5 ms·

There are very real problems with our laws. That Aaron was facing 35 years in prison for what he did is very clear evidence of that, and this is far from the on

by nsmartt 14y ago

There are very real problems with our laws. That Aaron was facing 35 years in prison for what he did is very clear evidence of that, and this is far from the only broken law. While hating on the system can be done in stupid ways, ignoring these sorts of things doesn't make them less real. Besides that, this sort of thing fits the criteria for submissions on HN. I'd even go so far as to say that this is more appropriate than the latest news about incremental changes in X.

Symmetry 14y ago
I very much agree here. The problem isn't that there's a law against accessing a computer system without authorization or how it's defined. The problem is that the law treats unauthorized access to a computer system so much more harshly than the equivalent trespasses on physical property. If he'd been charged with a misdemeanor resulting in "a fine of not more than $100 and up to 30 days in jail" I could see that as being a just law. Decades in prison and a felony record? Not so much.
- danielweber 14y ago
  It wasn't just that he made unauthorized access to the network; it was so that he could download millions documents that JSTOR sells a subscription to for tens of thousands of dollars a year. You can't ignore that. If he had trespassed into JSTOR's offices to grab the same information, it wouldn't be a $100 fine. (Ob: I'm not saying justice would have been Aaron sitting in jail for 7 years.)
  - Symmetry 14y ago
    Yes, but the current civil remedies we have in copyright and trade secret laws would work fine in this case.
  - ricardobeat 14y ago
    He only did this because the majority of them are publicly funded and should be available for free. The only reason they are not available to the public is JSTOR's grasp on journals and monopoly over archiving. Maybe we should be blaming the journals for being greedy instead, but the point stands.
    - danielweber 14y ago
      That's something that would need to be decided in court. You don't get to declare someone else's property to be worthless when you are taking it.
davidw 14y ago
> ignoring these sorts of things doesn't make them less real. I don't get how not posting this stuff to HN equates to ignoring it. I have a life outside of HN, and so can all kinds of extremely important issues!
- nsmartt 14y ago
  Saying, "I don't want to see this on HN" when it clearly fits the criteria for submission and aids in making the audience of HN more aware[1] does suggest that you are ignoring these sorts of issues elsewhere in your life. [1] Though this post wasn't particularly informative, it did stir debate.
  - davidw 14y ago
    "Stirring debate" is nowhere to be found in the criteria for submission. The following sounds a bit rude, but mostly I just like the sound of it, and I'm writing it with a smile, rather than actually being worked up. You know two things about my life and political involvement outside of HN: jack, and shit:-)
    - nsmartt 14y ago
      Debate raises awareness and challenges opinions. It's not related to the criteria, but it is related to why you would be inclined to discuss this on HN if you were inclined to discuss it outside of HN. I don't need to know anything about your political involvement to draw conclusions about your involvement on this particular cause. Edit for clarity: When I mentioned the criteria, I wasn't referring to debate; I was referring to awareness.
      - davidw 14y ago
        HN is not a vehicle for "political awareness", either. > I don't need to know anything about your political involvement to draw conclusions about your involvement on this particular cause. No, you just jump to conclusions because I don't like to see politics on HN?

by nsmartt 14y ago

Symmetry 14y ago

I very much agree here. The problem isn't that there's a law against accessing a computer system without authorization or how it's defined. The problem is that the law treats unauthorized access to a computer system so much more harshly than the equivalent trespasses on physical property. If he'd been charged with a misdemeanor resulting in "a fine of not more than $100 and up to 30 days in jail" I could see that as being a just law. Decades in prison and a felony record? Not so much.

danielweber 14y ago
It wasn't just that he made unauthorized access to the network; it was so that he could download millions documents that JSTOR sells a subscription to for tens of thousands of dollars a year. You can't ignore that. If he had trespassed into JSTOR's offices to grab the same information, it wouldn't be a $100 fine. (Ob: I'm not saying justice would have been Aaron sitting in jail for 7 years.)
- Symmetry 14y ago
  Yes, but the current civil remedies we have in copyright and trade secret laws would work fine in this case.
- ricardobeat 14y ago
  He only did this because the majority of them are publicly funded and should be available for free. The only reason they are not available to the public is JSTOR's grasp on journals and monopoly over archiving. Maybe we should be blaming the journals for being greedy instead, but the point stands.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    That's something that would need to be decided in court. You don't get to declare someone else's property to be worthless when you are taking it.

davidw 14y ago

> ignoring these sorts of things doesn't make them less real. I don't get how not posting this stuff to HN equates to ignoring it. I have a life outside of HN, and so can all kinds of extremely important issues!

nsmartt 14y ago
Saying, "I don't want to see this on HN" when it clearly fits the criteria for submission and aids in making the audience of HN more aware[1] does suggest that you are ignoring these sorts of issues elsewhere in your life. [1] Though this post wasn't particularly informative, it did stir debate.
- davidw 14y ago
  "Stirring debate" is nowhere to be found in the criteria for submission. The following sounds a bit rude, but mostly I just like the sound of it, and I'm writing it with a smile, rather than actually being worked up. You know two things about my life and political involvement outside of HN: jack, and shit:-)
  - nsmartt 14y ago
    Debate raises awareness and challenges opinions. It's not related to the criteria, but it is related to why you would be inclined to discuss this on HN if you were inclined to discuss it outside of HN. I don't need to know anything about your political involvement to draw conclusions about your involvement on this particular cause. Edit for clarity: When I mentioned the criteria, I wasn't referring to debate; I was referring to awareness.
    - davidw 14y ago
      HN is not a vehicle for "political awareness", either. > I don't need to know anything about your political involvement to draw conclusions about your involvement on this particular cause. No, you just jump to conclusions because I don't like to see politics on HN?