4 ms·
The author has not bothered to read the indictment. Maybe he should talk with MIT's sysadmins, who were attempting to block Swartz's MAC address as he changed t
by ChristianMarks 14y ago
The author has not bothered to read the indictment. Maybe he should talk with MIT's sysadmins, who were attempting to block Swartz's MAC address as he changed them when the MIT sysadmins found out about them. They were trying to block Swartz. It's their network. The author's blog post doesn't mention any of this. What the author should do is block his own access based on his MAC address, change his MAC address to get around his own block, and then blog about it. He could wear a bike helmet to conceal his identity and run away when he attempts to apprehend himself, for extra realism. Then he could think about the implications for the case, as a "security" expert.
- randomdata 14y agoIt is their network, but does changing a MAC address to resolve, presumably, flaky network problems count as circumvention? I don't think Access was meant to imply Authentication in the naming of MAC. If my telephone at home suddenly and inexplicably stopped working and I walked up the pay phone down the street to get another phone number, am I running the risk of legal consequences because my own phone number may have been cut off on purpose? If he was explicitly told why his MAC addresses were being blocked, you may have a point. However, if he was explicitly talked to about what was going on, how was it able to escalate to the level it did?
- ChristianMarks 14y agoI think you should read the NY Times article on how AS worked assiduously to avoid detection.