6 ms·

Its not black and white. Sure Aaron built things but he also threatened to destroy JSTOR's business model. Likewise a DDoS may seem destructive but if it causes

Its not black and white. Sure Aaron built things but he also threatened to destroy JSTOR's business model. Likewise a DDoS may seem destructive but if it causes MIT to have better Ethics and Leadership as a result then its well worth the discomfort. If theres a bug in your system you sometimes have to replace some lines of code to make it better, this isn't destruction its just change.

geofft 14y ago
But it won't. I certainly hope MIT makes serious changes in its leadership and ethics (if it turns out, after all, that MIT was in some way responsible -- that's still very unclear), but that's not because anyone's DDoSing MIT, it's because I can see the story. If there's a bug in your system, fix the bug. Don't delete a file in another directory and call it change.
- btilly 14y ago
  if it turns out, after all, that MIT was in some way responsible -- that's still very unclear In the Boston Globe, Aaron's lawyer says that a suggested plea deal with probation and no actual jail sentence was rejected by MIT, and that played a part in the prosecutor pushing for harsher judgement. If there is any truth in that, then there is evidence that MIT did indeed play enough of a role to have some of the responsibility here. We won't have a full picture of what their role might have been until Abelson's report comes out. Which likely will take a good deal of time.
  - FireBeyond 14y ago
    So MIT should have had reasonable cause to believe that there was a risk of suicide should they decide to prosecute a case? And that makes them responsible? Is that a road we want to go down?
    - btilly 14y ago
      You seem to be reading something into what I said that I did not say. It is my belief that MIT as an institution should have a policy on the appropriate severity of response to actions such as Aaron's. They need to for the simple reason that they have made a conscious decision to choose to make themselves a natural lightning rod for this type of incident. Therefore they help set the bar for what an appropriate reaction should be. My further belief is that if this policy is set in accord with the bulk of opinion of MIT students and alums, then we'd have had a different result in this case. This does not mean that they should be held to be at legal fault for the suicide. However if you have even a passing familiarity with root cause analysis you'll know the value of habitually fixing systemic issues you identify which are several layers removed from the ultimate failure. I am cautiously optimistic that Abelson's report will address this issue.
    - BrokenPipe 14y ago
      No the issue is that they decided to prosecute the case.
      - btilly 14y ago
        Correction. MIT did not prosecute the case. They brought in the feds. There is evidence that they asked the prosecutor to go hard on Aaron. But the prosecutor is not directly affiliated with MIT.
        BrokenPipe 14y ago
        Do you have a link to the evidence? My current understanding is that MIT didn't want Aaron to avoid jail. Is that correct ?
        btilly 14y ago
        The evidence is comments by Aaron's lawyer as quoted in the Boston Globe. See http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit/bj8oThPDwzgxBSHQt3tyKI/story.html?s_campaign=sm_tw http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit... for the article.
        GeorgeTirebiter 14y ago
        The "evidence" is bullshit. Look at exactly what is said. AS, for all of whatever it was good that he brought the world, was mentally ill. For whatever reason, he did not receive the help that is freely available in our society. (There was a lot more available before Reagan cut it to shreds, so he could pass on big bucks to his rich cronies, but I digress...) THAT is the true tragedy here. Depression is a totally, totally fucked up brain function anomaly. People who have not experienced it are simply clueless and should STFU. The REST of you: get help. Get Help - Now!
        Ygg2 14y ago
        IANAL, but there were two parties that could escalate this to federal court, JSTOR and MIT. JSTOR didn't, so it is probably MIT. Suicide aside, there seems to be a gross injustice in this case (35, hell even 5 years for a crime that had little to no impact on either JSTOR or MIT, seems ludicorous).
    - fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
      Of course not, MIT administration's alleged behavior was terrible even in absence of Swartz's suicide.
  - geofft 14y ago
    Yes, if that turns out to be accurate I will be very angry with MIT. While I would like to trust the defense lawyers (including Lessig, who I look up to a lot) on this, they are admittedly not the most unbiased parties, and out of a desire for fairness I'm withholding judgment until more facts come out. I am absolutely looking forward to Abelson's report.
gojomo 14y ago
If the effect of a 'protest' is to prevent people from accessing online information that they'd like to access, it goes against Aaron's anti-censorship views. Every bully wants to 'discomfort' their opponents into changing. Those who use DDoS are more like the federal prosecutors -- making 'destructive' threats, expecting change through punishment -- than Aaron.
- Yver 14y ago
  And how did that work out for him by the way? I head they've dropped their lawsuit? Also, if DDoS is "destructive" then copying a file is stealing.
  - rprasad 14y ago
    Well, unlike most defendants he chose not to find out how well it would work out, so we'll never know.
  - malandrew 14y ago
    A DDOS is a trespass to chattels. It denies others the use of a resource they own or have a right to use. I would rather see anonymous discover who at MIT is responsible for this matter and dox them than deny students access to their network. Doxing is like a sniper attack. DDoSing is like dropping napalm on villages.
    - geofft 14y ago
      Haven't there been lots of problems with doxxing the wrong people? I don't think anyone will know, actually, who is responsible without the investigation that MIT is already doing. We can speculate, but we'll probably get it wrong.
  - gojomo 14y ago
    How did it work out for him? For Aaron's causes, his constructive rather than destructive approach worked fairly well, creating change and earning wide awareness and respect. I wish he'd stuck it out; had there been a trial (and possibly sentencing), the public would have learned many of the same lessons about overzealous prosecution, the JSTOR project, the CFAA, the obsolescence of copyright, and importance of open access. Plus, he'd still be with us. I also believe Aaron's causes with regard to copyright and censorship will succeed in coming decades, easily within his natural lifespan, and he would have helped them succeed faster, so I'm sad he'll miss it. DDoS is destructive (unlike any amount of copying) because it disables access and functionality and effectively censors content by blocking individual learning and communication. It causes more resources to be be wasted on paranoia and layers-of-defense. It causes a hardening of positions and growth of suspicion. It is much easier to portray Aaron's supporters as 'vandals' if they help by actually committing vandalism. (I'd guess that as an 'applied sociologist', Aaron understood this well.) That these DoS effects are often temporary is no defense: it's destroying people's freedom-to-communicate for a time... and the early death of a young person should remind you that ultimately all we have is time.
jlgreco 14y ago
> Sure Aaron built things but he also threatened to destroy JSTOR's business model. Yeah.. but not really. The non-public domain documents would still be copyrighted so nobody without a license to them would be creating a JSTOR competitor anytime soon. Furthermore, torrent of PDFs would never replace a subscription to JSTOR for any university. Universities that currently subscribe to JSTOR would still be subscribing to JSTOR, the only difference is that unaffiliated individuals would have other options. How much of JSTOR's operating budget is coming from selling individual articles to people not in universities?
- sciurus 14y ago
  http://www.generalist.org.uk/blog/2011/jstor-where-does-your-money-go/ http://www.generalist.org.uk/blog/2011/jstor-where-does-your... "The figure of $145k for individual articles is definitely interesting – only 0.35% of JSTOR’s revenue came from pay-per-view cases? This is vastly lower than I expected; quite possibly the prices are so high (and JSTOR access so common, academically) that very few people are willing to pay and unable to circumvent it via a friend. The estimate quoted is $19/article as an average – so perhaps only seven and a half thousand articles over the year?"
flyinRyan 14y ago
>Sure Aaron built things but he also threatened to destroy JSTOR's business model. Well, destroying someone's business model isn't, of itself evil. A business model doesn't have a right to exist for its own sake. For example, I'd love to see someone destroy the business model of patent trolls. Not saying that JSTOR has an immoral or unnecessary business model. I don't know actually, but I'm just reacting to the idea that sometimes comes up that if there is a business model for something no one has a right to destroy it.
- Wintamute 14y ago
  Great point. Historically the business model of JSTOR, and indeed all academic journals, was to to add value by printing, publishing and distributing academic papers. This was an essential function until recently, but we don't need them any more. They've become sadly quite parasitic and anachronistic. By destroying business models we progress.
  - BrokenPipe 14y ago
    Yep. They belong in the same group as the MAFIAA and are not needed anymore.

geofft 14y ago

But it won't. I certainly hope MIT makes serious changes in its leadership and ethics (if it turns out, after all, that MIT was in some way responsible -- that's still very unclear), but that's not because anyone's DDoSing MIT, it's because I can see the story. If there's a bug in your system, fix the bug. Don't delete a file in another directory and call it change.

btilly 14y ago
if it turns out, after all, that MIT was in some way responsible -- that's still very unclear In the Boston Globe, Aaron's lawyer says that a suggested plea deal with probation and no actual jail sentence was rejected by MIT, and that played a part in the prosecutor pushing for harsher judgement. If there is any truth in that, then there is evidence that MIT did indeed play enough of a role to have some of the responsibility here. We won't have a full picture of what their role might have been until Abelson's report comes out. Which likely will take a good deal of time.
- FireBeyond 14y ago
  So MIT should have had reasonable cause to believe that there was a risk of suicide should they decide to prosecute a case? And that makes them responsible? Is that a road we want to go down?
  - btilly 14y ago
    You seem to be reading something into what I said that I did not say. It is my belief that MIT as an institution should have a policy on the appropriate severity of response to actions such as Aaron's. They need to for the simple reason that they have made a conscious decision to choose to make themselves a natural lightning rod for this type of incident. Therefore they help set the bar for what an appropriate reaction should be. My further belief is that if this policy is set in accord with the bulk of opinion of MIT students and alums, then we'd have had a different result in this case. This does not mean that they should be held to be at legal fault for the suicide. However if you have even a passing familiarity with root cause analysis you'll know the value of habitually fixing systemic issues you identify which are several layers removed from the ultimate failure. I am cautiously optimistic that Abelson's report will address this issue.
  - BrokenPipe 14y ago
    No the issue is that they decided to prosecute the case.
    - btilly 14y ago
      Correction. MIT did not prosecute the case. They brought in the feds. There is evidence that they asked the prosecutor to go hard on Aaron. But the prosecutor is not directly affiliated with MIT.
      - BrokenPipe 14y ago
        Do you have a link to the evidence? My current understanding is that MIT didn't want Aaron to avoid jail. Is that correct ?
        btilly 14y ago
        The evidence is comments by Aaron's lawyer as quoted in the Boston Globe. See http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit/bj8oThPDwzgxBSHQt3tyKI/story.html?s_campaign=sm_tw http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit... for the article.
        GeorgeTirebiter 14y ago
        The "evidence" is bullshit. Look at exactly what is said. AS, for all of whatever it was good that he brought the world, was mentally ill. For whatever reason, he did not receive the help that is freely available in our society. (There was a lot more available before Reagan cut it to shreds, so he could pass on big bucks to his rich cronies, but I digress...) THAT is the true tragedy here. Depression is a totally, totally fucked up brain function anomaly. People who have not experienced it are simply clueless and should STFU. The REST of you: get help. Get Help - Now!
        Ygg2 14y ago
        IANAL, but there were two parties that could escalate this to federal court, JSTOR and MIT. JSTOR didn't, so it is probably MIT. Suicide aside, there seems to be a gross injustice in this case (35, hell even 5 years for a crime that had little to no impact on either JSTOR or MIT, seems ludicorous).
  - fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
    Of course not, MIT administration's alleged behavior was terrible even in absence of Swartz's suicide.
- geofft 14y ago
  Yes, if that turns out to be accurate I will be very angry with MIT. While I would like to trust the defense lawyers (including Lessig, who I look up to a lot) on this, they are admittedly not the most unbiased parties, and out of a desire for fairness I'm withholding judgment until more facts come out. I am absolutely looking forward to Abelson's report.

gojomo 14y ago

If the effect of a 'protest' is to prevent people from accessing online information that they'd like to access, it goes against Aaron's anti-censorship views. Every bully wants to 'discomfort' their opponents into changing. Those who use DDoS are more like the federal prosecutors -- making 'destructive' threats, expecting change through punishment -- than Aaron.

Yver 14y ago
And how did that work out for him by the way? I head they've dropped their lawsuit? Also, if DDoS is "destructive" then copying a file is stealing.
- rprasad 14y ago
  Well, unlike most defendants he chose not to find out how well it would work out, so we'll never know.
- malandrew 14y ago
  A DDOS is a trespass to chattels. It denies others the use of a resource they own or have a right to use. I would rather see anonymous discover who at MIT is responsible for this matter and dox them than deny students access to their network. Doxing is like a sniper attack. DDoSing is like dropping napalm on villages.
  - geofft 14y ago
    Haven't there been lots of problems with doxxing the wrong people? I don't think anyone will know, actually, who is responsible without the investigation that MIT is already doing. We can speculate, but we'll probably get it wrong.
- gojomo 14y ago
  How did it work out for him? For Aaron's causes, his constructive rather than destructive approach worked fairly well, creating change and earning wide awareness and respect. I wish he'd stuck it out; had there been a trial (and possibly sentencing), the public would have learned many of the same lessons about overzealous prosecution, the JSTOR project, the CFAA, the obsolescence of copyright, and importance of open access. Plus, he'd still be with us. I also believe Aaron's causes with regard to copyright and censorship will succeed in coming decades, easily within his natural lifespan, and he would have helped them succeed faster, so I'm sad he'll miss it. DDoS is destructive (unlike any amount of copying) because it disables access and functionality and effectively censors content by blocking individual learning and communication. It causes more resources to be be wasted on paranoia and layers-of-defense. It causes a hardening of positions and growth of suspicion. It is much easier to portray Aaron's supporters as 'vandals' if they help by actually committing vandalism. (I'd guess that as an 'applied sociologist', Aaron understood this well.) That these DoS effects are often temporary is no defense: it's destroying people's freedom-to-communicate for a time... and the early death of a young person should remind you that ultimately all we have is time.

jlgreco 14y ago

> Sure Aaron built things but he also threatened to destroy JSTOR's business model. Yeah.. but not really. The non-public domain documents would still be copyrighted so nobody without a license to them would be creating a JSTOR competitor anytime soon. Furthermore, torrent of PDFs would never replace a subscription to JSTOR for any university. Universities that currently subscribe to JSTOR would still be subscribing to JSTOR, the only difference is that unaffiliated individuals would have other options. How much of JSTOR's operating budget is coming from selling individual articles to people not in universities?

sciurus 14y ago
http://www.generalist.org.uk/blog/2011/jstor-where-does-your-money-go/ http://www.generalist.org.uk/blog/2011/jstor-where-does-your... "The figure of $145k for individual articles is definitely interesting – only 0.35% of JSTOR’s revenue came from pay-per-view cases? This is vastly lower than I expected; quite possibly the prices are so high (and JSTOR access so common, academically) that very few people are willing to pay and unable to circumvent it via a friend. The estimate quoted is $19/article as an average – so perhaps only seven and a half thousand articles over the year?"

flyinRyan 14y ago

>Sure Aaron built things but he also threatened to destroy JSTOR's business model. Well, destroying someone's business model isn't, of itself evil. A business model doesn't have a right to exist for its own sake. For example, I'd love to see someone destroy the business model of patent trolls. Not saying that JSTOR has an immoral or unnecessary business model. I don't know actually, but I'm just reacting to the idea that sometimes comes up that if there is a business model for something no one has a right to destroy it.

Wintamute 14y ago
Great point. Historically the business model of JSTOR, and indeed all academic journals, was to to add value by printing, publishing and distributing academic papers. This was an essential function until recently, but we don't need them any more. They've become sadly quite parasitic and anachronistic. By destroying business models we progress.
- BrokenPipe 14y ago
  Yep. They belong in the same group as the MAFIAA and are not needed anymore.