8 ms·

Why not just drop the fucking case then? Jesus, how many millions of our tax dollars were spent doing our best to drive this kid to suicide? JSTOR didn't want

Why not just drop the fucking case then? Jesus, how many millions of our tax dollars were spent doing our best to drive this kid to suicide? JSTOR didn't want prosecution and arguably neither did MIT. I can't stand these justifications that seem to make everyone a slave to the machine. Heck, you and I break hundreds of laws a day, maybe even a felony or two or three. Federal prosecutors can do whatever they want with us. We have no power over them. We can at least expect them to go after real crime with real victims instead of political activists. If we lived by these "go by the letter of the law and prosecute everyone who breaks any law" ideals then literally everyone except newborns would be in prison.

cynicalkane 14y ago
Pro tip: if someone calls a hypothesis "slightly less sinister", he is probably not trying to justify it as a good thing. What the OP is talking about is why prosecutors are the way they are, and suggesting the answer is more complicated than "these specific people are evil". This is worthy of discussion and it's not up to you to kill it by accusing the OP of defending a situation he is clearly not defending.
rayiner 14y ago
You're conflating two very different things. This was no case of overzealous prosecution based on vague laws for the kind of activity that everyone does every day. Swartz purposefully accessed a protected computer network without permission, and purposefully copied a huge number of documents which he had no right to copy. He did all of these things willfully, with no defense that he was incapable of understanding the implications of his actions. It is disingenuous to say that breaking into MIT's network to download millions of documents illegally is no different than the kind of activity that you and I might do every day that "technically" violate various laws. Now, maybe you think "breaking in" to a poorly protected network should not be a crime. Maybe you think mass copying of copyrighted materials should not be a crime. But if you take action like Swartz did to protest these laws, you are engaging in an act of civil disobedience and inviting prosecution. And sometimes that's justified, but being prosecuted is part and parcel of civil disobedience. The rhetoric around this unfortunate incident borders on intellectually dishonest. Our democratically-elected Congress has passed laws, and under those laws breaking into a poorly-protected network isn't any less "hacking" than breaking into a poorly-protected house is trespassing. Those laws also say that scientists own the copyright to their papers, and can license them to distributors, even when their research is paid for with public grant dollars. The prosecutor in this case pursued her case according to the law. Not some technical "letter of the law" definition of the law, but in response to exactly the kinds of actions the laws were designed to address. Our democratically-elected Congress chose to make those specific things that Swartz did illegal. That doesn't mean that no one is on the hook. But it's not the relatively simple matter of stopping overzealous prosecution in one agency. The techie community has a far bigger task: convincing elected officials and those that vote for them that there are degrees to "hacking" and that publicly funded research should be freely available. That's the root of the issue here.
- adpirz 14y ago
  For accuracy's sake, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't need to "break in" to MIT's network. It's entirely open, no? At least last I was there.
  - MichaelSalib 14y ago
    Swarz evaded MAC address bans by changing his MAC address. Also, at once point, WIFI guests needed to agree to terms on a captive portal IIRC; this may not have been the case when he was active though. Finally, no one had blanket permission to plug arbitrary devices into the network. Physical access has always required permission, and, IIRC, agreeing to terms. Finally, just because a network is open does not mean you have permission to use it.
    - davorak 14y ago
      > Finally, just because a network is open does not mean you have permission to use it. If it looks like a store and the door's unlocked their are unsettling consequence when it is considered appropriate to charge trespassing when someone comes in expecting to shop around. If it is common understanding that MIT's net work is open and is used/viewed as a public resource with out MIT making it know otherwise then their are unsettling consequences if it is considered appropriate to charge a user with digital trespassing. Now there have been several reports that the MIT network often unpoliced/regulated on purpose, and there are many other universities that have similar polices though most not as liberal as MIT's, so in this light I have not been able to see any arguments for digital trespassing as a strong argument.
      - MichaelSalib 14y ago
        it is common understanding that MIT's net work is open and is used/viewed as a public resource IT IS NOT. I'm an MIT alum. MIT is crystal clear that their network is private and people can only use it while following their rules. Seriously, does http://ist.mit.edu/mitnet http://ist.mit.edu/mitnet sound like a free for all network where anyone can do anything to you?
Yaa101 14y ago
This is because the prosecuters are not human, they are preditors going after the weakest in society, it is much easier to score on their carreers than taking on the stronger. Here in Europe we know very well where this all leads to, my ancestors have lived through it numerous times, the last time in the 30's and 40's.
- jamesaguilar 14y ago
  You should look up Godwin's law. Once you understand it you'll also understand why few thinking persons will take your comment seriously.
  - RyanMcGreal 14y ago
    Godwin's Law is designed to deter inappropriate comparisons to fascism/Nazism so as not to weaken or otherwise besmirch appropriate comparisons to fascism/Nazism. The United States government has been getting steadily and incrementally more fascistic for at least the past decade, and I would not be so quick to dismiss summarily a comparison between how the US government operates and how historic fascist governments have operated.
  - Yaa101 14y ago
    That is why we have so many problems in the world with this. Reality does not care about godwin.
  - alan_cx 14y ago
    I'm sure "thinking persons" would have considered this, but just in case: "Never forget". Godwin's Law wants you to. Worse still his "law" encourages the mocking of those who want say if they think something is getting a bit Nazi. Which you have done by implying a disconnect between his comment, thinking persons, seriousness and understanding. Why? Perhaps so no one dares point it out if it looks like its happening again? Or something else? Who would want that, and why? I'd prefer to be wrong, than get caught short. Citing this nonsense "law" is like getting people to shut up on so called "patriotic" grounds. It circumvents logic, reason and debate. Its silences people. Look at it, it is Nazi in its self. Do and think as you are told. Have to wonder, if we get more suicides of this type and people cite this case as a parallel too much, will that get a law too? Will people be told to shut up?
javajosh 14y ago
>literally everyone except newborns would be in prison. Actually, no. Newborns can (and therefore, should, apparently) be arrested for "disturbing the peace."

cynicalkane 14y ago

Pro tip: if someone calls a hypothesis "slightly less sinister", he is probably not trying to justify it as a good thing. What the OP is talking about is why prosecutors are the way they are, and suggesting the answer is more complicated than "these specific people are evil". This is worthy of discussion and it's not up to you to kill it by accusing the OP of defending a situation he is clearly not defending.

rayiner 14y ago

You're conflating two very different things. This was no case of overzealous prosecution based on vague laws for the kind of activity that everyone does every day. Swartz purposefully accessed a protected computer network without permission, and purposefully copied a huge number of documents which he had no right to copy. He did all of these things willfully, with no defense that he was incapable of understanding the implications of his actions. It is disingenuous to say that breaking into MIT's network to download millions of documents illegally is no different than the kind of activity that you and I might do every day that "technically" violate various laws. Now, maybe you think "breaking in" to a poorly protected network should not be a crime. Maybe you think mass copying of copyrighted materials should not be a crime. But if you take action like Swartz did to protest these laws, you are engaging in an act of civil disobedience and inviting prosecution. And sometimes that's justified, but being prosecuted is part and parcel of civil disobedience. The rhetoric around this unfortunate incident borders on intellectually dishonest. Our democratically-elected Congress has passed laws, and under those laws breaking into a poorly-protected network isn't any less "hacking" than breaking into a poorly-protected house is trespassing. Those laws also say that scientists own the copyright to their papers, and can license them to distributors, even when their research is paid for with public grant dollars. The prosecutor in this case pursued her case according to the law. Not some technical "letter of the law" definition of the law, but in response to exactly the kinds of actions the laws were designed to address. Our democratically-elected Congress chose to make those specific things that Swartz did illegal. That doesn't mean that no one is on the hook. But it's not the relatively simple matter of stopping overzealous prosecution in one agency. The techie community has a far bigger task: convincing elected officials and those that vote for them that there are degrees to "hacking" and that publicly funded research should be freely available. That's the root of the issue here.

adpirz 14y ago
For accuracy's sake, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't need to "break in" to MIT's network. It's entirely open, no? At least last I was there.
- MichaelSalib 14y ago
  Swarz evaded MAC address bans by changing his MAC address. Also, at once point, WIFI guests needed to agree to terms on a captive portal IIRC; this may not have been the case when he was active though. Finally, no one had blanket permission to plug arbitrary devices into the network. Physical access has always required permission, and, IIRC, agreeing to terms. Finally, just because a network is open does not mean you have permission to use it.
  - davorak 14y ago
    > Finally, just because a network is open does not mean you have permission to use it. If it looks like a store and the door's unlocked their are unsettling consequence when it is considered appropriate to charge trespassing when someone comes in expecting to shop around. If it is common understanding that MIT's net work is open and is used/viewed as a public resource with out MIT making it know otherwise then their are unsettling consequences if it is considered appropriate to charge a user with digital trespassing. Now there have been several reports that the MIT network often unpoliced/regulated on purpose, and there are many other universities that have similar polices though most not as liberal as MIT's, so in this light I have not been able to see any arguments for digital trespassing as a strong argument.
    - MichaelSalib 14y ago
      it is common understanding that MIT's net work is open and is used/viewed as a public resource IT IS NOT. I'm an MIT alum. MIT is crystal clear that their network is private and people can only use it while following their rules. Seriously, does http://ist.mit.edu/mitnet http://ist.mit.edu/mitnet sound like a free for all network where anyone can do anything to you?

Yaa101 14y ago

This is because the prosecuters are not human, they are preditors going after the weakest in society, it is much easier to score on their carreers than taking on the stronger. Here in Europe we know very well where this all leads to, my ancestors have lived through it numerous times, the last time in the 30's and 40's.

jamesaguilar 14y ago
You should look up Godwin's law. Once you understand it you'll also understand why few thinking persons will take your comment seriously.
- RyanMcGreal 14y ago
  Godwin's Law is designed to deter inappropriate comparisons to fascism/Nazism so as not to weaken or otherwise besmirch appropriate comparisons to fascism/Nazism. The United States government has been getting steadily and incrementally more fascistic for at least the past decade, and I would not be so quick to dismiss summarily a comparison between how the US government operates and how historic fascist governments have operated.
- Yaa101 14y ago
  That is why we have so many problems in the world with this. Reality does not care about godwin.
- alan_cx 14y ago
  I'm sure "thinking persons" would have considered this, but just in case: "Never forget". Godwin's Law wants you to. Worse still his "law" encourages the mocking of those who want say if they think something is getting a bit Nazi. Which you have done by implying a disconnect between his comment, thinking persons, seriousness and understanding. Why? Perhaps so no one dares point it out if it looks like its happening again? Or something else? Who would want that, and why? I'd prefer to be wrong, than get caught short. Citing this nonsense "law" is like getting people to shut up on so called "patriotic" grounds. It circumvents logic, reason and debate. Its silences people. Look at it, it is Nazi in its self. Do and think as you are told. Have to wonder, if we get more suicides of this type and people cite this case as a parallel too much, will that get a law too? Will people be told to shut up?

javajosh 14y ago

>literally everyone except newborns would be in prison. Actually, no. Newborns can (and therefore, should, apparently) be arrested for "disturbing the peace."