and awesome. You never will be, I know. But I wish you could be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So what if Mike has an agenda? We all have agendas. You, me, that guy in the cubicle next to you. We all have things we plan to do, things to aim for. Are you saying Mike shouldn't have a plan, a goal?
Mike is writing about Aaron in a productive way, demanding that the CFAA law be amended so the legal system can't use it to bully other people.
No, according to you, its alright for laws to be bought and sold by copyright maximilists, but the instant someone tries to tip the scales in the other direction...GOOGLE GOOGLE! BIG CORPORATIONS BUYING CORRUPT POLITICIANS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He has a habit of not signing in. Or better said, "I'm not signed in automatically on this computer." (Because we all know how hard it is to sign in on a computer that isn't your primary one. [rolls eyes])
But yeah, that's my opinion on who it is. The fact that he is constantly using the words "open and honest" and essentially bitching about that, as well as some use of what I could call "legalisms" in discussing what Aaron was doing and whether or not he knew he was doing something illegal. All those things are routinely done/used by AJ, to the point that I would with 95% certainty say it is AJ. Writing styles are like finger prints. No two people have the same one. They may have similar styles, and some people can emulate the writing styles of others to a remarkable degree, but at the end of the day everyone's is truly unique and even the best attempts at emulating the writing style of another fall short and the differences, however subtle, can be noted which allow others to tell someone is attempting to write like somebody else. (A great example of that would be Eoin Colfer's take on the Hitchhiker's Guide. It's written in a Douglas Adams' writing style, but it's just not Douglas Adams. The attempt is there, but sadly, or maybe not so sadly, it falls short of the mark. It's pretty much done right, but there's just something missing.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whenever I read his self-righteous and abusive posts, I wonder why he thinks he is having any impact on discussions here. Sure, we get angry and post responses to his rants. But, his behavior has gotten so cartoonish as to not even be worthy of taking seriously or paying much attention to, other than to warn new visitors what to expect from him.
I'll just leave this here. It seems fitting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4gN_yc_7ug
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not signed in because I chose to not be signed in. It's a conscious decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Best to retain some level of culpable deniability when being this huge of an asshole, I guess...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apparently you do not understand said "commitment"
I absolutely believe Joe has the right to say whatever he wants, and to choose to do it anonymously.
He does not have the right to be free from judgement by others for that choice.
Is that so hard to understand? The entire point of freedom is that other free people will judge you for your choices, rather than a government forcing you into a particular choice. It does not mean you will not be judged at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I may sign in later today, or I may never sign in again. Big deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You think it's cowardice to post anonymously? Great burn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn't bash Aaron. I bashed Mike. Try and shame me all you want, but it won't work. Add the conversation if you can. We're having a nice discussion on the merits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, you seem to be mostly calm today. Only a matter of time before the switch gets flipped again (is this a sober/drunk thing? my guess has always been that you have a substance abuse problem of some sort, though I guess it could also be a bad marriage or just a psychological condition), and you'll back to being a blithering asshole like you were in your first few comments on this thread. I'm glad you have found some people to humour you until then, I guess, but I won't be one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And what excuses his behavior? I think it's disgusting how he's capitalizing on Swartz's death, and I feel like that's a point worth making. I'm publicly shaming Mike because I think he deserves it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's your opinion, not fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Once again, I can only hope that, in your life, when someone important to *you* dies, that you do not have to experience the horror of someone mocking both the deceased and the way those who knew him choose to grieve.
Remembering someone who accomplished great things is "capitalizing" on their death? I'll tell that to my mother who lost her sister last week. How dare she "mourn" by talking about her sister.
Using the death to hope that the conditions that led to his death won't happen to others is "capitalizing"? Again, I'll let my mother know that her wishes to help stop cancer after my aunt's death are things she should be ashamed of.
I am not "capitalizing" on his death. I am talking about it. This is what people *DO* when people who are important to them die. They seek to remember the person and they seek to change the conditions that led to their deaths. I can do both of those things thanks to this site, and I choose to do so.
That you choose to not just mock that, but to attack me and claim that I should be *SHAMEFUL* for doing such things? I have no words... other than to hope that you never have to go through such a thing as to have someone mock YOU for how you mourn someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're pimping his death. And we're not going to let you forget it, believe me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL...oh, it's funny how much you think he'll actually care about your dribbling references to all the "milking" he did on this story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
noun, Psychiatry.
a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.
Let's see...Mike Masnick, runs an online blog with an open comments section, has never been charged with a crime, and calls for out of date laws that don't work to be changed.
Yeah sure he's a sociopath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"for the benefit of the PUBLIC GOOD."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, anonymous speech is anonymous whether you have a signed in handle or are an AC, but I called out on that when that AC said "Why aren't you more open!" while not being open himself.
I've seen the snowflakes change from time to time, or someone just goes to a different computer. No way for us to keep track of whos saying what. At least the fact I have a profile means I have to be careful about what I say: I have a reputation here on this site, and if I suddenly start saying something the opposite of what I've been saying for years, then someone else can call me out on hypocrisy. Not with you, AJ. You consciously chose not to sign in, in a weak attempt to not put any sort of ID to what you write.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, anonymous speech is anonymous whether you have a signed in handle or are an AC, but I called out on that when that AC said "Why aren't you more open!" while not being open himself.
I've seen the snowflakes change from time to time, or someone just goes to a different computer. No way for us to keep track of whos saying what. At least the fact I have a profile means I have to be careful about what I say: I have a reputation here on this site, and if I suddenly start saying something the opposite of what I've been saying for years, then someone else can call me out on hypocrisy. Not with you, AJ. You consciously chose not to sign in, in a weak attempt to not put any sort of ID to what you write.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Paul.D.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know I'm asking far too much of a cowardly troll, but do you think you could actually explain this silly accusation to keep repeating?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Whether this is the spark that sets the tinder of progressive online legalisms is another matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"but the really distressing point is how much more all of us expected him to accomplish in the future
so masnick is DISTRESSED by the fact that this person killed himself as opposed to staying alive and continuing 'the good fight'..
EXPECTED
Is it possible that the community and people like Mansick have EXPECTATIONS, that he felt unable to live up too that could have contributed to his suicide ?
A key aspect of all of this, of course, was the case against Aaron. Whether or not you believe that triggered the suicide, it was worth exploring the case on the merits
NO it is not worth exploring the case on it's merits, Yes, it is disgusting that you state "A KEY ASPECT OF ALL THIS" was the possibility of 6 months in a minimum security prison..
That is an assumption from Masnick, he has no idea what triggered his suicide, nor is his suicide a reason or excuse for bringing up this or any other legal action against this person.
No, mention of his long history of depression or the consideration that this may have been a key aspect to his suicide.
and a smidgen of hope that within all this tragedy, true reform might blossom.
So, it OK for him to kill himself after all it might help lead to "true reform", if that is not milking a tragedy for your own agenda advancement, then what is it ?
(sure, it was a tragedy, but we might be able to game it for our benefit)...
Disgusting..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No it's okay though, he was a "piracy apologist".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So if I am a sicko for quoting Masnick's comments, what is Masnick ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
it's possible it got twisted in your mind, between your eyes and brain.
But he said what he said.. get over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is supposed to be the brain of someone researching solar panels? Even an embryo can see that's bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I can explain it for the troll. "Keep milking it to further your agenda" is a truism. Obviously, the post furthers the writer's agenda in the sense that everything written advances a writer's beliefs. Golf clap.
As usual, the failure of the TechDirt troll is not that he is trolling, but that he is too poor a thinker to say anything important when he trolls. Most people on TechDirt are smart, so the troll confuses stupidity with providing a fresh perspective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A form of justice?
The nominating post is available at this google URL:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/8c4a53aec01d0af0
People might be interested in voting for those clowns at the DOJ when the awards are voted on, I think in February.
You might also be interested that the author of the nomination extensively cites Techdirt's own coverage of the story in support of her arguments.
(Note: voting would require making Usenet posts to a newsgroup known to harbor its own share of stalkers and nutjobs; you might want to take steps to protect your identity, not from the government but from other kooks. Free news server AIOE requires some configuration but obscures your posting IP and allows arbitrary "from" names, without signup; Google Groups is easy to use if you're not familiar with Usenet, but exposes your posting IP, so you might want to use a proxy of some sort if you vote from there, or to post from a public WiFi some distance from both your home and work.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Awesome article
I'm still sort of struggling to find ways to bring this home to my locality (Austin TX). Anyone here living close by and knowing anything going on here, let me know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quote:
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/19/sport/armstrong-7-lessons/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
We have a justice system that is not about the pursuit of the truth, is about careers and how they may look, is about pandering to the right people so you can get ahead.
I am ashamed not by the actions of others, I am ashamed to not be wise enough to see a solution, I am ashamed to not be smart enough to find ways to change things, I am ashamed because I dropped the ball.
This is what drives me today, shame to have allowed such things to happen.
Mr. Aaron made a choice, maybe the right one for him, I will never know, what I do know is that I need to try harder to make not only the justice system better but to understand how it evolved into what it is today, there is a cause for all of it, and I may have played a role in it and that bugs me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
"He changed his MAC address?!? That must be hacking cause I don't even know what it is"
It's not hacking, it's not wrong, and it's not even hard.
Arguing that he changed his ip and mac address shows knowledge of wrong doing is idiotic. It's like arguing someone changing their shirt demonstrates knowledge of wrong doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
The bolded should clarify the above point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
But it is your intent that makes all the difference.
You can discharge a gun at a range, but if you point that gun at a person at a gun range and discharge it, it is murder.
It has to do with WHY you did what you did, and if he changed his IP and MAC because he was trying to hide his identity and cover up a crime then it is wrong. And a crime.
I know it's a bit hard for you to understand these things, but try to keep up please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Here's an interesting tidbit: what Swartz did is something computers typically do automatically. Sometimes without you knowing it.
Your computer could be "shooting it's internet gun" or whatever dumb comparison that I'm sure makes sense to luddites such as yourself, and you wouldn't know! You could be murdering so many innocent network configurations just by the very act of using your computer.
But no, please, tell us about how this heinous crime inadvertently hurt real packets of data. Can you point to this doll and let us know where his MAC touched you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
To have the correct analogy you would need to equate changing your IP/MAC with changing your name. Though even then it is a very far stretch. The DoJ equated Aarons' IP/MAC changing with the changing of a vehicles Identifier Number (VIN) but even then they are totally wrong.
An IP or a MAC are arbitrary non identifiers the are only relevant per session of any transmission and can change at whim between sessions. This is why no courts ANYWHERE have ever made the leap to say that IP/MAC's identify any person other than an actual device (and this is only prima facia evidence based on assumptions...like fingerprints actually and we all know how problematic they are now after the FBI cock-up in Spain] AT the instant of the log only since they are specifically time based.
Therefore there is NO mens rae requirement for changing of MAC/IP since they are always legal to do so. Even if in the strange circumstance that you could state based on previous whatever that the intent MUST be there, the balance of proof is NO reasonable doubt and doubt is very much at the forefront since there are many more and reasonable reasons why it might be changed.
Though I suspect you knew all that and your own state of mind was instead to be vindictive, malicious and trollish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Covering up what crime exactly in Aaron's case? The crime of violating an unseen, unsigned and unacknowledged TOS on a ridiculously wide open network?
Or are you talking about that mysterious, unwritten crime of felony interference with a business model?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Amazing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Too funny.
Here is my take on the whole JSTOR/MIT/Swartz affair and please feel free to correct me or dispute me because I have still not decided if what Arron did was "wrong" in my own mind.
- JSTOR offered unlimited downloading for those on MIT's network.
- MIT's had (has?) a very open network policy that lacked "even basic controls to prevent abuse". I also believe that MIT's network didn't require registration or even have a clickwrap TOS.
Given those two facts, any user on MIT's network has access to unlimited downloading of JSTOR docs and basically anybody can access MIT's network. How was Arron acting illegally by conforming to the terms set before him? It seems to me that this boils down to a TOS violation or contractual dispute between JSTOR and MIT, and didn't even involve the end user of MIT's network.
Now as for the part about accessing the closet, that could very well be construed as trespassing.
My mind is not quite as clear on the "illegal accessing of the network" part though. It was an open network, anyways. Most likely the same results could have been achieved by befriending a student with a dorm room or even with the public access computers in the library.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Swartz walks down a hall-way, sees a door with a sign saying "Tax-payer funded research documents inside, FREE TO TAKE/COPY!". He jiggles the handle, finds it unlocked, goes in and copies the files. A few times, the door mysteriously closes, but each time, he figures out a way to get it open again: by using the door knob, by propping a book between the door and the frame, etc. All perfectly legal and legitimate actions to take.
At worst, yes, he might be charged with trespassing (then again, what with there being no notice on the door saying access is restricted...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
One of my counter arguments was that his actions indicated that he didn't want to be arrested, but that is not the same as knowing you are committing a crime as people are arrested for filming the police when it is not against the law.
Furthermore, if he had such a blatant disregard for the law, believing that the ends justified his means as long as he could avoid being caught, as they were suggesting, why then did he not simply create a virus that would create a mini bon-net on their network, requesting documents periodically at a rate low enough not to arouse suspicion and relay them to various remote locations. While this would blatantly violate the CFAA, it would decrease the chances of being caught by requiring only one access to the network to upload the virus and distribute the process such that it had less of a chance of being detected and this sort of action would have been well within his skill set. No one responded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Evidence is probative if "it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence." FRE 401. Him covering his face tends to make it more probable that he knew he was committing a crime because that's what a person who know they are committing crime a would do. Just like the bank robber with the ski mask. It could that it's cold outside, but it's more likely that he knows there's cameras and he doesn't want to be filmed while he commits his crime. This stuff isn't hard.
One of my counter arguments was that his actions indicated that he didn't want to be arrested, but that is not the same as knowing you are committing a crime as people are arrested for filming the police when it is not against the law.
He feared being arrested because he knew that what he was doing appeared to be illegal because he knew it was illegal. Those databases are private property. They cost millions and millions of dollars to maintain. The school pays for a subscription because there is value there. If someone "liberates" that database, they take the value of that database without having to pay for it. That's inherently wrong. This stuff isn't hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
You're being simplistic. Intentions play a huge part into determining if something is "inherently wrong".
What if Aaron's only intention was to bring attention to such knowledge being locked in that fashion by using a minor act of civil disobedience as the catalyst?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
What if my only intention in selling 500 lbs of marijuana was to draw attention to my belief that marijuana should be legalized? That Ok?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Not quite the same, Sparky.
If your intention was to get arrested smoking one joint as civil disobedience knowing it was only a misdemeanor and the Feds hit you with 20 counts of intent to distribute, your analogy might begin to be close.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
You aren't very good at this, are you numb nuts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Because that would pretty much be the definition of "civil obedience".
And then you claim I'm not very good at this. WTG!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
So because a criminal could have been sneakier, that shows that they weren't breaking the law? Your arguments just aren't persuasive. I ignored that argument because it's nonsensical. I doesn't matter what he didn't do. It only matters what he did do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Personally, I think he was trying to walk a fine legal line without crossing it to commit a crime. Perhaps Harvard had a stated TOS that he would have to agree to to gain access there and he used MIT because they did not and I think in his mind he was prepared to defend himself against allegations of criminal activity if they arose. And had they charged him with an appropriate misdemeanor, we would have seen that. What he wasn't prepared for was the DOJ twisting a law meant for something completely different into 13 felony charges with a jail term. Upping the ante proved too much for him to handle. To the prosecution, it's just a game where they can often win simply by playing hard ball, so they do. He wasn't prepared for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
But it's also what a lot of people do when they aren't committing crimes. I don't commit crimes myself, but I do try to avoid having my face appear on surveillance cameras whenever possible. And I would go to great lengths to do so if I were engaging in an action that, while legal and ethical, might enrage powerful people.
Even in retrospect, it's not entirely clear that his actions were illegal.
Also, speaking generally, innocent people facing arrest have a great deal to fear. Fear of arrest is not any kind of indication that the person believes he is doing something illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Reasons why someone would want to hide their faces:
1 - To avert the constant surveillance that many feel is becoming a bit intrusive.
Popsci: Anti-Surveillance Hoodie And Scarf Prevent Drones From Tracking You
The Register: Reverse-engineering artist busts face detection tech
2 - Because he was not supposed to be there without supervision, which is not the same as knowingly knowing he was committing a crime.
3 - To protect somebody else who allowed him entrance and warned him not to get caught by the camera or he could be in trouble because of internal rules, this all without knowing about criminal offenses.
People bend the rules all the time, proof of that is when any law enforcement strikes the first thing they do is "operation turtle" where they follow by the book every and each rule to the letter, specially customs, and we can all see what happens, so don't even try to say "he knew the rules", he probably knew the real rules of the place and not the ones on paper, which again is not the same as "complete disregard for the rule of law".
Quote:
Are you psychic now?
How do you know what he knew at the time?
Suspicion behavior is not enough to infer intention to commit a crime, it must be an action that shows without a doubt that he was intent in committing a crime, using a connection to download freely available material is not a crime, I will do what you did there and say that he knew the material was free, he knew it probably wasn't against the law or could have reasonably believed it was not against the law to download free available material, he may have been perfectionist to a fault trying to get the maximum of material in the shortest period of time possible and found a not by the book way of doing it, which is not a reason to believe he knew anything about breaking any laws, he may have known he was breaking MIT rules, he may have run because it would look bad, he may have known that he could have his privileges if any revoked, he could have believed somebody could get in trouble because of him and was trying to avert such situation.
He could have feared a number of things before he was fearing the "LAW".
He didn't even had a history of hacking anything or doing white-hat stuff let alone black-hat hacking style, so how do you conclude he was fearing the law and knew he was breaking the law?
You don't you assume, and you are trying to portrait a great young mind as some devious person hellbent on world domination, shame on you dude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
You can't really mean this? Are you saying that an innocent person would race away from a cop when he pulls up behind him with his lights flashing? Or that when an officer hails you you take off running? Suggesting this makes you look even stupider than you obviously are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
An innocent person might continue to drive on to a location they feel safe in, such as a shopping market or police station parking lot. There is ALWAYS another side to the story than just authority's version.
Or that when an officer hails you you take off running?
No, but I might continue on my merry way, unless I am under arrest. I do not technically have to obey a police officer's command, unless not doing so may harm myself, others or property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
No, and no. If you commit a crime, the crime is the crime. Duh.
If you cross the street on the way to a robbery, is the act of crossing the street wrong? No. If you commit a robbery, the robbery is wrong. Crossing the street is just crossing the street.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
But it is your intent that makes all the difference.
You can discharge a gun at a range, but if you point that gun at a person at a gun range and discharge it, it is murder.
It has to do with WHY you did what you did, and if he changed his IP and MAC because he was trying to hide his identity and cover up a crime then it is wrong. And a crime.
I know it's a bit hard for you to understand these things, but try to keep up please.
Of course. Mike tries to brush the whole thing off as something someone might do while troubleshooting their network. What a stupid argument. The point is that he did it to avoid detection after he knew for a fact that they were trying to stop him. Mike can't be honest about any of this, though, because Mike is a fundamentally dishonest person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
No, what you are doing is trying to attack Mike with anything you can grab onto. You parse through what he writes, see something that looks even the least bit controversial, and then go apeshit over it, without bothering to put any logic or reason into whatever it is you're saying. Swartz himself and what he did or did not do means nothing to you: only what Mike writes about him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
And his conduct? Again...downloading taxpayer-funded research documents. I've been reading up on this case, I haven't seen anything that should have gotten him charged with anything worse than trespassing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
How are you equating "trying to stop him" with "illegal activity?"
They were simply trying to stop the large volume being downloaded. They were not revoking his rights to be connected to the network. That's kind of hard do to when there is no authorization actually given in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Of all the idiotic responses you could've given...
He didn't commit suicide because he changed his IP and MAC. The most likely reason he committed suicide is because the US government went after him and threatened him with jail time for at worst a misdemeanour. They threatened him with decades in jail for copying research documents and he got scared.
At absolute worst, changing your IP and MAC addresses to deliberately get around network management policies IS NOT A CRIME. It may or may not be against the TOS (depends on the specific TOS).
You could be right in saying he knew he shouldn't have been logged in then. But, there's a huge gap from that to why he was being threatened with decades in jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
If it's such a slam-dunk, why didn't he go to trial? The answer, that any reasonable person would conclude is that he may well have violated the CFAA. He had four choices: trial with uncertain outcome (though according to legal professionals on TD, no crime was committed); six months in Club Fed watching tv and lifting weights; seek asylum and move in with Julian Assange or hanging himself. Seems like he made the worst choice available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Be that as it may.
A reasonable person could also conclude that the CFAA quite possibly violates the basic tenets of justice and righteousness within our society with the way it is currently being interpreted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
You might even be innocent but if they think you broke their laws you go to prison. You will probably be raped but then you should have thought of that before you didn't break the law that they are charging you for breaking.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Because, innocent or guilty, going to trial in a case like this is almost certainly a life-ruining option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
I'd humbly suggest that the option he chose- suicide, was a far greater life-ruining option (for him and those who loved him) than a brief stint in prison.
Again, Swartz was acting on his earlier written manifesto. He believes that knowledge should be free- irregardless or ownership or intellectual property (or other) laws. That's fine. He believed it and acted on his beliefs. However, he didn't think out the potential consequences nor did he appear to be willing to accept them. Look at the Plowshares movement. They break in to US military nuclear facilities, engage in minor vandalism, pour their own blood on weapon components. They have great fidelity to their beliefs, understand that they will (and usually do) go to prison. Then they get out and do it all over. Swartz was down with the acts of disobedience, but apparently not up to the consequences. A lesson for some of the shithouse anarchists on Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
No argument from me about the suicide, although clearly his suicide was the result of more than just his legal problems.
However, I disagree with the characterization of the prison time as a "brief stint". That's trivializing the fact that six months in prison is a huge penalty. Also, that he would reasonably have believed that he faced far more than 6 months, since he was being threatened with years in order to coerce a guilty plea.
It's hard to see how the legal repercussions he received could have been foreseen. From all outward appearances (the law as written, the terms of service, etc.), the worst he would have faced was a trespassing charge. A trespassing charge would not have resulted in a felony conviction.
He may very well have been up to facing conviction on such a charge. The multiple felony counts, combined with the threat of years in prison, was completely unexpected. Fighting them is not opposed to the principles of civil disobedience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
This is where I think you take things too far in your firm view that the law is above everything else, AJ.
Nobody, and I mean nobody without intense knowledge of the abuses of the CFAA, would think, before the fact, that what Arron did would equate to 30 some odd years of hard time in Federal prison. A simple violation of copyright and minor misdemeanor charges would have been the reasonable expectation here.
Your incessant pushing of the "Law" as a god above all others truly scares me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Because, being the smart person that he was, he had more than likely read up on how broadly worded the CFAA is and how the US government misuses to go against anyone whom they call a hacker, even when doing things that are not hacking. Remember, this is in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the country with the highest prison population percentage of its full population. He more than likely knew that he would be found guilty anyway, regardless of the fact he was more than likely innocent of any crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Then in post #210 you say: Because, being the smart person that he was, he had more than likely read up on how broadly worded the CFAA is and how the US government misuses to go against anyone whom they call a hacker, even when doing things that are not hacking.
So either he was not guilty of violating the CFAA as you assert in #209 or you believe that he was as you acknowledge in #210.
So which is it? I have no problem with you making either argument, but I do have a huge objection trying to argue both sides at the same time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
I didn't acknowledge in 210 that he was guilty, I said that the law is so badly worded that the US government can use it to go after anyone. For me to say he was guilty in 210, is to say he was guilty of violating the law after switching from Wifi to ethernet cable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
What Aaron was being charged with was ridiculous, and according to common sense, decency, and justice, the charges were dramatically overblown and morally wrong across the board.
The charges may comport with the law, but that just highlights how wrong and unjust the law is. And that is the whole point.
In discussing this whole thing, it's easy to confuse the two things. When I say "he didn't do anything wrong," I mean he wasn't acting immorally or unethically. I don't mean he wasn't acting illegally. But the law here is simply wrong. Not just a little wrong, but massively, horribly wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
So Average_Joe, shut the fuck up about saying he violated the law. He may have, but that's not what's being discussed here. What we're discussing is the overblown reaction to what Swartz did, and people like you who don't bat at an eye at him being threatened with decades in prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
I noticed this too. He can argue with a profound sense of calm because the law is the law, and according to him "morals have no place amongst the law."
Yet, we have representatives in the government that work to create laws beneficial to the people. If members of the public see imbalances (moral or otherwise) in the law and speak out about it in a public forum like Techdirt, they're labeled as fanatics and idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
I was just adding a personal observation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
I never said that. In fact, I've often argued for the TD regulars to recognize the moral component to the law. The two inextricably intertwined. Morality is lost with many here, I think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Many people here don't see any problem with misappropriating and "liberating" a database the costs tens of millions of dollars to produce. That's a lack of morality, IMO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
And there again, so what? If JSTOR had a problem with this, they could have filed a civil infringement case against MIT and/or Swartz. They didn't. They also repeatedly asked the DOJ not to prosecute this case.
When even your "victim" wasn't interested in pushing this to the level it went to, I'm not sure how you can continue to justify the actions of the DOJ. It's simply mind boggling that you cannot see the forest for the trees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
I found this - http://www.generalist.org.uk/blog/2011/jstor-where-does-your-money-go/ - and he actually found the tax filings, but the closest reference I can find to the database is a reference to IT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
That is because, as I've stated to you before, you can't see past the letter of the law. Broaden your horizons, for Christ's sake.
If "liberating" that database eventually led to thousands of human lives being saved (not saying that's the case here at all, btw), then the initial act is moral one, regardless if Letter-of-the-Law-Man disagrees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
JSTOR didn't pay a single dime to produce these documents. They're taking what we already paid for, locking them away, and charging for people to look at them.
The morality of the situation is not quite as clear cut as you seem to believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Holy fuck. I just realized what you are tyring to do here, AJ. You are trying to legally equate copyright infringement to stealing by using the CFAA. That is disingenuous, even for you.
This may have been a case of copyright infringement, I don't dispute that. But it's not "stealing" whatsoever. Aaron was given permission to unlimited downloads as an end user of MIT's wide open network and he used those rights. The argument about JSTOR/MIT trying to stop him as evidence of wrong doing falls flat. You cannot revoke the rights to be connected to a network that doesn't require any authorization in the first place.
I think you are pissed that Aaron actually found a valid legal loophole in this matter and that is what has your dander up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Quite the opposite. I've explicitly stated more than once that this isn't about copyright. It's about fraud and hacking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Neither of which actually happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Of course, let's not talk about the fact that that is him being a hypocrite whenever he's trumpeting the letter of the law and the letter of the law says copyright infringement is not theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Of course, let's not talk about the fact that that is him being a hypocrite whenever he's trumpeting the letter of the law and the letter of the law says copyright infringement is not theft.
And the sockpuppets pile in. I've explicitly stated more than once that copyright is not the issue here. I'm not conflating anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
I think it's worse than that. He's not using copyright infringement, but a *database right* infringement as the source of his argument, despite the US rejecting database rights (unlike Europe).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Let's see the database rights argument. Got cites?
I'm merely repeating Kerr's argument that the property element is fulfilled under the reasoning in Seidlitz and Carpenter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
From Feist:
Yes, that's a copyright argument, but it says that the data may be "copied at will." If your argument were accurate, then that would render the ruling in Feist meaningless, since Rural could have just come back with the claim that it had "spent millions" on compiling its database, and that Feist had "misappropriated" it as you claim.
In fact, the court explicitly rejects the idea that the amount of effort that went into compiling a database matters. It explicitly rejects the argument that "sweat of the brow" matters in determining such things. Yet you are arguing precisely the opposite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
The journals and articles themselves are valuable even without the value added by JSTOR. Swartz misappropriated that value even if he didn't misappropriate some of the value that JSTOR added.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
>:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
But that's not the issue here. The issue here is whether something of value was fraudulently taken. The party in Feist acquired the database legitimately, hence fraud was not the issue there. There was no false pretenses in Feist as there are here. The database in Feist was given out freely while the one here is licensed. The statute at issue is here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1343 As Kerr notes, "The false pretenses are provided by the false identification and spoofing of Swartz’ IP address and MAC address. Swartz was trying to trick JSTOR into giving him access to their database after they had specifically tried their best to ban him from doing so." http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
If their best is IP and MAC address blocking...then their IT team needs to be fired. Out of a cannon. Towards a brick wall. Because that is not the best thing you can do to protect your network.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Now that there is funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
I respectfully disagree. To be honest, I feel that MIT is getting screwed in all of this too.
I respect their vision of a truly open internet and deeply appreciate their commitment to unfettered network access. It saddens me to think this affair may cause them to rethink their commitment to such things.
It's understandable though, with the legal atmosphere that we live in, it's getting harder to stand as a beacon of openness as the waves of liability crash against you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Also the actions they took amount to nothing more than bandwidth and resource management or would reasonably be perceived as such. At no time prior does there appear to be any attempt to communicate the intention that he was no longer permitted to access it. Had they asked a court for a temporary restraining order that was then delivered to him, that would have qualified. But they didn't. The DOJ concocted this theory afterwards to support felony charges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Also the actions they took amount to nothing more than bandwidth and resource management or would reasonably be perceived as such. At no time prior does there appear to be any attempt to communicate the intention that he was no longer permitted to access it. Had they asked a court for a temporary restraining order that was then delivered to him, that would have qualified. But they didn't. The DOJ concocted this theory afterwards to support felony charges.
JSTOR spent money scanning the documents. Swartz obtained copies that cost real money to produce. He obtained something of value under false pretenses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
What false pretenses?
If you are using the fact that he changed his IP address, his MAC address or even the fact that he connected via a CAT5 connection after JSTOR/MIT attempted to stop the large volume downloads, then that doesn't hold water for me. All of those things were implicitly permitted on MIT's network prior to this incident happening. Permission to do those things was already given. He was not doing anything under false pretenses.
Also, just because JSTOR/MIT attempted to stop him doesn't negate the fact that he had permission for unlimited downloads, does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Seriously, Google would have done it for free. These guys aren't very smart capitalists. That's the whole point of doing science, right? Not to make the world a better place through the sharing of knowledge but to make money for a few people, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
How are you claiming that Aaron obtained the content fraudulently? End users of MIT's network have a carte blanche license for unlimited downloads of JSTOR docs and he was using MIT's network within the boundaries that MIT themselves set forth. Where is the fraudulent part?
Additionally, on the licensing part, sure, MIT licensed access from JSTOR. But that license is between JSTOR and MIT. Due to the open nature and lack of TOS on MIT's network, I fail to see how that license extends to the end users in this case and how it would be applicable anyways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
I believe it is quite reasonable to argue that every one of your statements concerning Swartz is wrong above. Nothing was "fraudulently" taken. MIT had an unlimited license with JSTOR, such that users could download the content. They also left their network open. So, yes, the database here was "given out freely."
As Kerr notes, "The false pretenses are provided by the false identification and spoofing of Swartz’ IP address and MAC address. Swartz was trying to trick JSTOR into giving him access to their database after they had specifically tried their best to ban him from doing so."
That is an inaccurate explanation of what Swartz did. As we've explained repeatedly, due to the way that MIT's network was set up, and the way you do *NORMAL TROUBLESHOOTING* it is unclear that Swartz did anything involving "false pretenses."
There's a good discussion on much of this here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130119/19272321738/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdirt .shtml
Yes, you could argue, weakly, that his use of a fake name represented false pretenses, but in that case you, too, are guilty of doing the same thing right here on this site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
The positive part of this is that he generated enlightening responses. Other than that he's plain despicable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
It's just like how the Techdirt database belongs to you (or your corporation--I don't know how you have things set up). It matters not that some parts of it are copyrighted (like my comment here) and some parts are not (like the articles you claim to have dedicated to the public domain even though you're too lazy to actually put a notice on each article). Your database is your private property, irrespective of copyright law. You can limit access to it, and if someone bypasses your technical limitations, that's hacking. The copyright is immaterial.
As far as the false pretenses go, I think it's clear enough that spoofing his MAC address and hard wiring in the closet in order to evade the actions that were being done to stop him from scraping the database show that he acted fraudulently. I understand that you'll adopt any plausible sounding argument that relieves Swartz of any wrongdoing (working backwards as you often do). I think that if you were being honest--a feat that I'm not sure you are able to do at times--then you would admit that it's fundamentally wrong to take a database that costs and is worth tens of millions of dollars as he did.
I have Westlaw access. Do you think it's perfectly OK for me to use a script to bypass their technical restrictions so that I can download the entire database? Of course that's not OK. Why you can't just admit such a simple and obvious thing is really amazing. It's stuff like this that causes people like me to see you as an extremist zealot who is unwilling to give even an obvious inch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
The individual here, to my way of thinking, was using the "card catalogue" to find everything in the JSTOR library, and then attempting to download for eventual public distribution the entire contents of JSTOR's entire library, a library that he darn well knew was never intended to be copied en masse and published to the world.
JSTOR exists to assist its users to perform research. The individual was not by any measure using it for the purpose of conducting research. Quite the contrary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
You're right, Swartz downloaded articles. JSTOR has those articles because it spends tens of millions of dollars licensing them. JSTOR in turn adds value to the articles by collating, indexing, cross-referencing and such, and then institutions pay JSTOR millions for access to the service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
We do not know that Aaron planned to release anything to the public. That is pure speculation.
...a library that he darn well knew was never intended to be copied en masse and published to the world.
And perhaps that was injustice he was trying to expose. Should this all knowledge really be locked up in the first place?
JSTOR exists to assist its users to perform research. The individual was not by any measure using it for the purpose of conducting research. Quite the contrary.
That's immaterial. He was doing what he had permission to do. Nothing more, nothing less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Followed by a series of ad hominems.
This is why no one wants to waste time talking to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
This is why no one wants to waste time talking to you.
You don't like discussing the merits with me or anyone else because you come out looking like a fool. It amazes me how terrible your arguments are when you actually do bother to make them. I'm not surprised you're so reticent to actually dive into a nuanced discussion. Your specialty seems to be throwing out a bunch of FUD to see what sticks. Actually hunkering down and running through the specifics isn't your strong suit. It's a shame. The upside is that a lot of what I used to attribute to your being evil is actually better attributed to your naivete. Run away from this discussion like you do every single other one where you get called out for being a fool and where you realize that you can't defend your silly position. You and I both know that you care about perception more than truth. You're not running this blog to get to the truth of anything. You're running it to spread your agenda--an agenda that you're too scared to defend against the slightest challenge. I'm sorry you don't actually have the goods. My mistake was in thinking that perhaps you did, but now I realize that you really don't. You have some good ideas, but that's about the nicest thing I can say about you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
You really need to get over this weird obsession you have with Mike. If chooses not to engage you because he thinks you're being childish, that's his prerogative. Grow up and get the fuck over it already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
And once again, what was taken was the copyrighted content, not the database itself. Why are you missing that important part?
As far as the false pretenses go, I think it's clear enough that spoofing his MAC address and hard wiring in the closet in order to evade the actions that were being done to stop him from scraping the database show that he acted fraudulently.
No false pretenses. No fraudulent acts. Aaron had implicit permission to do everything he did. It's you who is working backwards from the prosecution's version and refusing to see the nuances.
I have Westlaw access. Do you think it's perfectly OK for me to use a script to bypass their technical restrictions so that I can download the entire database?
If you have permission for unlimited downloads - then yes, absolutely. Using a script or paging through manually, that makes zero difference. Not sure why you are hung up on the "using script" part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
So getting to Swartz, the database itself is JSTOR's property. The actual ones and zeroes on their servers are owned by them. Some of the materials are copyrighted, and some are not, but that's a different issue than the ownership of the information itself. They own those particular copies. Swartz's copying is wire fraud since he acquired the copies via fraudulent acts. That copying could also support copyright charges for the materials that were copyrighted, but the government didn't pursue that theory. You're misreading Feist though to indicate that people don't own their copies if the underlying works is not copyrighted. That's not what the Court said, nor does that necessarily apply here since lots if not most of the stuff on JSTOR is in fact copyrighted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Dictionaries are covered under copyright because of the creative elements added by the publishers - format, actual wording of definitions, which words to include, etc.
The journals in JSTOR would also be copyrighted or in the public domain. JSTOR's presentation of the journals could also be copyrighted. I have maintained that what Aaron did could be copyright infringement. (although a strong defense could be made against infringement, since he had permission for unlimited downloads and his intent to distribute remains unclear).
The thing is though, this isn't a copyright case. The government choose to take matters into their own hands and charge him with wire fraud and violations of the CFAA by claiming he took something of value electronically.
The question is what they are basing that value on? If it's the copyrighted content, that falls under copyright law. If it's JSTOR's "sweat of the brow", then the argument is that Aaron didn't take that, he only took the copyright material. It's unclear if there is any basis for the "sweat of the brow" argument anyways since the US doesn't recognize "database rights".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
The documents he took were valuable--that's why he took them. He obtained something of value, the documents, via fraud over the wires. Hence wire fraud. That same downloading could also have sustained criminal copyright infringement charges (but the prosecutors did not bring these charges). Mike was trying to bring "sweat of the brow" and Feist into this to make the argument that JSTOR doesn't own its own database, but that argument confuses the copy from the copyright. JSTOR does own their copies, even if they hold none of the copyrights. Accessing those documents under false pretenses, such as bypassing technical measures, is fraud. If the materials taken were copyrighted, it's also infringement. Hope that helps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
First off, his intent is only supposition and will now unfortunately remain so. You really can't say that's why he took them.
He obtained something of value, the documents, via fraud over the wires.
He was obtaining something of value with permission. At what point did that permission terminate?
That same downloading could also have sustained criminal copyright infringement charges (but the prosecutors did not bring these charges)
Yes. Any insights as to why the prosecution took this route? Better headlines or something?
Mike was trying to bring "sweat of the brow" and Feist into this to make the argument that JSTOR doesn't own its own database, but that argument confuses the copy from the copyright. JSTOR does own their copies, even if they hold none of the copyrights.
Now correct me if am wrong here, but aren't the remedies for discretions such as taking something copyrighted covered under copyright law and wouldn't that be the proper venue?
We don't prosecute copyright infringement cases as theft for a reason. They are different things and are covered under completely different statutes, right?
Accessing those documents under false pretenses, such as bypassing technical measures, is fraud.
I've explained why I don't think it was fraud. Changing your MAC and IP addresses were perfectly legitimate activities on MIT's network prior to this affair. Implicit permission was given to do those things.
As for connecting via hardwire, even that doesn't seem like something MIT restricts that much. I don't know for sure, but would guess dorm rooms and other places have network jacks available.
Add on to of all that, Aaron technically had permission for unlimited downloads as an end user of MIT's network. Where exactly, in all of this, did that permission get revoked?
Breaking into the closet (if that's even the case) could be trespassing. Incidentally, isn't that the only thing the local PD charged him with?
If the materials taken were copyrighted, it's also infringement.
Right. No disagreement there.
Hope that helps.
Sorta.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Like I asked, where and when was the permission revolked? Just because they tried to stop the heavy downloading? Where was this contract you claim exists broken?
Also, how are you claiming that Aaron was limited contractually on a connection that required no authorization and had no TOS? How does the contract between JSTOR and MIT magically extend to the end user?
He was not obtaining something of value with permission. Both MIT and JSTOR were doing everything they could to stop him.
Yes, They where trying to stop the heavy downloading - no argument there. I fail to see how that voided the end user's permission in any way. It's like a supermarket offering free samples that 10,000 people show up to get. It's a failure on JSTOR and/or MIT's part, not a breaking of the contract on the end user's part.
This really isn't hard.
You keep saying this and you are wrong. Nothing is a simple as your letter-of-the-law view. It's all the nuances of this
case that I'm an trying to understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Read the indictment: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/09/swartzsuperseding.pdf
Read JSTOR's terms of service: http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
5. Prohibited Uses of the Content.
In addition to agreeing to any Content-Specific Terms and Conditions of Use, you agree that you will not: ***
(c) attempt to override, circumvent, or disable any encryption features or software protections employed in the JSTOR Platform;
(d) undertake any activity such as computer programs that automatically download or export Content, commonly known as web robots, spiders, crawlers, wanderers or accelerators that may interfere with, disrupt or otherwise burden the JSTOR server(s) or any third-party server(s) being used or accessed in connection with JSTOR
He agreed to those terms and then violated them. He knew they had revoked his own use privileges by blocking his personal MAC address and he spoofed a new one to circumvent the restriction. This really isn't hard. He knew that he didn't have permission to do what he did, and he did it anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
I was under the impression that the MIT's network didn't have a clickwrap TOS - so how enforceable their TOS really?
As for JSTOR's TOS - was that a clickwrap? Were MIT's end users even presented with it since MIT had a license for unlimited downloads? Isn't your link for JSTOR access from the general internet?
I understand that there may be contractual disputes in this thing, but that is civil law, not criminal isn't it?
I really just don't understand how violating a TOS escalates to such extreme criminal charges, just because it was done with a computer. That's insane to me. It's like prosecuting the 10,000 customers in my supermarket scenario, even though the supermarket forgot to add the legaleze tagline of "while supplies last".
Also, you keep pointing me to the indictment like it's the gospel truth. It's not. It's only one side of the story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
I leave this debate with pretty much the same feeling that I had coming into it - that what Aaron did wasn't "inherently wrong" in my mind what so ever.
Taking into consideration Aaron's nature and values, the actual "crimes" and the DOJ's over-inflation of situation for whatever reason, it still doesn't sit well with me at all. But that is my problem, not yours.
Fair well until we meet again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Ok, I guess I wasn't completly done. :0
From a narrow letter-of-the-law point of view I can see how you would view it as such. I also try look at it from society's point of view too. Should such knowledge as research journals be locked up in such a fashion in the first place. I don't believe they should be.
I would have viewed Rosa Park's actions in the same light, although technically illegal. I would have viewed the jury nullifications of the Fugitive Slave Act or of alcohol control laws during Prohibition the same way, even though it was the law of the land at the time.
It's not always about the letter-of-the-law, it is also about what is righteous, just and beneficial to society as a whole. Just my 2˘ worth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Also, you know I'm not all that convinced the copyright system really does benefit society as much as you think it does, but that's a different discussion.
And a lot of academic journal authors are now releasing their works (regardless of the publisher's wishes) to the public as a result of this affair. So some good may still come of it all anyways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Umm. No. The requirement for scholars to be published in order to be accredited has created the content that JSTOR uses. Even if it means they have to pay money to be published and/or have to turn the copyright over to the publishers. That's copyright being used to exploit authors and make a profit off of their hard work more than anything else really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Free (both kinds, gratis & libre) *is* gaining ground in the academic peer review system, although slowly. Open, electronic, self-publishing is becoming more and more recognized in academic circles.
This article lays out the situation pretty well:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/07/23/is-the-academic-publishing-industry-on-the-v erge-of-disruption
The problem lies with the fact that publishers have had the upper hand for two centuries and have bilked the copyrights from the authors all along the way. Do you really think the publishers will give up those copyrights, even if it's for the betterment of society? Where exactly is the "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" in there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Page 2: "JSTOR authorizes users to download a limited number of journal articles at a time. Before being given access to JSTOR's digital archive, each user must agree and acknowledge that they cannot download or export content from JSTOR's computer servers with automated computer programs such as web roots, spiders, and scrapers. JSTOR also uses computerized measures to prevent users from downloading an unauthorized number of articles using automated techniques."
Page 2-3: "MIT authorized guests to use its network for no more than fourteen days per year, and required all users to use the network to support MIT's research, education, and administrative activities, or at least to not interfere with these activities; to maintain the system's security and conform to applicable laws, including copyright laws; and to conform with rules imposed by any networks to which users connected through MIT's system. These rules explicitly notified users that violations could lead to state or federal prosecution. Guest users of the MIT network agreed to be bound by the same rules that applied to students, faculty, and employees."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Good point. I had forgotten about the fact that the US doesn't recognize database rights earlier on in these discussions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Let's see the cites. Where does it say that the information in a database is not property for purposes of the fraud statutes (or any other purpose)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Nonsense. You're paradoxically arguing that what he took was of no value, when obviously he took what he did because it was valuable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
No. He is arguing that he only took the content, not all this supposed value you place on JSTOR's organization of said content.
...when obviously he took what he did because it was valuable.
Obvious to whom? Perhaps Aaron took because it was important knowledge that should be available to all people.
You are the only person (probably in the whole world) equating this somehow to Aaron trying to make a buck off of all this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
It's not dancing on semantics. JSTOR spends millions licensing the content, scanning journals, cross-referencing materials, etc. That effort makes the database especially valuable, and that's why institutions pay thousands of dollars a year for access. They are paying for that value that JSTOR collated and created. That value is rightfully JSTOR's property right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
We also aren't the ones that argue it's ok for a large company to take away a 4 year old girl's only means of communication in the name of corporate greed. (And yes I know they settled it so she ultimately didn't lose it, but MORAL people would never have let that happen in the first place and yes, I know that this one is over but it STILL pisses me off.)
So don't try to claim moral high ground here. Mike's and the other authors articles are about benefiting the public not taking from them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
We also aren't the ones that argue it's ok for a large company to take away a 4 year old girl's only means of communication in the name of corporate greed. (And yes I know they settled it so she ultimately didn't lose it, but MORAL people would never have let that happen in the first place and yes, I know that this one is over but it STILL pisses me off.)
So don't try to claim moral high ground here. Mike's and the other authors articles are about benefiting the public not taking from them.
_EOR_
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Then again, how would he have known if the network admins didn't put up warning signs saying he's hogging bandwidth? Back when I was on a very limited data cap, I'd get warnings from the ISP when I was getting close to the limit. They wouldn't just disconnect me randomly, they'd warn me first. If I was being disconnected randomly, my first thought is that there's some sort of problem with my connection, not that someone is deliberately hindering me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
At worst, an intelligent fellow like Swartz would have thought he could only be charged with trespassing and thus, the required punishment would be small. At no point would he have thought "Gosh, the government might want to put me away for 30-50 years for what I'm about to do"
And if he had had...that only strengthens the arguments of those of us at Techdirt at how twisted, abusive and destructive the US government has become.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
I can't say. I wouldn't know his precise intentions.
But I can say if it was me, I would understand that what I was doing was perhaps a civil infraction (copyright infringement, not even real sure of that one since there was never any plans to distribute and he technically had permission for unlimited downloads) and perhaps minor misdemeanor charges (trespassing).
And if I felt the cause to be just enough I would certainly risk that as a form of civil disobedience.
What would have never crossed my mind in a million years is that what I was doing deserved 50 fucking years of hard time in Federal prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Once again, what crime? Felony interference with a business model? Sorry, but there isn't actually a law such as that, you do know that, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
I take the indictment for what it is - the prosecution's side of the story, nothing more, nothing less.
Until an admission of guilt or a judgment of conviction, the prosecution's side is merely suppositions and accusations.
I'm trying to make up my own mind about this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Even if Swartz was permitted to access the database, that doesn't mean that it was legal for him to do whatever he wanted with it. JSTOR employed code-based restrictions to limit the scope of permitted uses, such as by using measures to prevent database scraping of the sort that Swartz wanted to do. Swartz bypassed these measures so he could scrape the database. That's hacking. That's a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Very intreasting link. Thank you. I have read the abstract and will read the full paper later.
JSTOR employed code-based restrictions to limit the scope of permitted uses, such as by using measures to prevent database scraping of the sort that Swartz wanted to do. Swartz bypassed these measures so he could scrape the database. That's hacking. That's a crime.
Well it may be hacking. But as for a crime - that's where I vacillate.
Even if the supposed code-based restrictions where in place, were not users of MIT's network granted unlimited downloads? It seems that these code-based restrictions you speak of only flagged heavy downloaders and they appeared to have worked. I'm not convinced Aaron "bypassed" anything, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
No, the system was set up to disallow heavy downloading. He circumvented that restriction with his "keepgrabbing.py" script. That's hacking. A person could not do heavy downloading without bypassing the code that prevented it. He bypassed that code with his own code.
They blocked his IP address. He got a new one. They blocked a whole range of IP addresses and blocked his MAC address. He spoofed his MAC address. They blocked all of MIT's access. He went into a closet and hard wired access to the network. That's bypassing too.
Not sure how you're not seeing any bypassing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Fair enough.
Thank you for the straight-to-the-point rebuttal. I will take your points into consideration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
And I have to admit, this case would warrant considering jury nullification for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Some things were in the public domain and some things were copyrighted. So what? Even if every single document in that database were in the public domain--which is not even close to the reality--that wouldn't change the analysis one iota. He wasn't charged with infringement. He was charged with wire fraud, hacking, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Even if something is in the public domain, it doesn't mean that a particular copy is not someone's property. The copies available on JSTOR are someone's property, whether public domain or not. The fact that something is in the public domain would affect the copyright analysis, but that's not relevant to Swartz's case since no copyright infringement charges were brought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
You're reading into it too much, I think. The court of appeals doesn't say that a party's particular copy of a work that is no longer copyrighted is not their property. Nor would they have said that, since it's not true (and nor was that even a copyright case). I have books on the shelf where the content is in the public domain. That doesn't mean I don't own that copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wron
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
I'm using JSTOR for legal research this evening. I'm familiar with the database, and from what I can tell it's mostly copyrighted stuff (like journal articles). How could Swartz have possibly avoided all the copyrighted stuff? Regardless, copyright is not the issue with Swartz since he wasn't charged with infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Kerr says no such thing since the copyright status of the property is irrelevant. I think you're confusing a particular copy with the underlying copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
The database is JSTOR's property. I doubt that JSTOR owns many if any of the actual copyrights, since the journals or the authors would hold those, but the database that JSTOR compiles and maintains is their property. TThere is harm to JSTOR's property interest in the database when someone scrapes it and takes more than they are allowed to take. That database is JSTOR's "primary source of competitive advantage," to borrow Prof. Kerr's phrase. (See "Cybercrime's Scope" article that I linked to above.) The program in Seidlitz was property because they spent time and money to make it, and it provided the company with value. This is just like how the database is JSTOR's property because they spent time and money to make it, and it provides the company with value that they sell in the marketplace. The scraping a misappropriation of someone else's property because it's taking something of value without paying for it. Even if a given document in the database is in the public domain, JSTOR adds value to it by scanning it, cross-referencing it, making the footnotes links, etc. They put their time and money into it, giving it value and giving them a property interest. Labor begets property, just like Locke said. It's not a copyright claim at all. It's a fraud claim based on the wrongful taking of something of value without paying for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
I'm sitting on a chair right now that I built. I value it at $10 trillion. Doesn't mean that if someone were to nick it, they should be threatened with 50 years in prison. Or if I invited a friend over and he wandered over to my logged in desktop and copied a public domain work that I had had some footnotes on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Those millions of documents are worth millions of dollars. Aaron acquired something of value without paying for it. That benefited Aaron and harmed JSTOR. The benefit to Aaron is what makes him liable--not the harm to JSTOR. The harm would be relevant to the issue of damages, but the issue of whether or not he's guilty would only look at whether he gained something of value without paying for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Which they allowed him to have, being it was an open network with a management policy only so someone wasn't hogging all the bandwidth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
Deprivation of a property interest is relevant since it's one of the elements of the crime. The program in Seidlitz was property just as JSTOR's database is here. Even though Seidlitz merely copied the company's property--not actually depriving them of their copy--the Fourth Circuit held that the software Seidlitz obtained was property. The same applies here, which is Kerr's point. The other poster is trying to bring copyright law into this analysis, and I was saying that the owner of the copyrights in the database is irrelevant. This isn't an infringement case, is a fraud case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
I'm not saying that. I'm weighing if the punishments fit the crimes.
Wouldn't a civil lawsuit be the appropriate place to claim your supposed lost millions of dollars anyways?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voir_dire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
I seriously doubt that. I come off as a run-of-the-mill, taxpaying, law abiding citizen who takes his responsibility of weighing justice while on jury duty very seriously.
I have already sat as a juror on more than one trial. But like I said, I'm really having trouble rectifying the punishments with the crimes in this particular case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
What he did was not hacking (in the "computer intrusion" sense) at all. What he did was not what was envisioned as a criminal action when the CFAA was enacted.
It's not even clear that he violated the terms of service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
It all makes sense now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Changing IP and MAC address is not wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MIT
http://www.mit.edu/
Very strange.
Anyone ever been to the campus? Is it a picture of somewhere there? I tried to Google map it but that appears to be down right now.
503. That’s an error.
The service you requested is not available at this time.
Service error -27. That’s all we know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MIT
today's spotlight
Hard times in Chicago
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MIT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MIT
http://web.archive.org/web/20121207050200/http://mit.edu/
This background:
http://web.archive.org/web/20121124134526im_/http://www.mit.edu/img/BackImage.jpg
To this:
http://www.mit.edu/img/BackImage.jpg
WTF?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MIT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jan/18/aaron-swartz-suicide-girlfriend-intern et-reddit
Aaron Swartz girlfriend blames suicide on 'vindictiveness' of prosecution
The partner of the internet activist Aaron Swartz, who killed himself earlier this week, has blamed his suicide on the stress of his prosecution.
Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman said she was "absolutely confident" that Swartz killed himself because of the case, in which he was being prosecuted for downloading academic articles from a university archive.
Swartz, 26, a prominent open-internet advocate who helped build Reddit and RSS, was found dead in the Brooklyn apartment he shared with Stinebrickner-Kauffman on January 11. They started dating a few weeks before Swartz was indicted in 2011.
He was set to go trial next month for downloading academic articles from JSTOR, an online academic journal library, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. If convicted, he could have faced a 30-year jail sentence, although it emerged this week that he had been offered a six-month term in a plea bargain. "The legal system has lost all sense of mercy and justice and it has been replaced with punitiveness and vindictiveness," Stinebrickner-Kauffman told Mail Online.
"Felony charges change the course of people's lives. There are things Aaron maybe wanted to do – like go into government – and it's just ludicrous that one act like this could prevent somebody like him from serving his country. The risk was too much for him."
[...] Strinebrickner-Kauffman is the executive director and founder of SumOfUs [http://sumofus.org], a movement that attempts to counterbalance the power of corporations. She said that Swartz would take the subway with her to work, but the morning of January 11, he told her he wanted to stay home and rest.
"I wanted to stay with him but he said he didn't want me to and that I should go to the office," Strinebrickner-Kauffman said. "So I did."
She found him that evening dead of an apparent suicide in their apartment. [...]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
Because he didn't want to do 6 months for breaking the law?
Real upstanding hero you guys have there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
You people are trying to turn this fucked up kid into a martyr; you're exploiting him.
You want to see a sick fucker? Go look in the mirror or stare at Masnick's headshot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
Cause it loves beating a dead horse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
Go stand outside in the snow for awhile and cool your head off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
selfish and cowardly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
That takes true skill and courage, I'm sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
If on the other hand success is measured on not how you lived but instead what you have accomplished and done within the span of your life to enhance the human condition to become immortal, then you based on your comments are an abject failure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
Okay, what acts of greatness have you accomplished? What is your success rate? Just who the fuck are you then?
For the record, I also see suicide as something not to be proud of, but I don't speak ill of the dead like you bastards are. Yes, let's be like you, and focus entirely on the fact this guy killed himself, let's completely ignore everything he accomplished in his short life, completely ignore any and all possible motivations he may have had in doing the deed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
I have repaired life critical communications system for shipping that will save lives by working as required when an emergency strikes.
I have designed and build aid's for disabled people making their quality of life a great deal better than it was before.
I have worked in the military saving boats and ships from desaster, and saved lives.
I have been a fire fighter, helping to save peoples houses, their lives and the environment.
I have no issues about what I have achieved in my life, and I have nothing to be embarrassed about nor have I even considered taking my own life, and screwing up many others lives by that selfish act.
I have helped many many people prosper and be a success, I have done work to make people safer, and have worked to improve the environment.
There are many, many other things I have done to improve peoples lives, help them (DIRECTLY) and to make their and YOUR life better and easier.
I could go all day listing things I have done that directly and indirectly improves peoples lives, the environment, and that will continue to help and improve society.
What did this guy do again ??? RSS and ???
If I had of killed myself as a kid, I would not have done the things I have done, that has helped many people in many diffiernt but real way's.
but this article is not about me, it's about someone else, so why ask me what I have achieved ?? I am NOT going to compare myself to someone who you honor for killing themselves. But as you asked I will give you some small examples of what I have done to improve the lives of other people, (significantly). Whereas you or the auther of this article does not seem to be able to list very much of what this person has done to actually help anyone or to improve the lives of people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
But hey, keep on playing with Barbie dolls in your head. No one's going to fall for that uncitationed claptrap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
Of course, I find it more amusing/interesting that you've done all THOSE things and yet somehow in the process never found time to even attempt to learn how to use proper grammer and capitalization/spelling when writing.
Guess you were too busy "saving lives" and "developing" vague things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
You were the one who practcally BEGGED for that question to be asked when you said you were more successful.
Also...CITATION NEEDED. I too can say I'm the best thing since sliced bread, but it won't mean anything unless I can post proof of my accomplishments.
" I am NOT going to compare myself to someone who you honor for killing themselves."
Read what I wrote, dumbass. I also don't like it when people commit suicide (unless its say a soldier sacrificing his life to buy time for his comrades to escape or something along those lines).
If I were to choose one act where Swartz helped people, it was his help in organizing the blackout last year, of driving attention to SOPA. He helped drive home the idea that if SOPA or SOPA like laws passed, this is what the world would have looked like, with sites shut down with just accusations, of due process of law being side-stepped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
Not at grammar I guess
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
And what little sympathy I have for them doesn't even exist for people who blame the people who killed themselves.
So, what I'm trying to say is this...
People like you make the world a worse place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
Any idiot can run from death and stay alive...especially if staying alive serves the agenda of sick motherfuckers like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
Mike will exploit anyone and anything to squeeze out everything he can. And he's, of course, too intellectually dishonest to admit it. Or anything, for that matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
So, so true man. So, so true.
Now we just need to get rid of Copyright Apologists and the world might start to become a better place.
Hey, gotta go one step at a time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
Fuck you, copyright apologist.
Go outside and wait for the people with the white jackets to show up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Swartz's Girlfriend Explains
Because he didn't want to do 6 months for breaking the law?
Real upstanding hero you guys have there.
Well, in fairness he did suffer from depression but it does seem like he was pretty soft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I, robot
Aaron wasn't prosecuted for the MIT issue. He was being prosecuted for Wikileaks. The timeline for his seizure and arrest coincides with him getting too close to any information about the treatment of Manning.
He was attempting to find out how he was treated in Quantico and the Secret Service cut him off.
But it seems to be a very dangerous game that these "powerful people" have played. Aaron paid a heavy price as a whistleblower. His death sparked a very noticeable shift in tone in how the US has treated people that want to share information they don't like.
It's almost as if Aaron watched "I, robot" and decided to become the scientist. It's just an off sense of deja vu in how events have transpired in a week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So you are ok with using this death to further your agenda ?]
You lament the loss of someone who might have taken your agenda further, and go to lengths to milk this tragedy for all it's worth.
Very sad, and a clear reflection of your attitude, when can YOU GET OUT OF THIS, what advantages can you make from this person committing suicide.
It's sickening, but it is clear Mr Masnick simple cannot help himself, he's got to use this to try to advance his cause, and cult.
No mention of the affect this has on this "real" friends and family or the futility of suicide and the tragic loss of a life.
NO, none of that, it's "how can I spin this to gain advantage".
Yes, mansnick, you are one sick mother fucker....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I sure am glad we have downies such as yourself to post here,
I couldn't make half as believable satire of your ridiculous, selfish, stupid, self-fulfilling arguments if I tried. Not without comparing you to various mental health patients, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
but what is far worse, is someone trying to gain advantage from this tragedy. This is what Masnick is seeking to do..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
HOW is Mike taking advantage of this? WHAT agenda is he pushing?
Please, do inform us, and if you do, keep all FUD out of the reply, use actual information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Never had to deal with depression, have you? Keep living in your rosy world where everything is simple and easily understandable.
Moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
*Shakes head*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It seems though that Masnick cares about it so much he is willing to take advantage of a tragic death by suicide to achieve that advantage, and to spin this for his own advantage..
I don't even know or care what SOPA stands for or what it does or did.
So it is dead ?? seems to be a lot of that going around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why don't you make well on that New Year's resolution and go feed yourself to vultures?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
See how much I dont care !!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless, of course, you're actually neither.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Here's a tip...
If you don't know what something is, LOOK IT UP before you comment on it.
There's a Mark Twain quote applicable here but I'm not going to use it or even link to it as the troll obviously needs practice using Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is why I don't believe anything they say. The cost to society of making sure that people don't copy certain files is far too high: retardation of scientific progress, loss of basic human rights, no due process in a court of law, vilification amongst your peers for merely being accused, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
All of that is far worse than whether or not that movie I downloaded to watch a couple days ago "cost" an actor a few bucks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"So it is dead ?? seems to be a lot of that going around."- Disgusting. You are worse than anything you accuse us of doing. One can only hope you lose a child one day.
Your Mother must be so proud. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
One can only hope you lose a child one day.
geezz, so you would like my children to die because I said something you disagree with ?? no, your not disgusting at all !!!!!!
would you have said to the Aaron's parents ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let me boil this down for your handlers...
You have gone to far, and your indifference for human life will help rally even those who supported you to align against you.
So feel free to keep spewing crap, push us that much further.
Copyright is not more important than a life, and that you can not process that simple fact should make you weep. Instead you will weep as everything you've built to protect your empire is ripped away, and barriers will be put in place to stop you from trying to do it again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Future deeds
I'm going to say something that will be unpopular but I believe it needs to be said. I am upset about Aaron's suicide, less than some, more than others, but we really shouldn't talk about his future. First, even though he had shown the ability to keep himself relevant in the tech field, he might have found other passions as he grew older. It's unlikely but a possibility because I've seen life events like getting married, having kids, getting a serious illness, etc. change a person's outlooks and goals. Second, a lot of what I keep hearing or reading is about other's expectations for Aaron. That's not fair to throw your expectations for another's life into your stories. Even if his closest friends said that he talked about doing this or wanted to work on that, it doesn't actually mean that he would have gotten around to it. Finally, we're not ALL better for his previous work and we certainly won't ALL be worse off for not having his unknown future acts become reality. For instance, everyone talks about his part of RSS and how important that is for the world but in reality only a small portion of a small subset of the population use RSS. So we're not ALL better for it. He's really credited with fighting SOPA but again that fight didn't help ALL of us except in the most roundabout way. We don't know what or if he would have done anything in the future so we can't be worse off for something that we don't know was going to happen.
I just think we need to stop romanticising people and focus on what they did and how their legacy can inspire others to either carry on the work they started or to go after their own goals/dreams. In fact, I'd love to see a story about how Aaron's suicide has focused/refocused Mike and the TechDirt staff and what they would like to do in the future. They're still here with us so it's their expectations for themselves that can still make a difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Future deeds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Future deeds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Future deeds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Future deeds
You also underrate the impact of RSS. While true that the percentage of people that use RSS by setting up RSS feeds or subscribing to them directly may be low, what you fail to take into account is all of the people that are impacted by using technology based off of RSS. (Uh... Hello... Twitter?). When you take that into account, the impact is MUCH higher.
So while I agree with your comment about not romanticizing and instead focusing on what we who are still here can do to impact our future in a positive way, I have to respectfully disagree with how you arrive there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Future deeds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Future deeds
While I do agree that there has been some romanticizing it is fair to argue that he could have achieved a lot. Regardless of what you think, building a family, having kids is well within the scope of great achievements for many. If anything, he'll not be able to achieve anything now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A form of justice?
The nominating post is available at Google Groups:
http://groups.google.com/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/8c4a53aec01d0af0 is the individual message URL, or you can search for "bobo justice 2013" and it is fourth on the list, titled "Major Dual NOMINATIONS". (Warning: that thread has several trolls posting to it.)
People might be interested in voting for those clowns at the DOJ when the awards are voted on, I think in February.
You might also be interested that the author of the nomination extensively cites Techdirt's own coverage of the story in support of her arguments.
(Note: voting would require making Usenet posts to a newsgroup known to harbor its own share of stalkers and nutjobs; you might want to take steps to protect your identity, not from the government but from other kooks. Free news server AIOE requires some configuration but obscures your posting IP and allows arbitrary "from" names, without signup; Google Groups is easy to use if you're not familiar with Usenet, but exposes your posting IP, so you might want to use a proxy of some sort if you vote from there, or to post from a public WiFi some distance from both your home and work.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Surprisingly, I have yet to read any article traversing the legal points raised by Mr. Kerr in his consideration of the grand jury indictment against Mr. Swartz. I have read many laments about the loss of a very talented and respected individual, but these in and of themselves do not refute Mr. Kerr's legal points.
In no way should anything here be interpreted as my being insensitive to this obvious tragedy. My comment is limited solely to Mr. Kerr's first article at Volokh concerning the legal sufficiency of the indictment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's right. Mike pretends like Kerr's analysis is unsound, but then he doesn't actually refute the arguments. Nor do I think he can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mike didn't do so because someone else had already done it, something you'd know if you'd actually read the article.
Here's the link, in case you don't care to look for it yourself:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyle/prosecution-aaron-swartz_b_2508242.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyle/prosecution-aaron-swartz_b_2508242.html
It's kinda funny.
I just now finally got a chance follow that link and that article is more or less the side of the argument I've been arguing for two days now. Could have saved myself a shitload of time linking to that. Damn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Mike didn't do so because someone else had already done it, something you'd know if you'd actually read the article.
Here's the link, in case you don't care to look for it yourself:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyle/prosecution-aaron-swartz_b_2508242.html
I've read that. Where does he show that Kerr's legal analysis is wrong? He doesn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
explain a situation in network fault diagnosis where you would be able to determine where the fault is by changing your IP or MAC address ? I've working in IT, computing and technology since the 1970's professionally, I have NEVER had to change the IP or MAC address to determine or diagnose a fault in the system or network.
on the other hand if I wanted to hide my identity, the very first thing I would do is change my IP and MAC address as these are clear pathways (an identities) of the computing equipment you use.
So, who is making strawman arguments about why he would change his IP and MAC ? Was he trying to fix a faulty network when he changed them (at different times), or was he trying to hide his identity ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No problems sir, just change your IP and MAC address that will fix it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"my network has stopped working".
I call bullshit, you have never worked in IT. They dont call and say "my network has stopped working". They call and say I cant get to the internet or my email is not working, or Universal Type Server wont connect. I searched our ticket system and that term returns nothing. (We support 6000+ here in the US and another 2500 users in 5 countries.)
"So, who is making strawman arguments" - Appears to be you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In my 30+ years in IT, I've changed my IP address countless times to resolve networking issues.
Changing MAC addresses for this purpose is less common, but I've done that intentionally on more than one occasion as well.
I've done these things to get my machines working again, not for diagnosis, but when these techniques work, they do give you a strong clue as to what's going wrong. Therefore, they are valid diagnostic techniques.
All of which is purely academic, of course, and not really that related to Swartz's actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Never? No ipconfig /renew ? Never had a DNS hiccup? Never in 43 years?
I think someone is not being truthful here.
"I wanted to hide my identity"
So now a MAC/IP address is an identifiable source? You register your mac with every network admin whose network you connect to?
The only thing I come close to agreeing with you on is the MAC address spoofing. He knew he was hitting the network kind of hard but that in itself is not a crime. And a machine was blocked, not a person. At any time he could have pulled out another laptop and continued download documents that were freely available.
MIT was way out of line here and they knew it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is an excellent point, and underlies why what he did was not "hacking". His actions were no different than switching to a different computer.
But we're talking about a legislative environment that considers DDOS attacks as hacking as well, so reasonableness and accuracy in not something that we can expect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure, in 1970 there were no such thing as the internet and complex networks.
on the other hand if I wanted to hide my identity, the very first thing I would do is change my IP and MAC address as these are clear pathways (an identities) of the computing equipment you use
On an open network that uses DHCP? Really? So you'll believe that I am Barack Obama because I have a registered user here, use a static IP and because I say so? After all, IPs are very good identifiers right? (note: there are about 2500 people connected through this IP right now) (also, at home I cloned the MAC of my computer to the router which makes me a criminal but never mind that, you can still identify who exactly is using the connection at any given time by just looking at the assigned IP address by the DHCP and the spoofed MAC, right?)
So, who is making strawman arguments about why he would change his IP and MAC ?
You are. My IP is dynamic at home. I've been assigned IPs that were banned on some networks because of some moron that used it. So I simply reset my modem and get a new IP. That's fixing a problem. If I get blocked for whatever reason I will change IPs/MACs to go through again and check what happened. But that makes me a criminal right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another shameful loss
[ link to this | view in chronology ]