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

241–250 of 324 posts

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

#241

Post by wnoise »

Zak wrote: post #200
bbatsell wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Everybody is at risk for federal prosecution. Everybody.

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/... http://www.threefelonies.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx

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

#242

Post by pyre »

tedunangst wrote: post #237
pyre wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* How about "You are not allowed to hyperlink to this page?" * How about that 'MySpace Hacking' case? From Wikipedia: Judge Wu summed up his opinion by stating that allowing a violation of a website's Terms of Service to constitute an intentional access of a computer without authorization or exceeding authorization would "result in transforming section 1030(a)(2)(C) into an overwhelmingly overbroad enactment that wou…

I don't think hyperlinking is the crime in question for this case.

My post wasn't very clear. I was making two separate points.

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

#243

Post by nkassis »

bluehat wrote: post #209
mbreese wrote: post #110

JSTOR's statement http://about.jstor.org/news-events/news/jstor-statement-misu... JSTOR Statement: Misuse Incident and Criminal Case The United States Department of Justice announced today the criminal indictment of an individual, Aaron Swartz, on charges related to computer fraud and abuse stemming from his misuse of the JSTOR database. We have been subpoenaed by the United States Attorney’s Office in this case and…

"Our mission at JSTOR is supporting scholarly work and access to knowledge around the world. Faculty, teachers, and students at more than 7,000 institutions in 153 countries rely upon us for affordable and in some cases free access to content on JSTOR. Since our founding in 1995, we have digitized the complete back runs of nearly 1,400 academic journals from over 800 publishers. Our ultimate objective is to provide a…

They are probably bound by contracts with the actual content owners which limits who they can give access to. Not saying it's right but even the price is probably not all their doing.

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

#245

Post by rhizome »

cube13 wrote: post #230
neilk wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, because the standard penalty for trespass onto campus property is a federal indictment. Good thing no MIT student has ever snuck into a restricted area before.

Only he's a fellow at Harvard, not an MIT student or faculty. So no, they couldn't handle this internally. Possibly with the local police, but that may have been what caused it to escalate.

Evidently you're unaware of MIT's history of pranks.

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

#246

Post by _delirium »

wgrover wrote: post #211
Jd wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Notice on the first page of every JSTOR pdf: Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use conten…

"you may not download an entire issue of a journal" I didn't know this. It's as if the New York Times told paid subscribers they can only read 90% of any one issue.

Yeah, fortunately they don't appear to actually enforce that regularly through technical measures. As a researcher with legitimate paid access (via my institution) to JSTOR, it would be absurd if this were enforced. If there is a special issue of a journal exactly in my research area, I pretty much need to read all the articles in it, or at least skim them. To comply with the terms, do I really have to choose an article to avoid reading, so I only download (N-1) of the articles in the issue?

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

#247

Post by tesseract »

ianb wrote: post #217
mbreese wrote: post #110

JSTOR's statement http://about.jstor.org/news-events/news/jstor-statement-misu... JSTOR Statement: Misuse Incident and Criminal Case The United States Department of Justice announced today the criminal indictment of an individual, Aaron Swartz, on charges related to computer fraud and abuse stemming from his misuse of the JSTOR database. We have been subpoenaed by the United States Attorney’s Office in this case and…

This seems contrary to Demand Progress's statement: “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.

I got the impression Demand Progress was referring in that sentence to MIT as the "alleged victim", which seems slightly disingenuous to me. It also seems plausible that MIT would behave in the manner described. However I have not yet seen a statement from MIT that would corroborate this, either.

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

#248

Post by nolite »

kragen wrote: post #208
wiredfool wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More than likely, the document was written by the prosecutors office. The procedure as I understand it is: * Prosecutor assembles evidence, writes indictment. * Prosecutor presents evidence to Grand Jury. This may include witnesses or documents. * Grand Jury votes on if there is enough there to approve indictment If they've got a computer crimes division, then they're going to have hacker types in the prosecutor's of…

A funny omission is that the indictment never actually says that the wiring cabinet was locked, or how Aaron supposedly broke into it. I infer that it wasn't locked.

locked doors are never a problem for MIT students.. (and apparently even some harvard students)

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

#249

Post by kragen »

mark242 wrote: post #238
kragen wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hypothetically: wiring closets are normal places for computers engaged in always-on network services. Putting a box over a laptop can keep it from getting stolen. Your bike helmet can end up in front of your face for a while while you're taking it off or putting it on. Switching your MAC address is reasonable if there's a MAC address conflict, or if you've gone and apologized to the network infrastructure guys for ca…

"...or if you've gone and apologized to the network infrastructure guys for causing problems..." Read the indictment. He started on Sep 25th. He was blocked by IP on Sep 25. He switched his IP on Sep 26. The entire netblock was then blocked by admins. To try to turn the service back on for normal users, admins tried to block his MAC address on Sep 27, which worked until he changed it on Oct 2, and then added a second…

Thanks, but I know what the indictment alleges. But the facts of the indictment may be false, and there may be many other highly relevant facts that are omitted.

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

#250

Post by wiredfool »

neilk wrote: post #167
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…

Right, because the standard penalty for trespass onto campus property is a federal indictment. Good thing no MIT student has ever snuck into a restricted area before.

I believe that the storytelling after breaking and entering is an important part of it.

While I'm no MIT student, I have seen the tomb of the unknown tool. (Though, at the time, I was accompanying a bunch of MIT students).

Post reply on HN