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

Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

blog.achernya.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 220 posts

Re: Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

#131

Post by eropple »

droithomme wrote: post #82
Permit wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Quit whining. What an excellent way to win the hearts and minds of the MIT student body. Congratulations you've managed to belittle and alienate the same people you'd want on your side!

Why would anyone want to have on their side people who choose to give money to support a murderous anti-freedom organization like MIT? You know what it represents now. You choose to continue to be associated with them. That is not an innocent decision.

A murderous anti-freedom organization that was apparently OK with a six-month plea deal[1] that Swartz's legal team rejected. So I guess if you want to go that route you can call them "anti-freedom", though I too am against the freedom to crack into other people's networks too. But murderous? Hyperbolic silliness.

You do not help the cause you claim to support by screaming, spittle-flecked, at passers-by.

[1] - http://boston.com/metrodesk/2013/01/14/mit-hacking-case-lawy...

Re: Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

#133

Post by rprasad »

armored_mammal wrote: post #52
gfosco wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really?... It's not their battle. Why does a student at MIT have to have a position on this at all?

What, do you think people have no social responsibility towards the institutions they support? If you belonged to the Westboro Baptist Church or some other group it'd be legit to claim you're responsible for their actions to a certain degree. Why do MIT students get a special exemption from the chain of responsibility that applies to everyone else? If you are a member of a collectivist institution it's also your resp…

That's like saying that if your father raped someone, you raped that person too. It's the same logic that was applied to Jews, Gypsies, and slaves for centuries (and is still applied in the Middle East today). It has no place in modern discourse.

Re: Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

#134

Post by 3327 »

why should they stop? MIT has blood on its hands. maybe you should email your schools president for an apology? maybe all the students should? Why are you the victim? why are students of MIT the victim? there is only 1 victim here and its nor you or the students of MIT.

Re: Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

#135

Post by malandrew »

Yver wrote: post #105
gojomo wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the effect of a 'protest' is to prevent people from accessing online information that they'd like to access, it goes against Aaron's anti-censorship views. Every bully wants to 'discomfort' their opponents into changing. Those who use DDoS are more like the federal prosecutors -- making 'destructive' threats, expecting change through punishment -- than Aaron.

And how did that work out for him by the way? I head they've dropped their lawsuit? Also, if DDoS is "destructive" then copying a file is stealing.

A DDOS is a trespass to chattels. It denies others the use of a resource they own or have a right to use.

I would rather see anonymous discover who at MIT is responsible for this matter and dox them than deny students access to their network. Doxing is like a sniper attack. DDoSing is like dropping napalm on villages.

Re: Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

#136

Post by gfosco »

armored_mammal wrote: post #52
gfosco wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really?... It's not their battle. Why does a student at MIT have to have a position on this at all?

What, do you think people have no social responsibility towards the institutions they support? If you belonged to the Westboro Baptist Church or some other group it'd be legit to claim you're responsible for their actions to a certain degree. Why do MIT students get a special exemption from the chain of responsibility that applies to everyone else? If you are a member of a collectivist institution it's also your resp…

You lost me at Westboro Baptist Church, which isn't comparable. WBC is a voluntary group, which I assume you can enter and exit without penalty.

Imagine you're a student, halfway through your 4 year program at MIT... You don't know Aaron, or anything about his situation. Yes, you get an exemption from blame, because it has nothing to do with you and it's not your business. You cannot just exit and go elsewhere without seriously hurting yourself.

When you're enrolled at a University, you are not part of a collectivist institution, you are a customer at a business. If you choose to go elsewhere, that's on you, but who is anyone else to tell you what you should do? You're starting to sound like the WBC...

Re: Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

#137

Post by Jach »

Cushman wrote: post #132
Jach wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not even close. https://twitter.com/shit_hn_says

Yeah, that twitter is stupider than anything I've seen on HN.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. All the tweets from that twitter account come from comments made by HN users.

Re: Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

#138

Post by Permit »

droithomme wrote: post #82
Permit wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Quit whining. What an excellent way to win the hearts and minds of the MIT student body. Congratulations you've managed to belittle and alienate the same people you'd want on your side!

Why would anyone want to have on their side people who choose to give money to support a murderous anti-freedom organization like MIT? You know what it represents now. You choose to continue to be associated with them. That is not an innocent decision.

It's incredible, because it's people like yourself who drive people away from the causes you're trying to promote. But somehow you can't see that.

Any cause would do well to distance itself from people who compare MIT to the Nazi Youth[1]. Extremes don't help.

[1]http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5050412

Re: Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

#139

Post by geofft »

btilly wrote: post #91
geofft wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it won't. I certainly hope MIT makes serious changes in its leadership and ethics (if it turns out, after all, that MIT was in some way responsible -- that's still very unclear), but that's not because anyone's DDoSing MIT, it's because I can see the story. If there's a bug in your system, fix the bug. Don't delete a file in another directory and call it change.

if it turns out, after all, that MIT was in some way responsible -- that's still very unclear In the Boston Globe, Aaron's lawyer says that a suggested plea deal with probation and no actual jail sentence was rejected by MIT, and that played a part in the prosecutor pushing for harsher judgement. If there is any truth in that, then there is evidence that MIT did indeed play enough of a role to have some of the respon…

Yes, if that turns out to be accurate I will be very angry with MIT. While I would like to trust the defense lawyers (including Lessig, who I look up to a lot) on this, they are admittedly not the most unbiased parties, and out of a desire for fairness I'm withholding judgment until more facts come out.

I am absolutely looking forward to Abelson's report.

Re: Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network

#140

Post by gojomo »

Yver wrote: post #105
gojomo wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the effect of a 'protest' is to prevent people from accessing online information that they'd like to access, it goes against Aaron's anti-censorship views. Every bully wants to 'discomfort' their opponents into changing. Those who use DDoS are more like the federal prosecutors -- making 'destructive' threats, expecting change through punishment -- than Aaron.

And how did that work out for him by the way? I head they've dropped their lawsuit? Also, if DDoS is "destructive" then copying a file is stealing.

How did it work out for him? For Aaron's causes, his constructive rather than destructive approach worked fairly well, creating change and earning wide awareness and respect.

I wish he'd stuck it out; had there been a trial (and possibly sentencing), the public would have learned many of the same lessons about overzealous prosecution, the JSTOR project, the CFAA, the obsolescence of copyright, and importance of open access. Plus, he'd still be with us.

I also believe Aaron's causes with regard to copyright and censorship will succeed in coming decades, easily within his natural lifespan, and he would have helped them succeed faster, so I'm sad he'll miss it.

DDoS is destructive (unlike any amount of copying) because it disables access and functionality and effectively censors content by blocking individual learning and communication. It causes more resources to be be wasted on paranoia and layers-of-defense. It causes a hardening of positions and growth of suspicion. It is much easier to portray Aaron's supporters as 'vandals' if they help by actually committing vandalism. (I'd guess that as an 'applied sociologist', Aaron understood this well.)

That these DoS effects are often temporary is no defense: it's destroying people's freedom-to-communicate for a time... and the early death of a young person should remind you that ultimately all we have is time.

Post reply on HN