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

171–180 of 324 posts

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

#171

Post by xefer »

jackpirate wrote: post #114
a3camero wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read the indictment you'll see that they very much are not interested in free transmission of knowledge. They charge >$50k/yr for access: " For a large research university, this annual subscription fee for JSTOR’s various collections of content can cost more than $50,000."

That price actually seems pretty reasonable for a large research university. The real question is how much they charge individuals who want to get an article. My first google search ( http://www.jstor.org/pss/27757488 ) results in $12/article. This is very steep when you're trying to do research and don't even know if the article is what you're looking for.

Most public libraries have relationships with JSTOR that allow members to access the articles online. I use the Boston Public Library and look up articles via Google Scholar. All free.

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

#172

Post by kbutler »

yid wrote: post #31
mukyu wrote: post #4

The title is inaccurate. It is alleged that he signed up for guest accounts on their network with different laptops, changed his MAC address and re-registered if the IP he was using was blocked (by JSTOR) or cut off of the network (by MIT), and finally connected a laptop in a basement networking closet. I guess you could say that is 'hacking' in the unauthorized access sense, but not in any meaningful sense. It isn't…

It isn't breaking and entering if someone repeatedly trespasses somewhere (say, banned from a store) even if they change their clothes to avoid detection. It might not be breaking & entering, but it's still trespassing, which is a crime.

> It might not be breaking & entering, but it's still trespassing, which is a crime.

Jaywalking is murder! Well, it's still a crime...

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

#173

Post by [deleted] »

tessro wrote: post #103

Demand Progress PAC's website is down, but they released a statement: (from: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9k5ryiX... ) Cambridge, MA– Moments ago, Aaron Swartz, former executive director and founder of Demand Progress, was indicted by the US government. As best as we can tell, he is being charged with allegedly downloading too many scholarly journal articles from the Web. The government conten…

[deleted]

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

#174

Post by pnathan »

mark242 wrote: post #155
kaerast wrote: post #144

One hopes he is smart enough to have a solid legal argument for what he has done. If he loses the legal battle then it's going to set a bad precedent for all these academic document stores to continue keeping hold of this information. On the other hand, if he were to win then it may make it harder for groups like JSTOR to continue restricting access to their data.

A solid legal argument for switching your MAC address, hiding a laptop in a closet, and deliberately concealing your face to try to avoid recognition? He isn't going to win that defense.

Yeah, that one is going to be... problematic to explain away.

sounds like he walked over the edge. Shame.

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

#175

Post by tptacek »

burgerbrain wrote: post #170
jrockway wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have a lot of comments for someone who doesn't even have a TV Drama-level understanding of the criminal justice system. You know that even people accused of murder are often free during their trials, right?

For some of us, memory of how Mitnick was treated (or for a more modern example, Manning), still taints how we expect accused "hackers" to be treated by the criminal justice system. Physical detainment of someone accused of such crimes is hardly unheard of.

Mitnick's story is absolutely nothing like Aaron's. Mitnick was a fugitive after already having done prison time and had to be tracked down via cell phone triangulation.

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

#176

Post by pyre »

SpikeGronim wrote: post #22
mukyu wrote: post #4

The title is inaccurate. It is alleged that he signed up for guest accounts on their network with different laptops, changed his MAC address and re-registered if the IP he was using was blocked (by JSTOR) or cut off of the network (by MIT), and finally connected a laptop in a basement networking closet. I guess you could say that is 'hacking' in the unauthorized access sense, but not in any meaningful sense. It isn't…

IANAL, but legally speaking unauthorized access is a crime regardless of how easy it was to gain access.

This was struck down by the courts by the way. Why? If unauthorized access is a federal offense, and unauthorized access can be determined by (e.g.) a EULA, then it basically allows a business to dictate criminal law. For example:

1. This would allow all of those 'You agree that you are not a law enforcement official' B.S. 'terms of use' on warez servers to actually have teeth.

2. "If you are a {black,hispanic,gay,etc} person, you are not allowed to access my website."

Do any of these sound reasonable? I should hope not.

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

#177

Post by jxcole »

VladRussian wrote: post #161
dgreensp wrote: post #136

What Aaron did sounds seriously sketchy (sneaking into MIT wiring closets, trying to download the entire database, etc.), a fact that Demand Progress and several commenters here seem to be ignoring. Defending his actions would require a very strong, multi-pronged version of the argument "if it's physically / technologically possible, it must be ok." Can MIT legally limit guest access to its network? Can JSTOR limit a…

>What Aaron did sounds seriously sketchy (sneaking into MIT wiring closets, trying to download the entire database, etc.), reminded me about ancient IP infringement case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus

+1 for correlation with ancient Greek mythology.

I seriously recommend Prometheus Unbound for a more modern treatment of the subject.

http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/prometheus.html

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

#178

Post by anigbrowl »

Vivtek wrote: post #129
anigbrowl wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 conve…

1. The analogy is only to point out that a 3rd party repository can be negatively affected by a break-in event if it doesn't have an ownership interest in the materials it stores.

2. The government is not hung up on the 'theft' terminology. The words 'steal' or 'stole' only appear three times in the 15 page indictment and the actual offenses he is charged with are wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer.

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

#179

Post by rbanffy »

VladRussian wrote: post #161
dgreensp wrote: post #136

What Aaron did sounds seriously sketchy (sneaking into MIT wiring closets, trying to download the entire database, etc.), a fact that Demand Progress and several commenters here seem to be ignoring. Defending his actions would require a very strong, multi-pronged version of the argument "if it's physically / technologically possible, it must be ok." Can MIT legally limit guest access to its network? Can JSTOR limit a…

>What Aaron did sounds seriously sketchy (sneaking into MIT wiring closets, trying to download the entire database, etc.), reminded me about ancient IP infringement case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus

Compared to that, 35 years in jail seems quite humane ;-)

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

#180

Post by mukyu »

gwern wrote: post #153
mukyu wrote: post #4

The title is inaccurate. It is alleged that he signed up for guest accounts on their network with different laptops, changed his MAC address and re-registered if the IP he was using was blocked (by JSTOR) or cut off of the network (by MIT), and finally connected a laptop in a basement networking closet. I guess you could say that is 'hacking' in the unauthorized access sense, but not in any meaningful sense. It isn't…

The indictment mentions only one laptop, BTW. No indication he signed up with "different laptops".

22. On October 8, 2010, Swartz connected a second computer to MIT’s network and registered as a guest, using similar naming conventions: the computer was registered under the name "Grace Host," the computer client name "ghost macbook," and the throw-away e-mail address “ghost42@mailinator.com."

23. The next day, October 9, 2010, Swartz used both the “ghost laptop” and the “ghost macbook” to systematically and rapidly access and download an extraordinary volume of articles from JSTOR. The pace was so fast that it brought down some of JSTOR’s computer servers.

Post reply on HN