4 ms·
Although Swartz's intentions were noble, what he did with concealing equipment in a locker(IIRC) was illegal.
by ap46 10y ago
Although Swartz's intentions were noble, what he did with concealing equipment in a locker(IIRC) was illegal.
- dogma1138 10y agoHe connected to and bridged a secure government network with an unauthorized device this was what triggered the whole thing. The FBI was involved before it was even discovered who it was or what was the purpose of the device. When an institution discovers such an incident when an unauthorized device is plugged to a secure network and in a covert manner their hands are tied.
- extra88 10y agoIt was MIT's network, not a government network. The network was not "secure," campus guests can use it though leaving a computer connected 24/7 in a wiring closet (that could have been locked but wasn't) clearly exceeds the campus policy. The JSTOR link makes it pretty clear that his activity, including that which involved using the hidden computer, came before federal involvement. Given the language of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, I think the outcome could have been the same for an MIT student or faculty member, it would've mattered to the federal attorney. JSTOR's and MIT's hands were tied in the sense that they were not party to the aggressive prosecution of Swartz, the federal attorney had a lot of discretion as to how to handle the case and chose to be very aggressive.