4 ms·

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://ww

by 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?
        mindslight 14y ago
        No, I hadn't. It's your emphasis and attitude that come across as completely different. I kept trying to tell ya, the legal machine looks a lot different when you examine it as if you're the one at odds with it.
        tptacek 14y ago
        By abusing computer fraud laws to needlessly persecute Aaron Swartz, these Boston prosecutors have done grave damage to the entirely legitimate enterprise of having the state help protect individuals and businesses from criminals who can and do hire out superior security talent. Look at HN over the last two days: anyone who's ever been convicted of a computer crime, even if that crime involved the mass theft and subsequent resale of credit cards, is a newly minted hero of the cause of openness. That's Boston's doing. The law cannot hope to capture every possible nuance of all conceivable offenses. As every lawyer who's ever argued with a Hacker on HN has pointed out, the law is not a programming language and courts aren't computer architectures. We want our rules, laws, and metalaws to provide every protection to the accused that they reasonably can, but at some point it's always going to come down to the discretion of humans appointed to positions of authority. Those authorities need to be equal to the task, or we delegitimize the whole effort. I'm sad about what happened to Aaron. I look at the photos of him in his teens hanging out with Dave Winer and Lawrence Lessig; he was a small kid, and I have a big 13 year old. I exchanged an email or two with him, but my wife didn't know him at all and she's upset, as I would assume any parent reading about this would be. And obviously in light of what happened, I'm a little harsh on how I interacted with Aaron online --- not on the prosecution threads, but you know, on threads about "hollywood launches" and stuff like that. But beyond that, what happened offends me in principle. If they're not the exact same principles that you've had offended, that doesn't matter much, does it? The justice system seems to have achieved a pretty high level of coverage in offended principles.

by jforman 14y ago

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?
        mindslight 14y ago
        No, I hadn't. It's your emphasis and attitude that come across as completely different. I kept trying to tell ya, the legal machine looks a lot different when you examine it as if you're the one at odds with it.
        tptacek 14y ago
        By abusing computer fraud laws to needlessly persecute Aaron Swartz, these Boston prosecutors have done grave damage to the entirely legitimate enterprise of having the state help protect individuals and businesses from criminals who can and do hire out superior security talent. Look at HN over the last two days: anyone who's ever been convicted of a computer crime, even if that crime involved the mass theft and subsequent resale of credit cards, is a newly minted hero of the cause of openness. That's Boston's doing. The law cannot hope to capture every possible nuance of all conceivable offenses. As every lawyer who's ever argued with a Hacker on HN has pointed out, the law is not a programming language and courts aren't computer architectures. We want our rules, laws, and metalaws to provide every protection to the accused that they reasonably can, but at some point it's always going to come down to the discretion of humans appointed to positions of authority. Those authorities need to be equal to the task, or we delegitimize the whole effort. I'm sad about what happened to Aaron. I look at the photos of him in his teens hanging out with Dave Winer and Lawrence Lessig; he was a small kid, and I have a big 13 year old. I exchanged an email or two with him, but my wife didn't know him at all and she's upset, as I would assume any parent reading about this would be. And obviously in light of what happened, I'm a little harsh on how I interacted with Aaron online --- not on the prosecution threads, but you know, on threads about "hollywood launches" and stuff like that. But beyond that, what happened offends me in principle. If they're not the exact same principles that you've had offended, that doesn't matter much, does it? The justice system seems to have achieved a pretty high level of coverage in offended principles.