Aaron Swartz died three years ago today

Post by cglace » Tue, Jan 12, 2016, 12:59 PM UTC

rubberstamp wrote: post #168

briandear wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I can go into a welfare recipient's house and take the food out of their house? Can I go into a military post and take some rifles? Such a ridiculous logic.

I realize the ridiculousness of comment I made, but I wasn't originally talking about tv. Aaron has made possible free access to many documents that were being charged for access, but they are actually documents that should be in public domain. JSTOR is journal store which contains journals published by researchers all over the world. JSTOR access is licensed. There is no open access and the access fees are not cheap…

Post by appleflaxen » Tue, Jan 12, 2016, 1:15 PM UTC

ryanlol wrote: post #154

suprgeek wrote: post #130

MIT Failed him - spectacularly so. If they had declared that they had no wish to see him in prison and used their (considerable) influence he would be alive. Instead, this political, vindictive creature http://wgbhnews.org/post/carmen-ortiz-spotlight-under-fire and her nasty acolytes in search of a high profile "Scalp" pushed him over the edge. A terrible waste and a horrible use (misuse) of prosecutorial discretion.

>he would be alive. How do you know? Aaron had been talking about suicide years before this, maybe we should just blame reddit? Edit: Why the downvotes? Fact is that we don't know why Aaron killed himself, but we do know that he had a prior history of depression and in 2007 posted what seemed very much like a suicide note. Frankly, making claims like "If x had (not) done y he'd still be alive" and presenting them as…

Post by wolfgke » Tue, Jan 12, 2016, 2:00 PM UTC

cellularmitosis wrote: post #150

cglace wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He is no actual criminal. He didn't feel the articles he downloaded from servers should be kept private. That is a horrible argument. should I just be able to take your tv because I think it shouldn't be locked up in your house? I'm not saying I agree with the papers being locked up. Not believing in a law does not make you innocent. Many people think they don't have to pay their taxes and they all go to jail.

That's also a horrible argument. When you take someone's TV, they no longer have it. When Aaron copied documents, JSTOR still had them...

Post by Chathamization » Tue, Jan 12, 2016, 2:30 PM UTC

ryanlol wrote: post #187

Chathamization wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they didn't lock the door. Or take the computer that he left there (and it seems they knew it). They didn't stop guests from having unfettered access to JSTOR. They decided the best course of action was to send police after Swartz.

>But they didn't lock the door. I hope you never forget to lock your doors. > They didn't stop guests from having unfettered access to JSTOR. They actively took steps to prevent Swartz from scraping it >They decided the best course of action was to send police after Swartz. Yes, for breaking and entering. Fuck MIT.

Post by ryanlol » Tue, Jan 12, 2016, 2:41 PM UTC

Chathamization wrote: post #188

ryanlol wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But they didn't lock the door. I hope you never forget to lock your doors. > They didn't stop guests from having unfettered access to JSTOR. They actively took steps to prevent Swartz from scraping it >They decided the best course of action was to send police after Swartz. Yes, for breaking and entering. Fuck MIT.

> I hope you never forget to lock your doors. Eh...this wasn't a private residence but a building where the public had free access. And it's hard to argue that they "forgot to lock" the doors when they didn't bother locking them even after they realized Swartz was going in there. > Yes, for breaking and entering. Fuck MIT. For going in to an unlocked room in a public building.