4 ms·

Apparently, the MIT and/or JSTOR staff took down the service themselves when they detected the mass downloads. It was not Aaron's "attack" that brought down the

Apparently, the MIT and/or JSTOR staff took down the service themselves when they detected the mass downloads. It was not Aaron's "attack" that brought down the access.

MichaelSalib 14y ago
So what? Aaron violated MIT's policies and JSTOR's policies and the result was that a large community of scholars lost access. Those scholars would have had access if Aaron hadn't done what he did.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  The only harm was manufactured by the "victims". Were it not for the "victims" manufacturing this harm, they would not be called victims at all. They essentially bootstrapped their own victim-hood. If you don't see why that is relevant in an ethical consideration of his actions, then I cannot help you.
  - MichaelSalib 14y ago
    This is taking victim blaming to new heights. Is it now the victim's fault they don't acquiesce to a lawbreakers' demands? Doesn't MIT have the right to decide who is allowed to use their network and in what manner? Can I break into your home and use your internet connection as I see fit without your complaint?
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      Is it similarly victim blaming when people call shit on the RIAA for claiming thousands of dollars of damages per mp3? Give me a break, and knock it off with the emotionally charged language. MIT isn't the victim of domestic abuse or sexual assault. > Can I break into your home and use your internet connection as I see fit without your complaint? They dropped the trespassing charges, the only charges that had merit.
      - MichaelSalib 14y ago
        But if I broke into your house and used your internet connection, the only harm would come from you, the "victim", objecting to my behavior. You'd be bootstrapping your own victimhood, right?
        jlgreco 14y ago
        If I were choosing to object to you on the grounds that you trespassed, then no. If I were to drop the trespassing charges and choose to object on the grounds that I had to throw out my router because you used it, then I would indeed be manufacturing victomhood. I'll repeat myself. They dropped the trespassing charges.
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
        carbocation 14y ago
        > "You realize that about 40% of the money that comes into MIT comes from the federal government right?" Based on this non sequitur, can we infer that you have tacitly accepted jlgreco's point?
    - DannyBee 14y ago
      He didn't break into anywhere. MIT had an open network. Can I use my neighbor's open wireless network without it being a crime? All signs point to yes.
      - mpyne 14y ago
        We do all realize that there's a difference between breaking locks and trespassing, right?
        jlgreco 14y ago
        Oh yeah, they would have had a case for trespassing. BUT THEY DROPPED THOSE CHARGES.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- DannyBee 14y ago
  If violation of TOS'en was a crime (thankfully, courts so far have ruled it's not), we'd all pretty much be screwed. the fact that someone did something dumb does not make it illegal. If i buy so many lottery tickets that the state thinks it's fraudulent, and shuts down the lottery for a day, that doesn't make me guilty of anything. (As I said, TOS violations are simply not crimes. No court has ever held otherwise)
rgbrenner 14y ago
That is not correct. He launched what amounted to a DoS against JSTOR: " the strain it put on JSTOR’s servers was enough to have impaired other research institutions attempting to access the materials." "Together, Grace and Gary Host downloaded JSTOR articles at such an astounding pace that several of JSTOR’s servers crashed." http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N30/swartz.html http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N30/swartz.html
- ghshephard 14y ago
  Every journal database I have done bulk downloads from (sometimes constantly) over a week requires a cookie and sends you a polite message (via http no less) asking you to put in a few seconds pause between each request. It would not have occurred to me that they haven't configured their servers to handle the load. Once again - Aaron did nothing that I, and tens of thousands of people like me, haven't done many times.
  - rgbrenner 14y ago
    You've downloaded millions of articles from JSTOR? Or how MIT put it: "more than 100 times the number of legitimate JSTOR downloads at MIT during that time period"

Apparently, the MIT and/or JSTOR staff took down the service themselves when they detected the mass downloads. It was not Aaron's "attack" that brought down the access.

MichaelSalib 14y ago

So what? Aaron violated MIT's policies and JSTOR's policies and the result was that a large community of scholars lost access. Those scholars would have had access if Aaron hadn't done what he did.

jlgreco 14y ago
The only harm was manufactured by the "victims". Were it not for the "victims" manufacturing this harm, they would not be called victims at all. They essentially bootstrapped their own victim-hood. If you don't see why that is relevant in an ethical consideration of his actions, then I cannot help you.
- MichaelSalib 14y ago
  This is taking victim blaming to new heights. Is it now the victim's fault they don't acquiesce to a lawbreakers' demands? Doesn't MIT have the right to decide who is allowed to use their network and in what manner? Can I break into your home and use your internet connection as I see fit without your complaint?
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Is it similarly victim blaming when people call shit on the RIAA for claiming thousands of dollars of damages per mp3? Give me a break, and knock it off with the emotionally charged language. MIT isn't the victim of domestic abuse or sexual assault. > Can I break into your home and use your internet connection as I see fit without your complaint? They dropped the trespassing charges, the only charges that had merit.
    - MichaelSalib 14y ago
      But if I broke into your house and used your internet connection, the only harm would come from you, the "victim", objecting to my behavior. You'd be bootstrapping your own victimhood, right?
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        If I were choosing to object to you on the grounds that you trespassed, then no. If I were to drop the trespassing charges and choose to object on the grounds that I had to throw out my router because you used it, then I would indeed be manufacturing victomhood. I'll repeat myself. They dropped the trespassing charges.
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
        carbocation 14y ago
        > "You realize that about 40% of the money that comes into MIT comes from the federal government right?" Based on this non sequitur, can we infer that you have tacitly accepted jlgreco's point?
  - DannyBee 14y ago
    He didn't break into anywhere. MIT had an open network. Can I use my neighbor's open wireless network without it being a crime? All signs point to yes.
    - mpyne 14y ago
      We do all realize that there's a difference between breaking locks and trespassing, right?
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        Oh yeah, they would have had a case for trespassing. BUT THEY DROPPED THOSE CHARGES.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
DannyBee 14y ago
If violation of TOS'en was a crime (thankfully, courts so far have ruled it's not), we'd all pretty much be screwed. the fact that someone did something dumb does not make it illegal. If i buy so many lottery tickets that the state thinks it's fraudulent, and shuts down the lottery for a day, that doesn't make me guilty of anything. (As I said, TOS violations are simply not crimes. No court has ever held otherwise)

rgbrenner 14y ago

That is not correct. He launched what amounted to a DoS against JSTOR: " the strain it put on JSTOR’s servers was enough to have impaired other research institutions attempting to access the materials." "Together, Grace and Gary Host downloaded JSTOR articles at such an astounding pace that several of JSTOR’s servers crashed." http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N30/swartz.html http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N30/swartz.html

ghshephard 14y ago
Every journal database I have done bulk downloads from (sometimes constantly) over a week requires a cookie and sends you a polite message (via http no less) asking you to put in a few seconds pause between each request. It would not have occurred to me that they haven't configured their servers to handle the load. Once again - Aaron did nothing that I, and tens of thousands of people like me, haven't done many times.
- rgbrenner 14y ago
  You've downloaded millions of articles from JSTOR? Or how MIT put it: "more than 100 times the number of legitimate JSTOR downloads at MIT during that time period"