4 ms·

MIT involved the feds in the first place. That was a decision made by authorities on campus, one which was not inevitable. So yes, they do decide prosecution s

MIT involved the feds in the first place. That was a decision made by authorities on campus, one which was not inevitable. So yes, they do decide prosecution strategy, by deciding when there should be prosecution at all.

rdl 14y ago
Yes, involving the USSS was the first seriously questionable decision MIT made. I hope Prof Abelson's report includes who made that decision, when, on what evidence, and why. I'd be fine with invoking the USSS if there were serious crime going on -- someone using MIT to host cp, or compromising research integrity, or planning violence or financial crime, etc. If it's someone using your network resources in excess of terms of service, to download another freely available resource in excess of service. I'd give a technically lesser party (say, a small business, or an individual, or a local government office) a pass if they called the USSS in on something, since they might not be competent to figure out what is going on. However, MIT is clearly in a position to know exactly what was happening. I'd be inclined to wait for Abelson's report, but from what I've seen so far, MIT Libraries, MIT IS&T, MIT Police, and the MIT Office of General Counsel are all to blame to some extent. The lion's share of the blame falls on USA Carmen M. Ortiz, AUSA Stephen P. Heymann, and AUSA Scott L. Garland, however, and on Congress for passing unreasonable computer crime and copyright laws with such absurdly excessive criminal penalties.
- tzs 14y ago
  > Yes, involving the USSS was the first seriously questionable decision MIT made. The unknown intruder evaded several attempts to cut him off. The volume of downloads was so high that it was causing problems for JSTOR's servers, and JSTOR finally blocked ALL of MIT for several days. MIT was suffering serious harm. Calling in the Feds for help doesn't seem all that questionable to me under the circumstances.
  - rdl 14y ago
    Blocked all of MIT? I thought they just blocked the single /24 he was using. MIT has a /8.
    - tzs 14y ago
      According to the information in the indictment[1], they first blocked a single IP, then a bigger block, and then finally all of MIT. [1] http://web.mit.edu/bitbucket/Swartz,%20Aaron%20Indictment.pdf http://web.mit.edu/bitbucket/Swartz,%20Aaron%20Indictment.pd...
      - rdl 14y ago
        Ah, thanks (I didn't read it that closely). Having your entire netblock blocked from an important service definitely is more justification to bring in the SS, since it's actual ongoing harm to you.
- emkemp 14y ago
  Let me get this straight: You blame MIT for notifying the Federal Government that federal laws may have been broken by someone using MIT's computer network? Is that what you're saying?
  - rdl 14y ago
    Yes. They had no duty to report in general or for these specific crimes. The specific crime was "gaining access to MIT's ethernet network in violation of policy" -- if your neighbor cracks your wireless password to get free Internet, it's reasonable to ask him to stop, rather than calling the SS. If your neighbor is using your hacked wireless to host child porn, you call the SS. In the ideal world, the SS/USAO would be trusted to have some level of discretion in prosecution, but they don't, so as soon as you involve the feds, you've exercised the nuclear option. I'm personally waiting on the Abelson report before going much deeper into assigning specific blame. For now, Ortiz, Heymann, and Garland are the enemy to be addressed.
    - MichaelSalib 14y ago
      Note that Swartz was trying to evade MIT as much as possible: they couldn't communicate with him because he was running from them. At that point, they didn't know who they were dealing with. All they know was that their systems had been infiltrated by someone who had managed for months to evade all their efforts to block his access or identify him. I'm not sure you can fault them for bringing in the big guns at that point....Were they supposed to just shrug it off?
      - rdl 14y ago
        I'm not sure if involving USSS helps in apprehending someone if you can't identify him. They have legal powers (although, MIT once it started acting as agents of the federal government lost some of their ability to act on their own private infrastructure...), and can do wiretaps on other networks, subpoenas, search warrants, etc., but if the crime is going on in your own facility, and you own the network, you are probably in a better position to observe what is going on than the USSS is. Once you identify a person, USSS is certainly more capable of investigating him and apprehending, but at the sage of network cat and mouse, I'd put a decent sysadmin above the SS.
pdonis 14y ago
That was a decision made by authorities on campus Which authorities? That does not seem to be clear. From what I've seen so far, that decision could have been made at a pretty low level. Also, when that decision was made, it seems clear that MIT had no idea what was actually going on; it wasn't until much later that the reason behind the anomalous network traffic was known, after the feds were already involved and it was too late to un-involve them.

rdl 14y ago

Yes, involving the USSS was the first seriously questionable decision MIT made. I hope Prof Abelson's report includes who made that decision, when, on what evidence, and why. I'd be fine with invoking the USSS if there were serious crime going on -- someone using MIT to host cp, or compromising research integrity, or planning violence or financial crime, etc. If it's someone using your network resources in excess of terms of service, to download another freely available resource in excess of service. I'd give a technically lesser party (say, a small business, or an individual, or a local government office) a pass if they called the USSS in on something, since they might not be competent to figure out what is going on. However, MIT is clearly in a position to know exactly what was happening. I'd be inclined to wait for Abelson's report, but from what I've seen so far, MIT Libraries, MIT IS&T, MIT Police, and the MIT Office of General Counsel are all to blame to some extent. The lion's share of the blame falls on USA Carmen M. Ortiz, AUSA Stephen P. Heymann, and AUSA Scott L. Garland, however, and on Congress for passing unreasonable computer crime and copyright laws with such absurdly excessive criminal penalties.

tzs 14y ago
> Yes, involving the USSS was the first seriously questionable decision MIT made. The unknown intruder evaded several attempts to cut him off. The volume of downloads was so high that it was causing problems for JSTOR's servers, and JSTOR finally blocked ALL of MIT for several days. MIT was suffering serious harm. Calling in the Feds for help doesn't seem all that questionable to me under the circumstances.
- rdl 14y ago
  Blocked all of MIT? I thought they just blocked the single /24 he was using. MIT has a /8.
  - tzs 14y ago
    According to the information in the indictment[1], they first blocked a single IP, then a bigger block, and then finally all of MIT. [1] http://web.mit.edu/bitbucket/Swartz,%20Aaron%20Indictment.pdf http://web.mit.edu/bitbucket/Swartz,%20Aaron%20Indictment.pd...
    - rdl 14y ago
      Ah, thanks (I didn't read it that closely). Having your entire netblock blocked from an important service definitely is more justification to bring in the SS, since it's actual ongoing harm to you.
emkemp 14y ago
Let me get this straight: You blame MIT for notifying the Federal Government that federal laws may have been broken by someone using MIT's computer network? Is that what you're saying?
- rdl 14y ago
  Yes. They had no duty to report in general or for these specific crimes. The specific crime was "gaining access to MIT's ethernet network in violation of policy" -- if your neighbor cracks your wireless password to get free Internet, it's reasonable to ask him to stop, rather than calling the SS. If your neighbor is using your hacked wireless to host child porn, you call the SS. In the ideal world, the SS/USAO would be trusted to have some level of discretion in prosecution, but they don't, so as soon as you involve the feds, you've exercised the nuclear option. I'm personally waiting on the Abelson report before going much deeper into assigning specific blame. For now, Ortiz, Heymann, and Garland are the enemy to be addressed.
  - MichaelSalib 14y ago
    Note that Swartz was trying to evade MIT as much as possible: they couldn't communicate with him because he was running from them. At that point, they didn't know who they were dealing with. All they know was that their systems had been infiltrated by someone who had managed for months to evade all their efforts to block his access or identify him. I'm not sure you can fault them for bringing in the big guns at that point....Were they supposed to just shrug it off?
    - rdl 14y ago
      I'm not sure if involving USSS helps in apprehending someone if you can't identify him. They have legal powers (although, MIT once it started acting as agents of the federal government lost some of their ability to act on their own private infrastructure...), and can do wiretaps on other networks, subpoenas, search warrants, etc., but if the crime is going on in your own facility, and you own the network, you are probably in a better position to observe what is going on than the USSS is. Once you identify a person, USSS is certainly more capable of investigating him and apprehending, but at the sage of network cat and mouse, I'd put a decent sysadmin above the SS.

pdonis 14y ago

That was a decision made by authorities on campus Which authorities? That does not seem to be clear. From what I've seen so far, that decision could have been made at a pretty low level. Also, when that decision was made, it seems clear that MIT had no idea what was actually going on; it wasn't until much later that the reason behind the anomalous network traffic was known, after the feds were already involved and it was too late to un-involve them.