Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Aaronsw indicted for hacking MIT network to download millions of JSTOR docs

documentcloud.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 324 posts

Re: Aaronsw indicted for hacking MIT network to download millions of JSTOR docs

#121

Post by guan »

mbreese wrote: post #105
sqrt17 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no non-exclusive copyright. J-STOR is not the copyright owner, period. They do own the right to the composition of their collection, so someone who got the whole collection would be liable to infringing their right on the composition of the collection; in contrast, a random sample of articles would infringe on the publishers' IP rights rather than J-STOR's. The subtle point is that J-STOR is absolutely not i…

> They do own the right to the composition of their collection This was the point I was trying to make. They own their database, even if they don't own the articles in it. The GP poster was trying to claim that they didn't "own their archive".

> the right to the composition of their collection

Is this a right recognized under US law?

Re: Aaronsw indicted for hacking MIT network to download millions of JSTOR docs

#122

Post by [deleted] »

mbreese wrote: post #43
runningdogx wrote: post #34

This is the most technically competent charging document I've ever read. I guess there must have been some hackers on the grand jury. Paragraph 35 & 36: which "protected computer" on MIT's network did he access? Certainly they're not trying to claim his laptop was a protected computer? Are they talking about the DHCP server or whatever registration frontend MIT has for the DHCP assignments? I have trouble with the co…

> no operative security barriers in place I don't know... Even if my front door was open, you still aren't allowed to enter my house without my permission.

[deleted]

Re: Aaronsw indicted for hacking MIT network to download millions of JSTOR docs

#123

Post by dkarl »

_delirium wrote: post #97
dkarl wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate to quibble over words, but a painting can be stolen "from the Louvre" even if it's there on loan from a private collection, just as you could say, "The necklace was stolen from my jewelry box," without implying that your jewelry box was the legal owner of the necklace.

This is more like taking a photograph of a painting on loan to the Louvre, though--- they're alleging that a copy was made, in violation of their terms of service, of a document that they don't even own (but do host). In that case, I would think that you might be violating the Louvre's camera policy, and you might even be colloquially "stealing" something from the painting's author (e.g. if you go on to publish illic…

The argument over whether something digital can be stolen at all is a different argument than the one you made in the comment I replied to. The question of taking photographs of artwork (which are not exact copies, but which have their own cultural, educational, and commercial value) is a third question which is interesting in its own right. At this pace, I'm having a hard time keeping track of what we're arguing about.

In any case, my intention was not to signal my support for one of two predefined sides in a battle over the concept of intellectual property, it was just to point out stealing "from" doesn't have to have the meaning you read into it.

Re: Aaronsw indicted for hacking MIT network to download millions of JSTOR docs

#124

Post by pak »

runningdogx wrote: post #34

This is the most technically competent charging document I've ever read. I guess there must have been some hackers on the grand jury. Paragraph 35 & 36: which "protected computer" on MIT's network did he access? Certainly they're not trying to claim his laptop was a protected computer? Are they talking about the DHCP server or whatever registration frontend MIT has for the DHCP assignments? I have trouble with the co…

>I take issue with the notion that someone who is accessing a service through a public interface is criminally responsible for downtime if too high an access rate causes service degradation or an outage

Ah... well surely you've heard of people being prosecuted for denial of service attacks? Most recently, members of anon getting raided because they used LOIC? If you use a network in a way that is intended to degrade others' quality of service, even if you are just accessing things via normal protocols at a really high rate, you are breaking the law. In this case, it does not look like they are alleging that he intended to cause a service disruption, but they claim that he repeatedly circumvented measures that JSTOR put in place to halt his unauthorized activities, which caused service disruptions for other legitimate users and therefore denial of service.

Re: Aaronsw indicted for hacking MIT network to download millions of JSTOR docs

#127

Post by pak »

johngalt wrote: post #57
mbreese wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no operative security barriers in place I don't know... Even if my front door was open, you still aren't allowed to enter my house without my permission.

But there is an element of permission inherent in DHCP. Your device is actively configuring my device specifically to allow network access . It's not an open door; it's a sign saying "This way please". That said, its obvious this was an attempt to circumvent access controls.

Yeah, I think it's a bad argument to personify network protocols or imbue them with intent. Legally speaking, what is more important is the intent of the person using them.

Re: Aaronsw indicted for hacking MIT network to download millions of JSTOR docs

#128

Post by Natsu »

tptacek wrote: post #95
jrockway wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very frightening belief. How long until posting a negative comment to a blog is "unautorized access" to that blog? Gaining access was easy: all you had to do was type a comment and hit submit. But some Powers That Be decided they didn't really want you to post that, so now it's a federal computer crime. Land of the free.

Speaking of "TV drama levels of understanding of criminal justice"... :) With only a few exceptions, persons accused of crimes are not presumed to have mens rea . Statutory rape, for instance, has "strict liability"; even if you don't know you're committing a crime, you're liable. Most criminal offenses are not like this. The state is required to establish mens rea . A prosecutor could say that a ToS-infringing blog…

So where's the mens rea in this case?

Re: Aaronsw indicted for hacking MIT network to download millions of JSTOR docs

#129

Post by Vivtek »

anigbrowl wrote: post #119
dman wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well this is more akin to breaking into the storage facility and making a copy of all the Paintings stored there. The value of the goods being stored has not been reduced.

Not to torture this analogy any further, but would you feel safe storing your stuff at such a facility after something like that? No, you'd probably look elsewhere for your storage needs. Breaking in is still bad and would be the subject of criminal charges. If the US attorneys decide that use of the word 'stole' is somewhat over the top, then guess what? they can amend the indictment - just as the defense can amend…

But: (1) JSTOR isn't a storage facility in that sense; the copyright holders do not pay JSTOR to store their items, so this is a bad analogy.

(2) If the outrage is supposed to be about bypassing security systems, why is the government hung up on the "theft" terminology? Especially when JSTOR, the party arguably injured (in some way not specified), has asked the government not to prosecute?

No, this is clearly a convenient way to get a politically inconvenient person labeled a felon.

Re: Aaronsw indicted for hacking MIT network to download millions of JSTOR docs

#130

Post by phereford »

feydr wrote: post #88

can someone please explain what the deal is here for us uninitiated? sounds like they are throwing the book at him for stealing books? seriously? why is the prosecution being so aggressive? did he profit from it or something? this sounds so petty

He violated Terms of Service for a large database of journals at an egregious rate. If he had stolen say...10,000 articles this may be a non-issue. The fact that they can tie 4,000,000 articles to him is what makes this so bad.

The other part that is extremely bad is his measure to continually evade MIT MAC banning through spoofing. That measure of evasion proves, to some extent, his intent to steal and is a form of computer fraud.

Post reply on HN