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

61–67 of 67 posts

Re: MIT faulted over its support for students

#61

Post by danielweber »

danso wrote: post #4

So this story is from February 14, 2014, and contains a bit of "he said, MIT said"...there must be an update by now? > “Students are being threatened with legal action for doing exactly what we encourage them to do: explore and create innovative new technologies,” wrote Hal Abelson, a computer science professor; Ethan Zuckerman, director of the Center for Civic Media at MIT; and Media Lab graduate student Nathan Mati…

An MIT lawyer is prohibited from representing the best interests of the students. He is required to put the interests of MIT first.

Re: MIT faulted over its support for students

#62

Post by nitrogen »

harryh wrote: post #53
angersock wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Boundaries in digital space will come to resemble boundaries in real space." God I hope not! There's very little reason that one should reflect the other.

So would you mind handing over your email password so I can go snooping around for a while? I'm not malicious and I won't delete or steal anything. I'd just like to read your private correspondence.

A lot of different points of view are being conflated in this thread. Some commenters refer to a culture of tinkering and curiosity, while others think they're talking about a culture of disrespect. One comment mentions digital boundaries matching physical ones, a response decries this notion without arguing against boundaries at all, and you respond flippantly with the assumption that the parent comment doesn't want any boundaries at all

Those pushing for the preservation and promotion of "hacker culture" are really advocating a cooperative society over an adversarial one. They want us to be motivated by discovery and collective interest, not by a dog-eat-dog sense of protectionism and enemies.

Those who argue against a parity between digital and physical borders are fighting a balkanization of the Internet (and thus common society) along entrenched ideological and national lines. They aren't saying that there should be no boundaries, only that the boundaries shouldn't be arbitrarily chosen to match the status quo in the physical world.

Re: MIT faulted over its support for students

#63

Post by mindslight »

munin wrote: post #43
mindslight wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'd clearly be upset, but that doesn't mean I'd pursue legal recourse. Not that I'd even have that available to me today, unless the perpetrator is unlucky and I'm a celebrity.

And none of what I said keeps vindictively publishing someone's semi-private information from being the specific crime in your example. My point is that the serious of the situation should depend on the intent and damage caused, as well as the actual victims (email account holder) feeling of wrongedness, rather than an immediate felony because witchcraft. For example if you get into a bar fight, there is a whole spectrum from getting temporarily kicked out, to assault charges, to second-degree murder, depending on what actually occurs. While getting into a scuffle is wrong, it doesn't and shouldn't lead to life-altering penalties.

Re: MIT faulted over its support for students

#64

Post by rayiner »

nitrogen wrote: post #62
harryh wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So would you mind handing over your email password so I can go snooping around for a while? I'm not malicious and I won't delete or steal anything. I'd just like to read your private correspondence.

A lot of different points of view are being conflated in this thread. Some commenters refer to a culture of tinkering and curiosity, while others think they're talking about a culture of disrespect. One comment mentions digital boundaries matching physical ones, a response decries this notion without arguing against boundaries at all, and you respond flippantly with the assumption that the parent comment doesn't want…

There is nothing "cooperative" about accessing someone's network against their wishes. Indeed, it's anti-cooperative as well as disrespectful.

The issue, fundamentally, isn't whether digital boundaries are drawn along the same lines as physical ones. They transcend physical boundaries. The issue is whether we give the same deference to digital boundaries as to physical ones. I.e. whether we treat kids hacking into AT&T's network just for shits and giggles the same as their breaking into AT&T's corporate offices with no particular malintent in mind.

Re: MIT faulted over its support for students

#65

Post by nitrogen »

rayiner wrote: post #64
nitrogen wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of different points of view are being conflated in this thread. Some commenters refer to a culture of tinkering and curiosity, while others think they're talking about a culture of disrespect. One comment mentions digital boundaries matching physical ones, a response decries this notion without arguing against boundaries at all, and you respond flippantly with the assumption that the parent comment doesn't want…

There is nothing "cooperative" about accessing someone's network against their wishes. Indeed, it's anti-cooperative as well as disrespectful. The issue, fundamentally, isn't whether digital boundaries are drawn along the same lines as physical ones. They transcend physical boundaries. The issue is whether we give the same deference to digital boundaries as to physical ones. I.e. whether we treat kids hacking into AT…

I.e. whether we treat kids hacking into AT&T's network just for shits and giggles the same as their breaking into AT&T's corporate offices with no particular malintent in mind.

It seems to me that, right now, we treat the digital equivalent far more harshly.

Re: MIT faulted over its support for students

#66

Post by angersock »

rayiner wrote: post #64
nitrogen wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of different points of view are being conflated in this thread. Some commenters refer to a culture of tinkering and curiosity, while others think they're talking about a culture of disrespect. One comment mentions digital boundaries matching physical ones, a response decries this notion without arguing against boundaries at all, and you respond flippantly with the assumption that the parent comment doesn't want…

There is nothing "cooperative" about accessing someone's network against their wishes. Indeed, it's anti-cooperative as well as disrespectful. The issue, fundamentally, isn't whether digital boundaries are drawn along the same lines as physical ones. They transcend physical boundaries. The issue is whether we give the same deference to digital boundaries as to physical ones. I.e. whether we treat kids hacking into AT…

Well, look at it from the historical point of view: Jobs and Woz made their early money doing exactly that, building and selling blue boxes.

If you want to encourage people to learn, they have to be able to explore. To explore, they have to be able to conduct some minor mischief from time to time, if for no other reason than mischief is often what evolves into innovation.

I don't understand why you are so conservative and, well, stuffy about this.

Re: MIT faulted over its support for students

#67

Post by tsotha »

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...

It's not wrong at all. The vote is still what matters, even with the electoral college.
Post reply on HN