Is this what our tax money is going into. Aaronsw just presents a soft target for the Feds.
Aaronsw indicted for hacking MIT network to download millions of JSTOR docs
191–200 of 324 posts
Re: Aaronsw indicted for hacking MIT network to download millions of JSTOR docs
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right, thanks. Replace suing by charging and strike make them a little richer and . The rest of the point still stands.
Swartz's organization seems to pretty clearly claim that both MIT and JSTOR asked the feds not to charge him. While JSTOR's statement doesn't actually say thatº, it certainly seems plausible to me since they very clearly say that they privately engaged and dealt with the matter with Swartz. You simply don't do that if you're pursuing criminal charges. º I would probably be hesitant to say that publicly as well, consi…
Oh well we can't be upsetting the government. Carry on.
Re: Aaronsw indicted for hacking MIT network to download millions of JSTOR docs
#193http://blog.demandprogress.org/2011/07/federal-government-in... “It’s even more strange because the alleged victim has settled any claims against Aaron, explained they’ve suffered no loss or damage, and asked the government not to prosecute,” Segal added. Nowhere do they say he did not do it however. cached: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...
JSTOR is being very vague about their role in this, so that might unfortunately be wrong about just how settled JSTOR considers things on their side. Their statement feels extremely carefully worded: http://about.jstor.org/news-events/news/jstor-statement-misu...
MIT (and the alleged disruption to other MIT JSTOR users' access) may also be relevant to the decision to charge.
My understanding is that MIT has a freewheeling attitude to information, but also deep organizational and funding links to national security institutions. So their hacker ethos might tell them to brush it off, while their federal relationships require them to take a tougher stance.
Re: Aaronsw indicted for hacking MIT network to download millions of JSTOR docs
#194The 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…
How is this not "unauthorized access" "in any meaningful sense"?
They blocked his IP, they blocked his MAC, and he hid a machine in a wiring closet to get on MIT's network. What would he have to do to make it "meaningful"?
Re: Aaronsw indicted for hacking MIT network to download millions of JSTOR docs
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
relationships = they pay the institutional fee (possibly reduced) to JSTOR
Re: Aaronsw indicted for hacking MIT network to download millions of JSTOR docs
#196The repeated use of "stole" in the indictment is interesting, even beyond the usual metaphorical usage to discuss copyright infringement. In this case, the indictment alleges that the documents were stolen from JSTOR , which does not even own them! In the vast majority of cases JSTOR scanned documents whose copyright is owned by someone else, and acquired or was donated a non-exclusive license to distribute copies vi…
You're precisely incorrect as far as the law is concerned.
If I make a painting, I own the copyright. If you take a picture of said painting, you own the copyright on the picture. If someone makes a collage of your picture they own the copyright on the collage. Both of you are liable for copyright infringement against my rights, but this is independent of your own rights as described above.
This is not a legal advice, talk to a lawyer.
Re: Aaronsw indicted for hacking MIT network to download millions of JSTOR docs
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
JSTOR is being very vague about their role in this, so that might unfortunately be wrong about just how settled JSTOR considers things on their side. Their statement feels extremely carefully worded: http://about.jstor.org/news-events/news/jstor-statement-misu...
MIT (and the alleged disruption to other MIT JSTOR users' access) may also be relevant to the decision to charge. My understanding is that MIT has a freewheeling attitude to information, but also deep organizational and funding links to national security institutions. So their hacker ethos might tell them to brush it off, while their federal relationships require them to take a tougher stance.
In terms of broader implications, I would actually have many fewer problems with MIT pressing straightforward trespassing charges. If he broke into a server room and messed with equipment there without the owner's permission, they could prosecute that under very ordinary state criminal law long predating the computer age.
It's the weird "stealing documents from JSTOR" federal case under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that's more worrying, because it's extremely vague what those kinds of charges can cover (in some interpretations, essentially any violation of a ToS).
Re: Aaronsw indicted for hacking MIT network to download millions of JSTOR docs
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
A political prisoner is not usually granted bail. It isn't hard to see why. Murder is a genuine crime recognized by all nations. One accused of murder will find few people who are automatically sympathetic. On the other hand, the "crime" Mr. Swartz is accused of would be seen as an entirely moral act by a great many people around the world, myself included. It is quite possible that if he were to board a plane, he co…
The prosecutor would be quite foolish to grant bail. This is what I'm saying. The prosecutor does not make bail decisions. That's a decision for a presumably-neutral judge.
Heading off a message board nerd response: the prosecutor does make influential bail recommendations. But don't you get the impression that this particular commenter would be disappointed if Swartz wasn't imprisoned immediately? That sure would cut down the drama and cost the commenter some opportunities to howl at the moon about political prisoners.
Re: Aaronsw indicted for hacking MIT network to download millions of JSTOR docs
#199> The indictment alleges that Swartz, at the time a fellow at Harvard University, intended to distribute the documents on peer-to-peer networks. That did not happen, however, and all the documents have been returned to JSTOR.
All the documents have been returned?!
Re: Aaronsw indicted for hacking MIT network to download millions of JSTOR docs
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right, thanks. Replace suing by charging and strike make them a little richer and . The rest of the point still stands.
Swartz's organization seems to pretty clearly claim that both MIT and JSTOR asked the feds not to charge him. While JSTOR's statement doesn't actually say thatº, it certainly seems plausible to me since they very clearly say that they privately engaged and dealt with the matter with Swartz. You simply don't do that if you're pursuing criminal charges. º I would probably be hesitant to say that publicly as well, consi…
Unless JSTOR is itself at risk of prosecution for something, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that they'd care how Federal prosecutors felt about their public statements.