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

MIT faulted over its support for students

bostonglobe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: MIT faulted over its support for students

#41

Post by tsotha »

woofuls wrote: post #40
tsotha wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So by your reasoning, students caught smoking marijuana should be expelled? Depends. If it's a felony where you are, then yes. >What about people like Edward Snowden? What about him? If the feds ever catch up with Snowden he'll go to jail, and that's where he belongs. >Should he have gotten the Aaron Swartz treatment too if he were at MIT? Right, because all laws are just. Justice is a subjective thing, and that's w…

You shouldn't put so much faith into our system. Your theoretical model for how the system works falls short of reality. If you truly think the law is applied equally among all, you need to do some serious research. The powerful among us don't have to obey the laws like everyone else. Finally, it isn't the powerless among us writing or influencing those who do write the laws.

>Your theoretical model for how the system works falls short of reality. If you truly think the law is applied equally among all, you need to do some serious research.

Actually, the laws in the US are pretty evenly enforced. It's as close as you're going to get in the real world.

>Finally, it isn't the powerless among us writing or influencing those who do write the laws.

Everyone gets to vote. Granted, we can't all make large campaign contributions, but ultimately the vote is what actually matters.

Re: MIT faulted over its support for students

#42

Post by sillysaurus3 »

rayiner wrote: post #36
angersock wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Scientific advancement is a process that overwhelmingly happens purposefully, not through tinkering. " Tinkering is exactly what got us Linux, what got us Unix, and what got us radio communication and x-rays. So, no, I do believe you are mistaken.

Linux isn't a great example of scientific advancement, being a clone of UNIX. UNIX was the product of a commercial research lab. BSD was the product of an academic research lab. I'm not sure who you're referring to with radios and Xrays, but those were discovered in a very different time. A lot of those folks were professors and today would be doing funded work at universities.

The important advancements in the recent modern world haven't really been scientific in the traditional sense of "scientific advancement." The advancements of the last decade are more like engineering than pure scientific discovery. Under that definition, Linux certainly qualifies, because it's a major feat of engineering regardless of its roots in Unix.

Would you mind giving your thoughts on http://paulgraham.com/america.html ? Specifically, point #7:

If there are any laws regulating businesses, you can assume larval startups will break most of them, because they don't know what the laws are and don't have time to find out.

For example, many startups in America begin in places where it's not really legal to run a business. Hewlett-Packard, Apple, and Google were all run out of garages. Many more startups, including ours, were initially run out of apartments. If the laws against such things were actually enforced, most startups wouldn't happen.

That could be a problem in fussier countries. If Hewlett and Packard tried running an electronics company out of their garage in Switzerland, the old lady next door would report them to the municipal authorities.

The reason I responded the way I did is because you seem to be arguing for a docile population, which to anyone who has studied history is a recipe for disaster.

Re: MIT faulted over its support for students

#43

Post by munin »

mindslight wrote: post #37
rayiner wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're free to think whatever you want. This is about interfering with other peoples' property. Personally, I think people over-romanticize hacker culture in saying it's a key part of technological progress. Scientific advancement is a process that overwhelmingly happens purposefully, not through tinkering. It's DARPA funding defense contractors to invent TCP/IP, not some kids "learning" by breaking into other people…

Perhaps these "other people" who don't want their property "interfered with" should not wantonly hook it up to a global communications network full of anonymous actors. In an ideal world the law would quickly change to match the reality of an unaccountable network, hacking itself would be legal, and only specific intended harm caused by it would be a crime. The problem here stems from young being people more in touch…

cool! would you be okay if someone hacked your computer and posted all of your e-mail to the public?

Re: MIT faulted over its support for students

#44

Post by alexnking »

tsotha wrote: post #20

Grow up, kids. The law applies to you too.

What "law"? Just because the authorities in New Jersey try to attack (Massachusetts) university students for a proof of concept project doesn't mean the law is on their side.

But even if the law is on the side of the students (which I believe is obvious), that doesn't necessarily mean much if they don't have the same level of legal support that the state has at its disposal. This is why MIT fully supporting their students is so vital.

Re: MIT faulted over its support for students

#45

Post by rayiner »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #42
rayiner wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linux isn't a great example of scientific advancement, being a clone of UNIX. UNIX was the product of a commercial research lab. BSD was the product of an academic research lab. I'm not sure who you're referring to with radios and Xrays, but those were discovered in a very different time. A lot of those folks were professors and today would be doing funded work at universities.

The important advancements in the recent modern world haven't really been scientific in the traditional sense of "scientific advancement." The advancements of the last decade are more like engineering than pure scientific discovery. Under that definition, Linux certainly qualifies, because it's a major feat of engineering regardless of its roots in Unix. Would you mind giving your thoughts on http://paulgraham.com/am…

> Under that definition, Linux certainly qualifies, because it's a major feat of engineering regardless of its roots in Unix.

Linux is a very advanced piece of engineering today, but much of that development was done by professionals hired by companies like IBM and Google. Also, I wouldn't conflate "hacker culture" with open source generally. I'm sure there is a lot of overlap, but I imagine that there are plenty of open source hackers who didn't grow up breaking into peoples' computers.

> Would you mind giving your thoughts on http://paulgraham.com/america.html ? Specifically, point #7:

In law there is a distinction between offenses that are "malum prohibitum" (i.e. wrong because they are prohibited) and offenses that are "malum in se." (i.e. wrong because they are inherently wrong). Running a business out of your garage in violation of zoning is malum prohibitum. Infringing property rights have historically been considered malum in se.

Laws create social norms. The social norms surrounding private property are very stringent. I leave my door unlocked, because the social norm is such that most people would never even think of entering someone's house "just because the door was unlocked." The social norms on the internet are still in flux, but as it matures and people come to rely on it, they will move in the direction of being more like those in the real world. Boundaries in digital space will come to resemble boundaries in real space.

> The reason I responded the way I did is because you seem to be arguing for a docile population, which to anyone who has studied history is a recipe for disaster.

I don't see where you get "docile." Out in Texas, trespassing on someone's physical property can get you shot in the face. Nothing docile about it. Fortunately for hackers, this is not precedent in the digital realm.

Re: MIT faulted over its support for students

#46

Post by omegaworks »

tzs wrote: post #24
suprgeek wrote: post #5

This has been long time coming. These days if a student or young person does what Steve Jobs (phone device) or Bill Gates (exploiting bugs for more Computer time) did and got away with, they face lawsuits and decades in Jail. It is up to Universities like MIT to aggressively intervene in these cases and ensure that young people are free to (some extent) break systems and exploit system weaknesses in the interest of l…

> MIT did the opposite in the Aaron Shwartz case, their conduct was in large part responsible for Ortiz & Heyman getting Aaron over a barrel of 30 years in the pokey Swartz was, if he rejected the plea bargain that would have given him a few months at most and went to trial and lost on all charges, looking at around 7 years at the extreme outside, tops, not 30. If you would like the detail on why this is so, take a l…

The feds tore apart his life. They forced his girlfriend to speak out against him. He couldn't trust anyone, his coworkers, the school. They were out for blood, his blood. You want a felony on your record? Say goodbye to financial aid, and look forward to explaining it to everyone that runs a background check on you - if you even get the chance to explain.

Re: MIT faulted over its support for students

#47

Post by omegaworks »

tsotha wrote: post #32
asdfologist wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So by your reasoning, students caught smoking marijuana should be expelled? What about people like Edward Snowden? Should he have gotten the Aaron Swartz treatment too if he were at MIT? Right, because all laws are just.

>So by your reasoning, students caught smoking marijuana should be expelled? Depends. If it's a felony where you are, then yes. >What about people like Edward Snowden? What about him? If the feds ever catch up with Snowden he'll go to jail, and that's where he belongs. >Should he have gotten the Aaron Swartz treatment too if he were at MIT? Right, because all laws are just. Justice is a subjective thing, and that's w…

>Depends. If it's a felony where you are, then yes.

Lawrence Kohlburg classifies this kind of reasoning at the fourth of six stages of moral development. [1] Laws are created by people - no, even worse: by committee. Do you think people who have committed no violence on others ought to be stripped of their education and opportunities?

>The upside is people in power have to obey the laws just like everyone else.

This principle is violated time and time again by people in power. Consider the recent fines imposed on HSBC for facilitating money laundering in latin america. A pittance. A slap on the wrist. The consequences for them didn't even come close to the profits they made.

1. http://brianwilliamson.id.au/cit/level1/psych1/kohlberg.pdf

Re: MIT faulted over its support for students

#48

Post by omegaworks »

tsotha wrote: post #41
woofuls wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You shouldn't put so much faith into our system. Your theoretical model for how the system works falls short of reality. If you truly think the law is applied equally among all, you need to do some serious research. The powerful among us don't have to obey the laws like everyone else. Finally, it isn't the powerless among us writing or influencing those who do write the laws.

>Your theoretical model for how the system works falls short of reality. If you truly think the law is applied equally among all, you need to do some serious research. Actually, the laws in the US are pretty evenly enforced. It's as close as you're going to get in the real world. >Finally, it isn't the powerless among us writing or influencing those who do write the laws. Everyone gets to vote. Granted, we can't all…

>Everyone gets to vote. Granted, we can't all make large campaign contributions, but ultimately the vote is what actually matters.

Wrong, on the most basic level. [1]

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_State...

Re: MIT faulted over its support for students

#49

Post by dalke »

omegaworks wrote: post #48
tsotha wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Your theoretical model for how the system works falls short of reality. If you truly think the law is applied equally among all, you need to do some serious research. Actually, the laws in the US are pretty evenly enforced. It's as close as you're going to get in the real world. >Finally, it isn't the powerless among us writing or influencing those who do write the laws. Everyone gets to vote. Granted, we can't all…

>Everyone gets to vote. Granted, we can't all make large campaign contributions, but ultimately the vote is what actually matters. Wrong, on the most basic level. [1] 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_State...

Also wrong because in many states convicted felons are disenfranchised. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement#Unite... . "As of 2010, all the various state felony disenfranchisement laws added together block an estimated 5.9 million Americans from voting."

Re: MIT faulted over its support for students

#50

Post by angersock »

akerl_ wrote: post #25
angersock wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The laws are obviously not worth the paper they're printed on--they are neither wholly reformative nor punitive in nature, and their administration could best be described as whimsical if not outright malicious. So, no, why should we assume our kids should follow that bollocks?

Having issues with the government / laws does not mean that people get to just toss them out the window.

What is the point of following the laws if they are increasingly just used to justify somebody else's paycheck?

Think very hard about your statement: if there is no practical way of reforming a system, disobedience becomes the only viable alternative.

Post reply on HN