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

DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

pjmedia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–96 of 96 posts

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#91

Post by s_q_b »

pvnick wrote: post #24

Aaron was also involved in some groundbreaking software development for political activism [1] [2]. I find it extremely easy to believe that someone in the DoJ saw that and decided to make an example out of him to dissuade other "hacktivists." [1] http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/stron... [2] https://github.com/naomifox/mass-email-delivery-code

The files themselves point out that the Secret Service first began investigating Swartz with the publication of his "Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto."

The smart people in law enforcement are scared sh*tless of hacktivists, so it's totally possible they lumped him in with the Sabu/Hammond/Lulzsec crowd.

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#92

Post by gizmo686 »

ferdo wrote: post #12
tareqak wrote: post #9

This story makes me wonder what would have happened if the Watergate scandal would have happened in the age of the Internet. Would the Internet rally in favour of Richard Nixon's impeachment and against his subsequent pardon? Would impeachment proceedings still take place irrespective of the pardon because of massive public support?

The NSA spying on all of us is a bigger crime and a bigger scandal than Watergate. I don't see any groundswell for impeachment.

The NSA and Watergate are very different types of things. In Watergate, the Administration engaged in targeted, illegal spying on political opponents. The NSA has Congressional approval for a surveillance program, and there has not yet been evidence to point to them using that for political gain.

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#93

Post by rhizome »

kps wrote: post #86
rhizome wrote: post #28

So Heymann increased the apparent penalties based on Swartz exercising First Amendment rights? So much for rule of law.

It's universal for prosecutors to increase the penalties sought when a defendant exercises their Sixth Amendment rights; why should the First be any different?

It's idealistic, sure, but exercising these rights doesn't change the evidence.

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#94

Post by pdonis »

s_q_b wrote: post #88
pdonis wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I have read the report in detail. Hmm. I'm not sure you read the same report I did. MIT in fact began the prosecution through contacting law enforcement Local law enforcement, yes--because, as the report notes, they did not have the in-house expertise to figure out what was going on. MIT did not call in the Secret Service; local law enforcement did. And calling law enforcement to help figure out who is using you…

I would debunk this piece by piece, but it's more efficient to make my point with a single example. >"Local law enforcement, yes--because, as the report notes, they did not have the in-house expertise to figure out what was going on." Your argument, on Hacker News, which you find perfectly plausible, is that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology lacked sufficient in-house expertise to diagnose a mass download via…

to diagnose a mass download via curl

It wasn't the downloading that was hard to diagnose; they figured out pretty quickly what was being downloaded. What caused the difficulty was the tactics that were used to circumvent the normal controls on downloading and usage of the network. I do find it plausible (though very disappointing) that the MIT administration did not have in-house expertise in the low-level diagnosis necessary to deal with that. How familiar are you with MIT?

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#95

Post by Vivtek »

angersock wrote: post #66
Vivtek wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the message was meant for the Internet, actually. Something like "You think you own this country? We'll show you who owns this country".

I don't think they appreciate how utterly annoying maintaining that position will prove to them.

I certainly hope you're correct.

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#96

Post by AaronFriel »

s_q_b wrote: post #90
mh- wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the key part of that is the C in SCI. an SCI merely means you've been pre-screened to be allowed access . it still requires stakeholders delegating access to said individuals for different [sub]compartments.

Very true. However, when creating security policy, one should always keep in mind those that have permission to access information, rather than those that have actual access to information. It's a nightmare to me that there could be 15 people that have actual access to information, but a random official in the chain of command could give any one of 1.4 million people access to it without any further vetting.

I suspect the process is a little more difficult than a random official granting access without vetting.
Post reply on HN