4 ms·

How about the most basic IDS on the laptop? He really should have know it was taken from the closet (and its network connection) and then replaced. Personally,

How about the most basic IDS on the laptop? He really should have know it was taken from the closet (and its network connection) and then replaced. Personally, I'd have been more patient and used wifi. Or one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SheevaPlug http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SheevaPlug

cookiecaper 15y ago
It's hard to believe they'd go to all of this effort to catch someone who'd placed a laptop in an unmarked closet. There was no indication that a student was not allowed in the area, according to my reading. In hindsight we can think of lots of ways to defend against this kind of detection, but which of us would really think they would get the Secret Service involved to catch a person who was downloading public domain documents under a legal license awarded to the library of one of the most tech-savvy places in the world? It really should have been expected that something like this would happen. It's almost conceivable that it's not really unusual to see MIT students going to a wired connection in a network closet if necessary. While there are lots of ways to keep things private, most of us aren't constantly on maximum guard. There has to be a cost-benefit analysis, and apparently someone at JSTOR has friends high up.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- GHFigs 15y ago
  ...person who was downloading public domain documents... I hate being pedantic[1] but I keep seeing people make this mistake: JSTOR is not just public domain works, and there is no indication that the downloading was limited to public domain works. I think people are getting confused due to the release (by someone else) of a torrent of public domain material from JSTOR, but that's not a torrent of what Aaron downloaded. [1] Not really, but I hate that I don't hate it.
  - carussell 15y ago
    "I hate being pedantic[1] but I keep seeing people make this mistake: JSTOR is not just public domain works, and there is no indication that the downloading was limited to public domain works." I'd like to tweak the presentation here. Many of the comments I keep seeing (including here on HN) seem to go with the take that 1. That it positively did include works that weren't in the public domain. There doesn't seem to be any indication that this is the case. 2. That Swartz intended to distribute content downloaded from JSTOR not in the public domain. Given the credentials and history of the person in question, it just doesn't seem to be a rational conclusion that Swartz's visions of the future included consciously distributing infringing material (nor the consequences that would go along with it).
    - GHFigs 15y ago
      1. That it positively did include works that weren't in the public domain. There doesn't seem to be any indication that this is the case. It's stated in the Wired article that "much of what Swartz is accused of downloading from JSTOR is copyrighted". It's stated in JSTOR's statement that "The downloaded content included more than 4 million articles, book reviews, and other content from our publisher partners' academic journals and other publications". (Elsewhere the size of the total JSTOR library is said to be over 6 million.) The indictment states that downloads included "approximately 4.8 million articles, a major portion of the total archive in which JSTOR had invested. Of these, approximately 1.7 million were made available by independent publishers for purchase through JSTOR's Publisher Sales Service." 2. That Swartz intended to distribute content downloaded from JSTOR not in the public domain. I'll grant that the absence of detail on this claim in the indictment makes it very debatable. However, it's hard to fit any explanation about his intentions to the facts as we know them without making major assumptions about information we don't have. For instance, many people assume the downloading was for legitimate research. Not unreasonable on the face of it (given, as you say, credentials and history) but then, why does a Harvard research fellow need to covertly access JSTOR from MIT? And not just access, but download two thirds of it? There may be an entirely legitimate answer to that, but if so, it can't be gleaned from the information we currently have available.
- woodrow 15y ago
  This is a photo of the closet: http://i51.tinypic.com/2v96u61.jpg http://i51.tinypic.com/2v96u61.jpg. This doesn't look particularly welcoming, and there's no norm at MIT that suggests it's okay to enter locked IS&T wiring closets. Also, FYI, this warning is on pretty much every door of the Institute: http://i51.tinypic.com/23hlsft.jpg http://i51.tinypic.com/23hlsft.jpg
Estragon 15y ago
Yeah, a throwaway computing device in the network closet, which he then pulled the data from over the net (or, even better, which then uploaded the data to another server) would have dramatically reduced the risk he took. It's 20/20 hindsight, though. It's obvious from the way he behaved that he didn't think this was anywhere near as big a deal as it's turned out to be. And I might have easily made the same mistake.
- moonlighter 15y ago
  Well, he's accused of hiding his face from surveillance cameras by holding his bike helmet up to his face and looking through the ventilation holes. You don't do that if you don't think it's a big deal, no?
  - nitrogen 15y ago
    A bicycle helmet? I might hold a helmet over my face if I were joking around or playing a prank. If I were serious (though I highly doubt I'll end up in such a situation), I would be using something other than a bicycle helmet.

cookiecaper 15y ago

It's hard to believe they'd go to all of this effort to catch someone who'd placed a laptop in an unmarked closet. There was no indication that a student was not allowed in the area, according to my reading. In hindsight we can think of lots of ways to defend against this kind of detection, but which of us would really think they would get the Secret Service involved to catch a person who was downloading public domain documents under a legal license awarded to the library of one of the most tech-savvy places in the world? It really should have been expected that something like this would happen. It's almost conceivable that it's not really unusual to see MIT students going to a wired connection in a network closet if necessary. While there are lots of ways to keep things private, most of us aren't constantly on maximum guard. There has to be a cost-benefit analysis, and apparently someone at JSTOR has friends high up.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
GHFigs 15y ago
...person who was downloading public domain documents... I hate being pedantic[1] but I keep seeing people make this mistake: JSTOR is not just public domain works, and there is no indication that the downloading was limited to public domain works. I think people are getting confused due to the release (by someone else) of a torrent of public domain material from JSTOR, but that's not a torrent of what Aaron downloaded. [1] Not really, but I hate that I don't hate it.
- carussell 15y ago
  "I hate being pedantic[1] but I keep seeing people make this mistake: JSTOR is not just public domain works, and there is no indication that the downloading was limited to public domain works." I'd like to tweak the presentation here. Many of the comments I keep seeing (including here on HN) seem to go with the take that 1. That it positively did include works that weren't in the public domain. There doesn't seem to be any indication that this is the case. 2. That Swartz intended to distribute content downloaded from JSTOR not in the public domain. Given the credentials and history of the person in question, it just doesn't seem to be a rational conclusion that Swartz's visions of the future included consciously distributing infringing material (nor the consequences that would go along with it).
  - GHFigs 15y ago
    1. That it positively did include works that weren't in the public domain. There doesn't seem to be any indication that this is the case. It's stated in the Wired article that "much of what Swartz is accused of downloading from JSTOR is copyrighted". It's stated in JSTOR's statement that "The downloaded content included more than 4 million articles, book reviews, and other content from our publisher partners' academic journals and other publications". (Elsewhere the size of the total JSTOR library is said to be over 6 million.) The indictment states that downloads included "approximately 4.8 million articles, a major portion of the total archive in which JSTOR had invested. Of these, approximately 1.7 million were made available by independent publishers for purchase through JSTOR's Publisher Sales Service." 2. That Swartz intended to distribute content downloaded from JSTOR not in the public domain. I'll grant that the absence of detail on this claim in the indictment makes it very debatable. However, it's hard to fit any explanation about his intentions to the facts as we know them without making major assumptions about information we don't have. For instance, many people assume the downloading was for legitimate research. Not unreasonable on the face of it (given, as you say, credentials and history) but then, why does a Harvard research fellow need to covertly access JSTOR from MIT? And not just access, but download two thirds of it? There may be an entirely legitimate answer to that, but if so, it can't be gleaned from the information we currently have available.
woodrow 15y ago
This is a photo of the closet: http://i51.tinypic.com/2v96u61.jpg http://i51.tinypic.com/2v96u61.jpg. This doesn't look particularly welcoming, and there's no norm at MIT that suggests it's okay to enter locked IS&T wiring closets. Also, FYI, this warning is on pretty much every door of the Institute: http://i51.tinypic.com/23hlsft.jpg http://i51.tinypic.com/23hlsft.jpg

Estragon 15y ago

Yeah, a throwaway computing device in the network closet, which he then pulled the data from over the net (or, even better, which then uploaded the data to another server) would have dramatically reduced the risk he took. It's 20/20 hindsight, though. It's obvious from the way he behaved that he didn't think this was anywhere near as big a deal as it's turned out to be. And I might have easily made the same mistake.

moonlighter 15y ago
Well, he's accused of hiding his face from surveillance cameras by holding his bike helmet up to his face and looking through the ventilation holes. You don't do that if you don't think it's a big deal, no?
- nitrogen 15y ago
  A bicycle helmet? I might hold a helmet over my face if I were joking around or playing a prank. If I were serious (though I highly doubt I'll end up in such a situation), I would be using something other than a bicycle helmet.