7 ms·

I'm still disgusted by the behavior of the MIT officials in all of this. Whenever I see or hear 'MIT' the first thing that comes to mind is: "that's the school

I'm still disgusted by the behavior of the MIT officials in all of this. Whenever I see or hear 'MIT' the first thing that comes to mind is: "that's the school that was responsible for the death of Aaron".

gnaritas 11y ago
And why would that come to mind when none of it is true? Firstly, Aaron is responsible for his own death, it was suicide. Secondly, it's the zealous prosecutor you should be mad at, MIT is not to blame here; Aaron broke many laws and they were well within their rights to have him arrested. Good intentions aside, what Aaron did was illegal and he deserved to be arrested for it; what he didn't deserve was more than probation and a slap on the wrist.
- dlandis 11y ago
  Well oftentimes colleges can and will exercise discretion when it comes to having a student arrested and they will perform their own internal inquiry to determine whether an offense warrants arrest and prosecution. That's just the way it goes. Colleges should do the right thing for their students and protect them when appropriate because all kids do stupid things. MIT would have known pretty well what type of prosecution he would face. Do you think all students who do something illegal on campus get arrested for it?
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    He didn't just do some silly illegal thing; he illegally hacked a network from a closet he should not have been in and hit it with so much traffic that he caused legitimate users of the network to suffer loss of access for multiple days and he did this multiple times after being kicked out. Legitimate users were harmed, regardless of what what anyone feels, Aaron committed a felony and was rightfully arrested. Beyond that, you seem to be overlooking the fact that it wasn't MIT that was after Aaron, but JSTOR, who constantly pushed MIT to help them locate the hacker who was taking their data from the MIT network. MIT didn't have the option to just handle the matter internally, a third party was involved who was being hacked through the MIT network. You know what happens when you're a hacktivist; you go to jail. Aaron knew he was guilty, he knew he was breaking the law when he did it, it was willful civil disobedience by his own admission. His suicide was likely the result of his knowing jail was coming even if the prosecutor hadn't been overzealous because he committed a felony and knew it and he couldn't deal with facing the consequences of his actions. He wanted to change the system, he went about it the wrong way and figured that out too late.
    - igravious 11y ago
      You can't say that it was wilful civil disobedience and then say that he went about it the wrong way, you contradict yourself as that's kind of the definition of civil disobedience. If you're saying that he ought not to been civilly disobedient then that's a different matter but what he did makes him a sort of modern-day hero. That he took his own life makes him a martyr in a weird kind of way. I know that hero and martyr are emotive words but I think I nearly feel that way about all this. And it's not theft, it's copyright infringement. Repeat after me: you can't steal bits and bytes, only copy them, and copying is infringement, not theft.
      - gnaritas 11y ago
        > You can't say that it was wilful civil disobedience and then say that he went about it the wrong way, you contradict yourself as that's kind of the definition of civil disobedience. I didn't mean "morally" wrong, I mean wrong approach. That's not contradictory at all; civil disobedience is not always the correct way to go about change. Sometimes it is, like when its done en-masse; going it alone, wrong approach. > And it's not theft Fine, infringing their data, irrelevant to the conversation; a crime no matter what label you want to apply. The right approach is to lobby to get the law changed, not break it by yourself and hope you don't get hammered.
        ddingus 11y ago
        You are very seriously misinformed. For there to be a defensible claim of theft, the property owner must lose their property. Someone experiences something missing. Infringement exists as a concept and an element of law because it is not theft, specifically.
        gnaritas 11y ago
        Already corrected that, not germane to the point; he wasn't charged with theft.
        igravious 11y ago
  - Chathamization 11y ago
    That's a very good point. It's pretty common when a sexual assault happens for the school to handle it internally rather than notify the authorities. Apparently, this is the case at MIT, and 1 in 6 female students have reported being sexually assaulted[1]. When a school sends police after someone for downloading academic files, and yet decides to not send the police after sex offenders (dealing with them internally and not even expelling them), they have pretty screwed up priorities. [1] http://tech.mit.edu/V134/N50/surveyresults.html http://tech.mit.edu/V134/N50/surveyresults.html
    - briandear 11y ago
      Swartz wasn't a MIT student and thus 'dealing with it internally' was not an available option. What would they do, put him in detention?
      - Chathamization 11y ago
        Ask Harvard to take away his JSTOR access? It doesn't seem like it would have been difficult to have found some punitive measures that didn't involve the police.
        gnaritas 11y ago
        You misunderstand what happened, Harvard wasn't involved, he went onto the MIT campus where he was not a student, to take advantage of their on campus anonymous access to JSTOR, he was abusing MIT's open anonymous policy to get the data and he kept moving around to different terminals whenever they'd kill his access to the one he was at; he finally ended up sneaking into a network closet and plugging directly into the network to get access because the public terminals he'd be using had all been shut down to lock him out. He didn't have access, he was't logged in, he was taking advantage of MIT's anonymous policy.
  - nerfhammer 11y ago
    Handling it internally was precluded by the fact that Swartz had no association with MIT. He was never a student there. There was no way for them to handle it internally. He was also caught by the MIT Police which has full state-vested arrest power, so I'm not sure if there's any turning back from the legal system at that point.
- igravious 11y ago
  Aaron was responsible for for his own death, in the same way that every human being is responsible for their own life once they reach adult-hood. To say that he was responsible is to say nothing at all really, because most of us in a forum such as this have that mental model of person-hood. Studies of suicide show that during harsh times such as during a crisis or a drought suicides go up. Of course those extra suicides are responsible for their actions but we recognise that external factors _can_ cause some people to go on downward spirals resulting in their deaths. If the justice system had been more merciful and compassionate Aaron would undoubtedly still be alive. Yes, he was responsible for taking his own life. Yes, the pressure he was put under was indirectly a cause in him taking his own life. The laws are unjust and the penalties are too harsh.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    See, now that's a perfectly reasonable statement I fully agree with. You're not blaming MIT for his death nor calling his suicide a murder.
- lsc 11y ago
  While you certainly have a point, MITs actions in this case, and in the case of Star Simpson show what looks to me (as an outsider who really wants to go to an elite college) like MIT doesn't stand behind their students the way that I would expect an elite college to stand behind their students. I mean, maybe that's just the way it is; maybe being a student at an elite institution just doesn't come with the level of privilege than I think it comes with; Maybe Stanford would have done the same thing (though my impression is that they would not.) like I said, I'm an outsider here, but the actions of MIT faculty in these two cases have significantly diminished how much I want to become a student there.
  - nerfhammer 11y ago
    aaronsw was not a student at MIT.
    - lsc 11y ago
      hm. I ought to read these things more carefully.
puppetmaster3 11y ago
Also I do as well. Any mention of MIT, first I think of Aaron.
cinquemb 11y ago
Whenever I visit MIT to work with some researchers there I always manage to sneak in an Aaron reference and love watching their faces. People can justify what happened by citing that he broke the Law™, but this is still a sore thing for many on the campus, that I think those who want to, shouldn't miss the beat to rub salt in MIT's wounds, especially because of the history around hacking at MIT. People won't think twice about things they don't like unless you make it unavoidable.
- briandear 11y ago
  How professional of you.
  - cinquemb 11y ago
    Yeah, I just want to live my life as whatever the fuck random people who really don't give a damn about me (and vice versa) equate to being as "professional"… lol Surprisingly, it doesn't stop people who want to work with me. I guess it helps when you can do useful stuff a couple standard deviations away from the vapid/banal bullshit most seem satisfied working on and aggrandizing such efforts :P
  - aws_ls 11y ago
    Your use of professional reminds me why I hate such cliche words. We are remembering a soul, whom we all feel guilty of letting down in our own ways. I am actually delighted that the GP, displays their humanity and caring, even when does not need to. Professionalism be damned, quirks and caring makes us human. Edit: And why people downvoted the GP? Are they passing their judgement on GP's raising the topic with MIT people they interact with. Please note GP is just sharing it, in an after-the-act relevant discussion.
moinnadeem 11y ago
MIT 2020 admit here: yes, it is still in the hearts and minds of the newest classes. When discussing some of our idols, one student and I both agreed upon Aaron Swartz. He may be gone, but never forgotten and the new students look up to his legacy.

gnaritas 11y ago

And why would that come to mind when none of it is true? Firstly, Aaron is responsible for his own death, it was suicide. Secondly, it's the zealous prosecutor you should be mad at, MIT is not to blame here; Aaron broke many laws and they were well within their rights to have him arrested. Good intentions aside, what Aaron did was illegal and he deserved to be arrested for it; what he didn't deserve was more than probation and a slap on the wrist.

dlandis 11y ago
Well oftentimes colleges can and will exercise discretion when it comes to having a student arrested and they will perform their own internal inquiry to determine whether an offense warrants arrest and prosecution. That's just the way it goes. Colleges should do the right thing for their students and protect them when appropriate because all kids do stupid things. MIT would have known pretty well what type of prosecution he would face. Do you think all students who do something illegal on campus get arrested for it?
- gnaritas 11y ago
  He didn't just do some silly illegal thing; he illegally hacked a network from a closet he should not have been in and hit it with so much traffic that he caused legitimate users of the network to suffer loss of access for multiple days and he did this multiple times after being kicked out. Legitimate users were harmed, regardless of what what anyone feels, Aaron committed a felony and was rightfully arrested. Beyond that, you seem to be overlooking the fact that it wasn't MIT that was after Aaron, but JSTOR, who constantly pushed MIT to help them locate the hacker who was taking their data from the MIT network. MIT didn't have the option to just handle the matter internally, a third party was involved who was being hacked through the MIT network. You know what happens when you're a hacktivist; you go to jail. Aaron knew he was guilty, he knew he was breaking the law when he did it, it was willful civil disobedience by his own admission. His suicide was likely the result of his knowing jail was coming even if the prosecutor hadn't been overzealous because he committed a felony and knew it and he couldn't deal with facing the consequences of his actions. He wanted to change the system, he went about it the wrong way and figured that out too late.
  - igravious 11y ago
    You can't say that it was wilful civil disobedience and then say that he went about it the wrong way, you contradict yourself as that's kind of the definition of civil disobedience. If you're saying that he ought not to been civilly disobedient then that's a different matter but what he did makes him a sort of modern-day hero. That he took his own life makes him a martyr in a weird kind of way. I know that hero and martyr are emotive words but I think I nearly feel that way about all this. And it's not theft, it's copyright infringement. Repeat after me: you can't steal bits and bytes, only copy them, and copying is infringement, not theft.
    - gnaritas 11y ago
      > You can't say that it was wilful civil disobedience and then say that he went about it the wrong way, you contradict yourself as that's kind of the definition of civil disobedience. I didn't mean "morally" wrong, I mean wrong approach. That's not contradictory at all; civil disobedience is not always the correct way to go about change. Sometimes it is, like when its done en-masse; going it alone, wrong approach. > And it's not theft Fine, infringing their data, irrelevant to the conversation; a crime no matter what label you want to apply. The right approach is to lobby to get the law changed, not break it by yourself and hope you don't get hammered.
      - ddingus 11y ago
        You are very seriously misinformed. For there to be a defensible claim of theft, the property owner must lose their property. Someone experiences something missing. Infringement exists as a concept and an element of law because it is not theft, specifically.
        gnaritas 11y ago
        Already corrected that, not germane to the point; he wasn't charged with theft.
      - igravious 11y ago
- Chathamization 11y ago
  That's a very good point. It's pretty common when a sexual assault happens for the school to handle it internally rather than notify the authorities. Apparently, this is the case at MIT, and 1 in 6 female students have reported being sexually assaulted[1]. When a school sends police after someone for downloading academic files, and yet decides to not send the police after sex offenders (dealing with them internally and not even expelling them), they have pretty screwed up priorities. [1] http://tech.mit.edu/V134/N50/surveyresults.html http://tech.mit.edu/V134/N50/surveyresults.html
  - briandear 11y ago
    Swartz wasn't a MIT student and thus 'dealing with it internally' was not an available option. What would they do, put him in detention?
    - Chathamization 11y ago
      Ask Harvard to take away his JSTOR access? It doesn't seem like it would have been difficult to have found some punitive measures that didn't involve the police.
      - gnaritas 11y ago
        You misunderstand what happened, Harvard wasn't involved, he went onto the MIT campus where he was not a student, to take advantage of their on campus anonymous access to JSTOR, he was abusing MIT's open anonymous policy to get the data and he kept moving around to different terminals whenever they'd kill his access to the one he was at; he finally ended up sneaking into a network closet and plugging directly into the network to get access because the public terminals he'd be using had all been shut down to lock him out. He didn't have access, he was't logged in, he was taking advantage of MIT's anonymous policy.
- nerfhammer 11y ago
  Handling it internally was precluded by the fact that Swartz had no association with MIT. He was never a student there. There was no way for them to handle it internally. He was also caught by the MIT Police which has full state-vested arrest power, so I'm not sure if there's any turning back from the legal system at that point.
igravious 11y ago
Aaron was responsible for for his own death, in the same way that every human being is responsible for their own life once they reach adult-hood. To say that he was responsible is to say nothing at all really, because most of us in a forum such as this have that mental model of person-hood. Studies of suicide show that during harsh times such as during a crisis or a drought suicides go up. Of course those extra suicides are responsible for their actions but we recognise that external factors _can_ cause some people to go on downward spirals resulting in their deaths. If the justice system had been more merciful and compassionate Aaron would undoubtedly still be alive. Yes, he was responsible for taking his own life. Yes, the pressure he was put under was indirectly a cause in him taking his own life. The laws are unjust and the penalties are too harsh.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  See, now that's a perfectly reasonable statement I fully agree with. You're not blaming MIT for his death nor calling his suicide a murder.
lsc 11y ago
While you certainly have a point, MITs actions in this case, and in the case of Star Simpson show what looks to me (as an outsider who really wants to go to an elite college) like MIT doesn't stand behind their students the way that I would expect an elite college to stand behind their students. I mean, maybe that's just the way it is; maybe being a student at an elite institution just doesn't come with the level of privilege than I think it comes with; Maybe Stanford would have done the same thing (though my impression is that they would not.) like I said, I'm an outsider here, but the actions of MIT faculty in these two cases have significantly diminished how much I want to become a student there.
- nerfhammer 11y ago
  aaronsw was not a student at MIT.
  - lsc 11y ago
    hm. I ought to read these things more carefully.

puppetmaster3 11y ago

Also I do as well. Any mention of MIT, first I think of Aaron.

cinquemb 11y ago

Whenever I visit MIT to work with some researchers there I always manage to sneak in an Aaron reference and love watching their faces. People can justify what happened by citing that he broke the Law™, but this is still a sore thing for many on the campus, that I think those who want to, shouldn't miss the beat to rub salt in MIT's wounds, especially because of the history around hacking at MIT. People won't think twice about things they don't like unless you make it unavoidable.

briandear 11y ago
How professional of you.
- cinquemb 11y ago
  Yeah, I just want to live my life as whatever the fuck random people who really don't give a damn about me (and vice versa) equate to being as "professional"… lol Surprisingly, it doesn't stop people who want to work with me. I guess it helps when you can do useful stuff a couple standard deviations away from the vapid/banal bullshit most seem satisfied working on and aggrandizing such efforts :P
- aws_ls 11y ago
  Your use of professional reminds me why I hate such cliche words. We are remembering a soul, whom we all feel guilty of letting down in our own ways. I am actually delighted that the GP, displays their humanity and caring, even when does not need to. Professionalism be damned, quirks and caring makes us human. Edit: And why people downvoted the GP? Are they passing their judgement on GP's raising the topic with MIT people they interact with. Please note GP is just sharing it, in an after-the-act relevant discussion.

moinnadeem 11y ago

MIT 2020 admit here: yes, it is still in the hearts and minds of the newest classes. When discussing some of our idols, one student and I both agreed upon Aaron Swartz. He may be gone, but never forgotten and the new students look up to his legacy.