2 ms·

Let's not be hyperbolic. Carmen Ortiz does not have it out for people; it's incredibly likely she legitimately thought Aaron WAS hacking and simply thought it w

by duaneb 14y ago

Let's not be hyperbolic. Carmen Ortiz does not have it out for people; it's incredibly likely she legitimately thought Aaron WAS hacking and simply thought it was right to make an example of him. This probably doesn't even violate JSTOR's EULA- people have the right to view the article, they aren't scraping the site, and it's not like the bookmarklets are going to drive people to the site any more than people already are. EDIT: Apparently the TOS (not EULA) is vague enough that this might actually violate the TOS- but the creators are very explicit about this and clearly tell the user that if they violate the TOS it's their own damn fault. The only thing I could think of is that the creators could be hit with DMCA violations for circumventing the 'DRM' of the site, EVEN if they never actually use it on anything copyrighted.

darkarmani 14y ago
> it's incredibly likely she legitimately thought Aaron WAS hacking and simply thought it was right to make an example of him. And you don't think that she will think that this is hacking if the site goes down from the load? Besides, making an example of people is having it out for them.
- duaneb 14y ago
  > And you don't think that she will think that this is hacking if the site goes down from the load? No, I don't. Someone stupid enough to continue this shitstorm would never make it that high up in office, especially when this is even less plausibly hacking than what Aaron did, even to someone without a great understanding (it's distributed, they warned people it would violate TOS, and the intent is clearly not to burden the site but to make a political statement that is explicitly designed NOT to burden the site). I could be wrong. But I really, really don't think so. > Besides, making an example of people is having it out for them. Well yea, she might have it out for 'hackers', but who doesn't? Anyway, it's a common practice to go after the 'big fish' to scare the smaller ones.

by duaneb 14y ago

darkarmani 14y ago

> it's incredibly likely she legitimately thought Aaron WAS hacking and simply thought it was right to make an example of him. And you don't think that she will think that this is hacking if the site goes down from the load? Besides, making an example of people is having it out for them.

duaneb 14y ago
> And you don't think that she will think that this is hacking if the site goes down from the load? No, I don't. Someone stupid enough to continue this shitstorm would never make it that high up in office, especially when this is even less plausibly hacking than what Aaron did, even to someone without a great understanding (it's distributed, they warned people it would violate TOS, and the intent is clearly not to burden the site but to make a political statement that is explicitly designed NOT to burden the site). I could be wrong. But I really, really don't think so. > Besides, making an example of people is having it out for them. Well yea, she might have it out for 'hackers', but who doesn't? Anyway, it's a common practice to go after the 'big fish' to scare the smaller ones.