6 ms·

Re: his actions in evading filtering and shutoffs on MIT's networks Have you seen any halfway credible summary on what he did? I'll probably read the formal i

Re: his actions in evading filtering and shutoffs on MIT's networks Have you seen any halfway credible summary on what he did? I'll probably read the formal indictment eventually, but I'm not expecting a real balanced presentation. To be clear: just asking if anyone has a good hyperlink. For example, I'd like to know what did he do on the Wifi other than change his MAC address? It's said he "broke into" the wiring closet. Did he use an axe? Pick the lock? Was it unlocked? Once in, did he simply plug in to the Ethernet like any good network citizen would do (to avoid hogging the Wifi). Once on the network, did he root boxes or simply request documents that the server was happy to give him? EDIT: OK I found this http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartzs-crime/ http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartz... written by Alex Stamos, expert witness for Aaron's defense. Alex is well-respected. I know thing or two about network security and this piece certainly sounds like how I would view it. The wiring closet he "broke into" wasn't even locked and "was also used to store personal effects by a homeless man"? This prosecution is a complete and total outrage.

jforman 14y ago
This meets your "halfway credible" standard, although I can't vouch for its ultimate accuracy: http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/ This blog describes a scenario in which JSTOR blocked Aaron's IP, then MIT blocked his MAC address, then JSTOR blocked an MIT IP range after he kept circumventing their attempts to cut him off. Ultimately, "Swartz broke into a closet in the basement of a building at MIT and connected his computer directly to the network — hiding his computer under a box so no one would see it."
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  It's worth noting that Prof. Kerr stated that he used the indictment as a significant source of the facts in his legal analysis. I would be inclined to trust it a lot less as an account of what actually happened than for the analysis of what the law says given the facts he describes.
  - marshray 14y ago
    "Hiding his computer under a box so no one would see it." That's always the part on TV where the defense objects to the prosecution drawing inferences or something like that. Even if we saw him on authentic video placing a box over a computer, it's still something very different to say it was so no one else would see it.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      Exactly. Even if it was "so no one else would see it", for all we know that "someone else" to Aaron was the homeless person that kept his stuff in that closet.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        I wouldn't have thought that hiding his face with a bike helmet would have mattered. After all, I do weird things any time I know I'm being watched by a camera; there's one on the elevator at the garage that I habitually cover. Orin Kerr said that stuff matters at trial.
        nitrogen 14y ago
        As I posted elsewhere, it seems that "sneaky" and "strange" are equal to "wrong" and "guilty" in most people's eyes.
        mindslight 14y ago
        Okay, that tears it! Somebody has replaced tptacek.
        tptacek 14y ago
        What did I say? Did you really think of me as someone who thought it was important to be forthcoming with surveillance cameras?
        14y ago
dsl 14y ago
Burglary (entry for the purposes of committing an offense) is broken down into three sub-categories: forcible entry, unlawful entry where no force is used, and attempted forcible entry. It doesn't matter if you use a tank or a paperclip, or even if you're successful. You're not the first person to think up the "but it wasn't locked (very well)!" defense. :)
- marshray 14y ago
  Of course, but then we ought to apply reasonable standards of trespass before we can talk of federal-level "breaking and entering". He was present as a guest on MIT campus and the trespassing charges had even been dropped. Show me a university campus where the students don't poke around in unlocked basements and closets and I'll show you a worthless university.
  - dsl 14y ago
    Entering a wiring closet with a lawful excuse is permitted. You genuinely thought it was the door to the bathroom, or smelled smoke. Entering a wiring closet with lawful intent but not a lawful excuse is trespass. For example someone left a light on and you wanted to turn it off. The property owner can generally have you removed and file a civil case. Entering a wiring closet with unlawful intent is a crime. For example your MAC address has been blocked from the wireless network and you intend to plug in to avoid that block. So hopefully it makes sense now. They can't just charge him for breaking into the closet (unless he did property damage), but they can charge him in addition to another crime (and you can argue till your blue in the face if THAT was a crime, I don't have an opinion). Its like the magical "with intent to distribute" if you cut up your drugs into lots of little baggies. (IANAL, but I did have one explain this stuff to me years ago in relation to an employee termination)
    - marshray 14y ago
      So if he entered a supply closet at the library to borrow a pen, and then he evaded taxes with that pen, he "broke in" even if the library allowed people to borrow pens from that unlocked closet?
newhouseb 14y ago
You should really just read the account in the indictment, it's quite accessible: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/217115-20110719-schwartz.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/217115-20110719-schw.... I think many of us would take issue with how the indictment derives appropriate charges, but the factual account seems relatively straightforward and thorough.
rayiner 14y ago
Lots of places are unlocked that you're still not supposed to go into. How hard it is to get into somewhere you're not supposed to go is completely irrelevant, as is how hard you have to work to evade someone trying to get you off their network.
- ericd 14y ago
  MIT has a pretty open unofficial policy when it comes to trespassing, as one would expect from any school with a dominant hacker culture. People used to go into network closets, pick locks, go into maintenance tunnels, etc. There's a very visible/popular student club on campus devoted to this.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    That doesn't mean there aren't limits, and MIT clearly thought those limits were violated here.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Which is something that apparently shocked Swartz. In fact, whatever the administration at MIT may have felt at the time, Swartz wasn't violating the community norms as I understood them. Maybe there's something sacred about wiring closets at MIT, but every other place there seems to be a hobbyist lockpicking playground. This is obviously a situation where the community norms of MIT have collided painfully with the policies of its administration. Swartz thought the norms would be controlling; he miscalculated: it was the policies that mattered.
      - marshray 14y ago
        Is there any evidence that MIT's 'policies' were anything other than made up on the spot? As far as I can tell it looks like "OMG! The attacker has changed his MAC address! We don't know how to stop him! He's stealing all the priceless research papers...call the DHS cyber-espionage defense unit for help! the packets are coming from INSIDE THE WIRING CLOSET!!"

jforman 14y ago

This meets your "halfway credible" standard, although I can't vouch for its ultimate accuracy: http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/ This blog describes a scenario in which JSTOR blocked Aaron's IP, then MIT blocked his MAC address, then JSTOR blocked an MIT IP range after he kept circumventing their attempts to cut him off. Ultimately, "Swartz broke into a closet in the basement of a building at MIT and connected his computer directly to the network — hiding his computer under a box so no one would see it."

AnthonyMouse 14y ago
It's worth noting that Prof. Kerr stated that he used the indictment as a significant source of the facts in his legal analysis. I would be inclined to trust it a lot less as an account of what actually happened than for the analysis of what the law says given the facts he describes.
- marshray 14y ago
  "Hiding his computer under a box so no one would see it." That's always the part on TV where the defense objects to the prosecution drawing inferences or something like that. Even if we saw him on authentic video placing a box over a computer, it's still something very different to say it was so no one else would see it.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Exactly. Even if it was "so no one else would see it", for all we know that "someone else" to Aaron was the homeless person that kept his stuff in that closet.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      I wouldn't have thought that hiding his face with a bike helmet would have mattered. After all, I do weird things any time I know I'm being watched by a camera; there's one on the elevator at the garage that I habitually cover. Orin Kerr said that stuff matters at trial.
      - nitrogen 14y ago
        As I posted elsewhere, it seems that "sneaky" and "strange" are equal to "wrong" and "guilty" in most people's eyes.
      - mindslight 14y ago
        Okay, that tears it! Somebody has replaced tptacek.
        tptacek 14y ago
        What did I say? Did you really think of me as someone who thought it was important to be forthcoming with surveillance cameras?
        14y ago

dsl 14y ago

Burglary (entry for the purposes of committing an offense) is broken down into three sub-categories: forcible entry, unlawful entry where no force is used, and attempted forcible entry. It doesn't matter if you use a tank or a paperclip, or even if you're successful. You're not the first person to think up the "but it wasn't locked (very well)!" defense. :)

marshray 14y ago
Of course, but then we ought to apply reasonable standards of trespass before we can talk of federal-level "breaking and entering". He was present as a guest on MIT campus and the trespassing charges had even been dropped. Show me a university campus where the students don't poke around in unlocked basements and closets and I'll show you a worthless university.
- dsl 14y ago
  Entering a wiring closet with a lawful excuse is permitted. You genuinely thought it was the door to the bathroom, or smelled smoke. Entering a wiring closet with lawful intent but not a lawful excuse is trespass. For example someone left a light on and you wanted to turn it off. The property owner can generally have you removed and file a civil case. Entering a wiring closet with unlawful intent is a crime. For example your MAC address has been blocked from the wireless network and you intend to plug in to avoid that block. So hopefully it makes sense now. They can't just charge him for breaking into the closet (unless he did property damage), but they can charge him in addition to another crime (and you can argue till your blue in the face if THAT was a crime, I don't have an opinion). Its like the magical "with intent to distribute" if you cut up your drugs into lots of little baggies. (IANAL, but I did have one explain this stuff to me years ago in relation to an employee termination)
  - marshray 14y ago
    So if he entered a supply closet at the library to borrow a pen, and then he evaded taxes with that pen, he "broke in" even if the library allowed people to borrow pens from that unlocked closet?

newhouseb 14y ago

You should really just read the account in the indictment, it's quite accessible: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/217115-20110719-schwartz.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/217115-20110719-schw.... I think many of us would take issue with how the indictment derives appropriate charges, but the factual account seems relatively straightforward and thorough.

rayiner 14y ago

Lots of places are unlocked that you're still not supposed to go into. How hard it is to get into somewhere you're not supposed to go is completely irrelevant, as is how hard you have to work to evade someone trying to get you off their network.

ericd 14y ago
MIT has a pretty open unofficial policy when it comes to trespassing, as one would expect from any school with a dominant hacker culture. People used to go into network closets, pick locks, go into maintenance tunnels, etc. There's a very visible/popular student club on campus devoted to this.
- rayiner 14y ago
  That doesn't mean there aren't limits, and MIT clearly thought those limits were violated here.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Which is something that apparently shocked Swartz. In fact, whatever the administration at MIT may have felt at the time, Swartz wasn't violating the community norms as I understood them. Maybe there's something sacred about wiring closets at MIT, but every other place there seems to be a hobbyist lockpicking playground. This is obviously a situation where the community norms of MIT have collided painfully with the policies of its administration. Swartz thought the norms would be controlling; he miscalculated: it was the policies that mattered.
    - marshray 14y ago
      Is there any evidence that MIT's 'policies' were anything other than made up on the spot? As far as I can tell it looks like "OMG! The attacker has changed his MAC address! We don't know how to stop him! He's stealing all the priceless research papers...call the DHS cyber-espionage defense unit for help! the packets are coming from INSIDE THE WIRING CLOSET!!"