7 ms·

How can spoofing IP/MAC addresses be considered "false pretenses" if these are considered, by nature of how computer networks and management thereof have evolve

How can spoofing IP/MAC addresses be considered "false pretenses" if these are considered, by nature of how computer networks and management thereof have evolved, to be transient or arbitrary in nature? Spoofing IP/MAC addresses does't even involve "pretenses", because it is a fallacious assumption (usually by the technically illiterate) that IP/MAC addresses correspond, or are even supposed to correspond, to a unique person/computer/entity in the first place. I can't say this is a good analysis by Kerr, given that he ignores extremely basic weaknesses such as this in the charges brought against Swartz.

danso 14y ago
Isn't this like asking "How is wearing a fake mustache in public a false pretense?" It isn't. But if I'm doing it with an obvious intent on deceiving someone about my identity, don't you think that context matters? Even if the fake-mustache seems ridiculous?
- gnud 14y ago
  In that case, if he'd bought a new laptop instead of changing the MAC address, would he have been off the hook?
  - andylei 14y ago
    he did buy a new laptop. its in the article.
- JohnsonB 14y ago
  That's the point, the spoofing of the IP/MAC addresses in themselves prove nothing, and yet Kerr is assessing it as such. The guy with a fake mustache could be a method actor preparing for his next role, and Swartz could have thought "MIT/JSTOR doesn't give a damn if I scrape these articles, but I don't care to ask for official resources to do it just to be told no."
  - danso 14y ago
    Why are we speculating what Swartz "could have thought"? What was his defense team planning on arguing?
  - brazzy 14y ago
    You're being deliberately obtuse, or accusing Aaron of being.
  - andylei 14y ago
    > Swartz could have thought "MIT/JSTOR doesn't give a damn if I scrape these articles, but I don't care to ask for official resources to do it just to be told no." except that 1. his behavior was clearly against JSTOR's terms of service 2. his computer was blocked MULTIPLE times 3. when he retrieved his computer, he was using his helmet as a mask to avoid being filmed
    - JohnsonB 14y ago
      1.) We're reading TOS now? Is that against the law? 2.) Irrelevant, could be a simple traffic reduction block. 3.) Too flimsy to rest the entire charge on.
      - andylei 14y ago
        > 1.) We're reading TOS now? Is that against the law? so is your comment a joke reply, or do you have a serious argument? has this ridiculous response indicates that you concede that it is against the terms of service? > 2.) Irrelevant, could be a simple traffic reduction block. if he thought it was that, why did he need a mask to retrieve his computer? > 3.) Too flimsy to rest the entire charge on. agree. except there's all the stuff above.
        jasonzemos 14y ago
        Violating a private entity's TOS is not a federal crime. He did not mask anything: MIT has an open network, and apparently unlocked wiring closets (trespassing was not charged). Rotating your IP address on an already open network to circumvent said TOS does not constitute a statutory violation either. You can sue him, that's about it.
brazzy 14y ago
When done deliberately to circumvent blocks, that has nothing to do with "how computer networks and management thereof have evolved, to be transient or arbitrary in nature". Nobody who isn't blinded by groupthink or hero worship can deny that Swartz was guilty of a number of crimes. You can debate whether the prosecution was inappropriately heavy-handed given the nature of the crimes, or even whether some or all of those crimes should in fact be crimes, but not that he did commit them.
- JohnsonB 14y ago
  >When done deliberately to circumvent blocks The blocks weren't necessarily to prevent fraud. Swartz's actions took place in the "open" culture of MIT, and that context matters and should be taken into account before you accuse Swartz of wire fraud. >Nobody who isn't blinded by groupthink or hero worship can deny that Swartz was guilty of a number of crimes. That is a legitimate area of debate.
  - andylei 14y ago
    > Swartz's actions took place in the "open" culture of MIT, and that context matters and should be taken into account before you accuse Swartz of wire fraud. Orin Kerr: > As for unauthorized access, you're assuming that the unauthorized access was to MIT's computer. [...] I don't think thhese objections work if you assume that the unauthorized access was to JSTOR's computer.
    - JohnsonB 14y ago
      It's his intent that matters, who's computer he supposedly was trying to gain property from only matters once you prove he was using false pretenses. IP/MAC spoofing is not intrinsically a fraudulent activity, and in the context of MIT's campus from where he could access JSTOR, there's no reason to assume Swartz thought he wasn't allowed to do a bit of scraping, IP blocks for low traffic's sake notwithstanding.
      - brazzy 14y ago

danso 14y ago

Isn't this like asking "How is wearing a fake mustache in public a false pretense?" It isn't. But if I'm doing it with an obvious intent on deceiving someone about my identity, don't you think that context matters? Even if the fake-mustache seems ridiculous?

gnud 14y ago
In that case, if he'd bought a new laptop instead of changing the MAC address, would he have been off the hook?
- andylei 14y ago
  he did buy a new laptop. its in the article.
JohnsonB 14y ago
That's the point, the spoofing of the IP/MAC addresses in themselves prove nothing, and yet Kerr is assessing it as such. The guy with a fake mustache could be a method actor preparing for his next role, and Swartz could have thought "MIT/JSTOR doesn't give a damn if I scrape these articles, but I don't care to ask for official resources to do it just to be told no."
- danso 14y ago
  Why are we speculating what Swartz "could have thought"? What was his defense team planning on arguing?
- brazzy 14y ago
  You're being deliberately obtuse, or accusing Aaron of being.
- andylei 14y ago
  > Swartz could have thought "MIT/JSTOR doesn't give a damn if I scrape these articles, but I don't care to ask for official resources to do it just to be told no." except that 1. his behavior was clearly against JSTOR's terms of service 2. his computer was blocked MULTIPLE times 3. when he retrieved his computer, he was using his helmet as a mask to avoid being filmed
  - JohnsonB 14y ago
    1.) We're reading TOS now? Is that against the law? 2.) Irrelevant, could be a simple traffic reduction block. 3.) Too flimsy to rest the entire charge on.
    - andylei 14y ago
      > 1.) We're reading TOS now? Is that against the law? so is your comment a joke reply, or do you have a serious argument? has this ridiculous response indicates that you concede that it is against the terms of service? > 2.) Irrelevant, could be a simple traffic reduction block. if he thought it was that, why did he need a mask to retrieve his computer? > 3.) Too flimsy to rest the entire charge on. agree. except there's all the stuff above.
      - jasonzemos 14y ago
        Violating a private entity's TOS is not a federal crime. He did not mask anything: MIT has an open network, and apparently unlocked wiring closets (trespassing was not charged). Rotating your IP address on an already open network to circumvent said TOS does not constitute a statutory violation either. You can sue him, that's about it.

brazzy 14y ago

When done deliberately to circumvent blocks, that has nothing to do with "how computer networks and management thereof have evolved, to be transient or arbitrary in nature". Nobody who isn't blinded by groupthink or hero worship can deny that Swartz was guilty of a number of crimes. You can debate whether the prosecution was inappropriately heavy-handed given the nature of the crimes, or even whether some or all of those crimes should in fact be crimes, but not that he did commit them.

JohnsonB 14y ago
>When done deliberately to circumvent blocks The blocks weren't necessarily to prevent fraud. Swartz's actions took place in the "open" culture of MIT, and that context matters and should be taken into account before you accuse Swartz of wire fraud. >Nobody who isn't blinded by groupthink or hero worship can deny that Swartz was guilty of a number of crimes. That is a legitimate area of debate.
- andylei 14y ago
  > Swartz's actions took place in the "open" culture of MIT, and that context matters and should be taken into account before you accuse Swartz of wire fraud. Orin Kerr: > As for unauthorized access, you're assuming that the unauthorized access was to MIT's computer. [...] I don't think thhese objections work if you assume that the unauthorized access was to JSTOR's computer.
  - JohnsonB 14y ago
    It's his intent that matters, who's computer he supposedly was trying to gain property from only matters once you prove he was using false pretenses. IP/MAC spoofing is not intrinsically a fraudulent activity, and in the context of MIT's campus from where he could access JSTOR, there's no reason to assume Swartz thought he wasn't allowed to do a bit of scraping, IP blocks for low traffic's sake notwithstanding.
    - brazzy 14y ago