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

MIT releases report on its actions in the Aaron Swartz case

web.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 96 posts

Re: MIT releases report on its actions in the Aaron Swartz case

#71

Post by ef4 »

sp332 wrote: post #43
rdl wrote: post #21

My TLDR on this is that it all basically went haywire when MIT IS&T decided to call MIT Police for a machine downloading content on their network. They screwed up in many ways after that, but once someone unleashed a politically ambitious US Attorney on the case, it was kind of a lost cause. I don't believe universities should have police departments (or really that any private organizations should have police depart…

The "oh no, China!" thing is BS; traffic analysis would show that the china logins were (presumably) ssh portscans and not real connections. You have no evidence of that; you just made it up out of thin air. Odds would be that it was a MIT student scraping Every large network, and there's no reason to exclude MIT, gets attacked by non-students on a regular basis. They can't just assume every portscan is innocuous.

> You have no evidence of that; you just made it up out of thin air.

It's actually addressed in the report:

"Ultimately, MIT concluded that the communication from the IP address located in China was a — not unusual — “pinging” attempt by someone or some entity in China to determine what computer systems at MIT were available and accessible, and unrelated to the activity of this laptop."

Re: MIT releases report on its actions in the Aaron Swartz case

#72

Post by res0nat0r »

chaostheory wrote: post #70
res0nat0r wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question above: Is a 6 month sentence and no jail time plea bargain considered disproportionate?

That was only mentioned AFTER he died. Let's take a look at their press release: http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.... "AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by…

Unless he had the worlds worst lawyer, he would have known that those terms are theoretical maximums which always get trotted out in the news and in press releases. This keeps getting ignored for some reason in this case.

Also there are thousands of people every year sentenced to possibly long term jail time who don't kill themselves, therefore I put the blame more on Aaron himself than MIT.

Re: MIT releases report on its actions in the Aaron Swartz case

#73

Post by danielweber »

chaostheory wrote: post #70
res0nat0r wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question above: Is a 6 month sentence and no jail time plea bargain considered disproportionate?

That was only mentioned AFTER he died. Let's take a look at their press release: http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.... "AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by…

That was only mentioned AFTER he died

Maybe to outsiders, but Aaron and Aaron's lawyers both knew the six-month plea deal was on the table.

The DOJ publicly said "up to 35 years," and they deserve what they get for saying that --

-- but Aaron's lawyers didn't just fall off the turnip truck. They knew federal sentencing guidelines. Even if guilty on all counts, there were good odds that Aaron would face 0 days in jail, being a first-time non-violent offender. There was a 0.00% chance of Aaron going to jail for 35 years.

Re: MIT releases report on its actions in the Aaron Swartz case

#74

Post by betterunix »

res0nat0r wrote: post #66
burntsushi wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? That wasn't what I responded to. Look at the progression of the parent comments: >> Correct me if I'm wrong but they deserve blame for initiating the >> destruction of someone's life (jail time and fines in the millions) > So Aaron had nothing to do with getting himself into the situation that > he did? There exists such a thing known as a disproportionate response. I assumed that was the implication here. (Not…

The question above: Is a 6 month sentence and no jail time plea bargain considered disproportionate?

Yes, it is disproportionate. Anything beyond confiscating the laptop from the closet would have been disproportionate. Aaron did not harm any systems, posed to no threat, and deprived nobody of anything.

Re: MIT releases report on its actions in the Aaron Swartz case

#75

Post by betterunix »

MichaelSalib wrote: post #34
jpmattia wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Inter-agency task forces have become common in American law enforcement since 9/11. Still, you call for a Cambridge detective, the Secret Service also shows up, and that doesn't cause major head scratching? I wish the summary had expanded on that part. FD: I'm an alum. Edit: From the report: For the same reasons, the MIT Police sought forensic assistance from a detective in the Cambridge Police Department who had e…

No, it doesn't cause head scratching. You called the police because you need computer forensics expertise while investigating a crime. The local cops show up with extra computer forensics experts who are also law enforcement. Not a big deal.

Calling in a computer forensics team is already over the top, far beyond what was needed in this case.

Re: MIT releases report on its actions in the Aaron Swartz case

#76

Post by betterunix »

sendos wrote: post #20

I did not follow this case when it broke, so do guys know what Aaron planned on doing with all that JSTOR material he was downloading? (~80% of JSTOR, according to one article I read)

It is not clear. The prosecution claims that his goal was to distribute the articles freely to the world (yes, the terrible crime of using university resources to spread knowledge), but that is just a hypothesis based on statements he made years ago.

Re: MIT releases report on its actions in the Aaron Swartz case

#77

Post by chaostheory »

res0nat0r wrote: post #72
chaostheory wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was only mentioned AFTER he died. Let's take a look at their press release: http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.... "AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by…

Unless he had the worlds worst lawyer, he would have known that those terms are theoretical maximums which always get trotted out in the news and in press releases. This keeps getting ignored for some reason in this case. Also there are thousands of people every year sentenced to possibly long term jail time who don't kill themselves, therefore I put the blame more on Aaron himself than MIT.

"Andy Good, Swartz’s initial lawyer, is ­alternately sad and furious.

'The thing that galls me is that I told Heymann the kid was a suicide risk,' Good told me. 'His reaction was a standard reaction in that office, not unique to Steve. He said, ‘Fine, we’ll lock him up.’ I’m not saying they made Aaron kill himself. Aaron might have done this anyway. I’m saying they were aware of the risk, and they were heedless.'"

"Marty Weinberg, who took the case over from Good, said he nearly negotiated a plea bargain in which Swartz would not serve any time. He said JSTOR signed off on it, but MIT would not.

'There were subsets of the MIT community who were profoundly in support of Aaron,' Weinberg said. That support did not override institutional interests."

Re: MIT releases report on its actions in the Aaron Swartz case

#78

Post by res0nat0r »

betterunix wrote: post #74
res0nat0r wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question above: Is a 6 month sentence and no jail time plea bargain considered disproportionate?

Yes, it is disproportionate. Anything beyond confiscating the laptop from the closet would have been disproportionate. Aaron did not harm any systems, posed to no threat, and deprived nobody of anything.

Well, except:

On January 6, 2011, Swartz was arrested near the Harvard campus by two MIT police officers and a U.S. Secret Service agent. He was arraigned in Cambridge District Court on two state charges of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony.

On July 11, 2011, Swartz was indicted in Federal District Court on four felony counts: wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer and recklessly damaging a protected computer.

On November 17, 2011, Swartz was indicted by a Middlesex County Superior Court grand jury on state charges of breaking and entering with intent, grand larceny and unauthorized access to a computer network.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Aaron_Swartz#A...

Re: MIT releases report on its actions in the Aaron Swartz case

#79

Post by chaostheory »

res0nat0r wrote: post #78
betterunix wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is disproportionate. Anything beyond confiscating the laptop from the closet would have been disproportionate. Aaron did not harm any systems, posed to no threat, and deprived nobody of anything.

Well, except: On January 6, 2011, Swartz was arrested near the Harvard campus by two MIT police officers and a U.S. Secret Service agent. He was arraigned in Cambridge District Court on two state charges of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. On July 11, 2011, Swartz was indicted in Federal District Court on four felony counts: wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a prot…

So where exactly does it state that Aaron caused damage to systems, posed a threat, and deprived people of something?

What you posted is a fancy way of saying that Aaron logged into JTSTOR using his own credentials and downloaded publicly funded research papers onto a computer hidden in an MIT supply closet. Who's the victim in his crime?

Post reply on HN