6 ms·

These changes seem like an excellent step. But it's worth noting that even under the new proposal Aaron would have likely run afoul of the "access without autho

by aston 13y ago

These changes seem like an excellent step. But it's worth noting that even under the new proposal Aaron would have likely run afoul of the "access without authorization" component. I'm also not sure the new language around repeat offenders would have made a difference given the plea bargain, but I could imagine it would have made the maximum sentence sound less scary. In addition to the two changes listed by Ars Technica, there's another tweak making it clear that the court should consider the "fair market" value of the information, which I guess for JSTOR would have still looked quite high.

jack-r-abbit 13y ago
I was thinking the same thing. I am one of those in the middle that believe Aaron broke the law but was being over prosecuted. Perhaps if facing a much lesser punishment, Aaron would have stood by his cause instead of checking out.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
MWil 13y ago
I've argued till I've become blue in the face about this and I guess I'm a glutton for punishment so I'll ask it again: exactly where in the facts do you think authorization was missing? MIT allows a level of access on it's networks that people not on MIT have trouble understanding, it's not what you or I (assuming you're not from MIT) would think of on other campuses and certainly not in the private sector Second, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't have an unusually open access system in place, one that allows any and all visitors to come on with any email they wish, but then think that blocking an IP means you can call it a day, authorization over. That makes no sense. If he uses a new address, he gets authorization again. If he gets a new MAC address he gets authorization again. Sadly, I think for MIT to remove authorization they would have to be less open, they would have to actually change policies for signing up to campus networks. And don't get me started on the unlocked, well grafitti'd closet...
- tptacek 13y ago
  http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/
  - Flenser 13y ago
    I think this puts it more succinctly: http://www.volokh.com/2013/02/18/no-aaron-swartz-was-not-charged-with-violating-jstors-terms-of-service/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/02/18/no-aaron-swartz-was-not-cha...
- rayiner 13y ago
  > Second, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't have an unusually open access system in place, one that allows any and all visitors to come on with any email they wish, but then think that blocking an IP means you can call it a day, authorization over. When it's their private property, they can have their cake and eat it too. I can let everyone in town into my living room but capriciously disallow you one day because I realize you have attached earlobes. That's just how license works. The only consideration is notice. Does blocking a MAC address reasonably signal to the user that their consent was revoked, either objectively or in actual fact? I think you'd have a hard time arguing that Aaron, being very technically savvy, didn't realize that MIT was trying to kick him off its network.
  - wisty 13y ago
    > When it's their private property, they can have their cake and eat it too. I can let everyone in town into my living room but capriciously disallow you one day because I realize you have attached earlobes. That's just how license works. And if I come back wearing prosthetic ears, is that a felony?
    - raldi 13y ago
      It is if you then sneak into his closet and start tampering with the wiring.
    - 13y ago

by aston 13y ago

jack-r-abbit 13y ago

I was thinking the same thing. I am one of those in the middle that believe Aaron broke the law but was being over prosecuted. Perhaps if facing a much lesser punishment, Aaron would have stood by his cause instead of checking out.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

MWil 13y ago

I've argued till I've become blue in the face about this and I guess I'm a glutton for punishment so I'll ask it again: exactly where in the facts do you think authorization was missing? MIT allows a level of access on it's networks that people not on MIT have trouble understanding, it's not what you or I (assuming you're not from MIT) would think of on other campuses and certainly not in the private sector Second, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't have an unusually open access system in place, one that allows any and all visitors to come on with any email they wish, but then think that blocking an IP means you can call it a day, authorization over. That makes no sense. If he uses a new address, he gets authorization again. If he gets a new MAC address he gets authorization again. Sadly, I think for MIT to remove authorization they would have to be less open, they would have to actually change policies for signing up to campus networks. And don't get me started on the unlocked, well grafitti'd closet...

tptacek 13y ago
http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/
- Flenser 13y ago
  I think this puts it more succinctly: http://www.volokh.com/2013/02/18/no-aaron-swartz-was-not-charged-with-violating-jstors-terms-of-service/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/02/18/no-aaron-swartz-was-not-cha...
rayiner 13y ago
> Second, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't have an unusually open access system in place, one that allows any and all visitors to come on with any email they wish, but then think that blocking an IP means you can call it a day, authorization over. When it's their private property, they can have their cake and eat it too. I can let everyone in town into my living room but capriciously disallow you one day because I realize you have attached earlobes. That's just how license works. The only consideration is notice. Does blocking a MAC address reasonably signal to the user that their consent was revoked, either objectively or in actual fact? I think you'd have a hard time arguing that Aaron, being very technically savvy, didn't realize that MIT was trying to kick him off its network.
- wisty 13y ago
  > When it's their private property, they can have their cake and eat it too. I can let everyone in town into my living room but capriciously disallow you one day because I realize you have attached earlobes. That's just how license works. And if I come back wearing prosthetic ears, is that a felony?
  - raldi 13y ago
    It is if you then sneak into his closet and start tampering with the wiring.
  - 13y ago