5 ms·

The bulk of the Aaaron Swartz case was around distribution of copyrighted material which he was allowed access to but not distribution of. This is not merely a

by Zimahl 14y ago

The bulk of the Aaaron Swartz case was around distribution of copyrighted material which he was allowed access to but not distribution of. This is not merely a ToS issue as there are laws against distribution of copyrighted material.

cowsandmilk 14y ago
Not a single violation in Aaron Swartz's indictment [1] is about copyright law. In fact, they nearly all refer to US Code 1030, which is the CFAA you are claiming the Aaron Swartz case was not about. In fact, you are incorrect that "he was allowed access" in that the wire fraud counts in the indictment (page 10) is based on the idea that he should not have been given access to JSTOR in the first place. (I'm not claiming that Aaron's access to JSTOR was illegal, but rather that the case against Aaron argued his access was not allowed, while the parent argues that Aaron's case was based on the idea that he was allowed access, but was not permitted to distribute) Your description of what the Aaron Swartz case is about is completely incongruous with the charges filed by the prosecutor. [1] http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/09/swartzsuperseding.pdf http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/09/swartz...
- mpyne 14y ago
  As far as I understood, Aaron Swartz was also not given access to the MIT network. I.e. he was kicked off of two different nets, MIT's and JSTOR's.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    "Kicked off" can mean many things. I'd be less sympathetic if a human being actually delivered an English language notice to Aaron, but AIUI they just stopped routing his packets. This could easily be misinterpreted as tripping an automated throttling system, in which case the message would be, "Slow down, try again," not, "Stop!"
    - mpyne 14y ago
      > This could easily be misinterpreted as tripping an automated throttling system He walked into the server closet covering his face with a bicycle helmet. Whatever improvements MIT might be able to make to the message of "you're not welcome on this net", Aaron definitely received it loud and clear.
  - lawnchair_larry 14y ago
    Everyone has access to the MIT network. There is an open guest wifi network, with a captive portal asking you to provide a name/email to register. He put a fake name (Gary Host) and a throwaway mailinator address (and was charged with wire fraud for doing so). JSTOR provides unlimited access to MIT and many other schools. Anyone on the MIT network had access to JSTOR. He was not on a JSTOR network. When JSTOR saw that one user was requesting a lot of files, they assumed a bad motive, and banned the IP address. After he got a new IP address, JSTOR contacted MIT about it, and they banned the MAC address from their wifi network.
    - mpyne 14y ago
      > Everyone has access to the MIT network. There is an open guest wifi network, with a captive portal asking you to provide a name/email to register. He put a fake name (Gary Host) and a throwaway mailinator address (and was charged with wire fraud for doing so). That's just it though, that's not correct. What you might have meant was: Everyone starts off with access to the MIT network. It is not MIT's obligation to continue to provide network services to anyone that they have a previous contract for. And even for those with contracts, it would almost certainly include boilerplate to the effect that services will be terminated for abuse of the network. > When JSTOR saw that one user was requesting a lot of files, they assumed a bad motive, and banned the IP address. > After he got a new IP address, JSTOR contacted MIT about it, and they banned the MAC address from their wifi network. So you yourself admit: aaronsw started off with access to both JSTOR and MIT networks, and was explicitly kicked off of them both. What steps did Aaron take to ensure that he was welcome on the networks again when he later tried to connect?
CamperBob2 14y ago
Who in the world is spreading this BS? Where did you hear it? This delusion is all over the place, but it's not clear who the index patient is. Someone lied to you. Did they have a reason? Did you ask?
- Zimahl 14y ago
  He illegally accessed a network to download material that wasn't his. If this was all a big misunderstanding, why did he set it up the clandestine operation in a server closet? His intent was to distribute the material. The CFAA was the way they went after him. It's pretty simple. The OP made it seem like he broke some ToS accidentally and then was somehow going to face jail time. This is certainly not the case. He deliberately accessed a network he had been banned from with clear criminal intent.
darkarmani 14y ago
Except he never distributed any material.

by Zimahl 14y ago

cowsandmilk 14y ago

Not a single violation in Aaron Swartz's indictment [1] is about copyright law. In fact, they nearly all refer to US Code 1030, which is the CFAA you are claiming the Aaron Swartz case was not about. In fact, you are incorrect that "he was allowed access" in that the wire fraud counts in the indictment (page 10) is based on the idea that he should not have been given access to JSTOR in the first place. (I'm not claiming that Aaron's access to JSTOR was illegal, but rather that the case against Aaron argued his access was not allowed, while the parent argues that Aaron's case was based on the idea that he was allowed access, but was not permitted to distribute) Your description of what the Aaron Swartz case is about is completely incongruous with the charges filed by the prosecutor. [1] http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/09/swartzsuperseding.pdf http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/09/swartz...

mpyne 14y ago
As far as I understood, Aaron Swartz was also not given access to the MIT network. I.e. he was kicked off of two different nets, MIT's and JSTOR's.
- nitrogen 14y ago
  "Kicked off" can mean many things. I'd be less sympathetic if a human being actually delivered an English language notice to Aaron, but AIUI they just stopped routing his packets. This could easily be misinterpreted as tripping an automated throttling system, in which case the message would be, "Slow down, try again," not, "Stop!"
  - mpyne 14y ago
    > This could easily be misinterpreted as tripping an automated throttling system He walked into the server closet covering his face with a bicycle helmet. Whatever improvements MIT might be able to make to the message of "you're not welcome on this net", Aaron definitely received it loud and clear.
- lawnchair_larry 14y ago
  Everyone has access to the MIT network. There is an open guest wifi network, with a captive portal asking you to provide a name/email to register. He put a fake name (Gary Host) and a throwaway mailinator address (and was charged with wire fraud for doing so). JSTOR provides unlimited access to MIT and many other schools. Anyone on the MIT network had access to JSTOR. He was not on a JSTOR network. When JSTOR saw that one user was requesting a lot of files, they assumed a bad motive, and banned the IP address. After he got a new IP address, JSTOR contacted MIT about it, and they banned the MAC address from their wifi network.
  - mpyne 14y ago
    > Everyone has access to the MIT network. There is an open guest wifi network, with a captive portal asking you to provide a name/email to register. He put a fake name (Gary Host) and a throwaway mailinator address (and was charged with wire fraud for doing so). That's just it though, that's not correct. What you might have meant was: Everyone starts off with access to the MIT network. It is not MIT's obligation to continue to provide network services to anyone that they have a previous contract for. And even for those with contracts, it would almost certainly include boilerplate to the effect that services will be terminated for abuse of the network. > When JSTOR saw that one user was requesting a lot of files, they assumed a bad motive, and banned the IP address. > After he got a new IP address, JSTOR contacted MIT about it, and they banned the MAC address from their wifi network. So you yourself admit: aaronsw started off with access to both JSTOR and MIT networks, and was explicitly kicked off of them both. What steps did Aaron take to ensure that he was welcome on the networks again when he later tried to connect?

CamperBob2 14y ago

Who in the world is spreading this BS? Where did you hear it? This delusion is all over the place, but it's not clear who the index patient is. Someone lied to you. Did they have a reason? Did you ask?

Zimahl 14y ago
He illegally accessed a network to download material that wasn't his. If this was all a big misunderstanding, why did he set it up the clandestine operation in a server closet? His intent was to distribute the material. The CFAA was the way they went after him. It's pretty simple. The OP made it seem like he broke some ToS accidentally and then was somehow going to face jail time. This is certainly not the case. He deliberately accessed a network he had been banned from with clear criminal intent.

darkarmani 14y ago

Except he never distributed any material.