6 ms·

What would be a less strict university in USA, more libertarian, less police state if you would?

by puppetmaster3 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago
What's more libertarian than calling the police when someone misuses and infringes on your property?
- dreamdu5t 13y ago
  Libertarians (at least consistent ones) call out intellectual property for what it is: government monopoly. In libertopia... Aaron would only face life in prison if he entered into a contract with MIT agreeing to life in prison for accessing the systems in the way he did. In libertopia... you cannot consent to terms you cannot negotiate (IE accessing a website does not magically enter you into some agreement).
  - rayiner 13y ago
    First, all property is a government monopoly, unless you're one of those religious libertarians that believe God created rights in real and chattel property. But I meet lots of libertarians that reject the idea that adultery should be illegal, so maybe there's some other holy book they follow. Second, the root of the CFAA charge wasn't intellectual property, but physical property: MIT's network. Libertarians certainly do recognize non-contractual violations of property rights, i.e. various incarnations of trespass.
    - betterunix 13y ago
      The CFAA charges were dubious at best, and were only pursued because the copyright charges were looking pretty shaky. The prosecutor also tacked additional charges on when Aaron decided to exercise his civil rights. I do not know many libertarians who support that kind of abuse of prosecutor power.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        The premise of the CFAA charge is entirely consistent with libertarian thinking: owners of private property, like computer networks, are entitled to exclude people from their use, or revoke a previously granted license of use, for any reason at all. This charge makes sense even if you don't believe in intellectual property: it doesn't matter what he was doing on the network, only that he had reasonable notice that his license to use it had been revoked when they banned his MAC, but then continued to use it, thus trespassing. That's "get off my lawn or I'll call the cops." That's as libertarian as it gets. If you're talking about classic libertarianism, prosecuting trespassers (I.e. Securing property rights) is one of the few legitimate functions of government. Arguing that violation of property rights is justified by some greater social purpose is distinctly unlibertarian. As for "abuse" of the process, that's orthogonal to libertarianism. Classic libertarians believe in limited government, but once the legitimate object of government is implicated, in this case protecting property rights, they do not have any tendency towards favoring more forgiving or lenient prosecution.
        nitrogen 13y ago
        Banning a MAC from an open network isn't "get off my lawn or I'll call the cops", it's more like "quit taking all the potato chips; save some for others and come back later."
        mpyne 13y ago
        That might help your argument if that was the extent of the measures used to kick Aaron off of MIT's network...
        rayiner 13y ago
        That's an utterly ridiculous characterization. Its an attempt to convey that someone is no longer welcome to use your property. Not only is it such that a reasonable person would take it to have that meaning, which is all that's required, but Aaron actually understood that he was no longer welcome to use the property because his subsequent accesses to the network were under disguise.
      - 13y ago
Zigurd 13y ago
I know some of the people who run MIT's networks. They deal with a lot of ignorant jerks who would deserve to be turned into an example by an overzealous prosecutor. That's what makes the Swartz case baffling. I think someone got starstruck dealing with Federal Prosecutors and became a toady.
- Maxious 13y ago
  > Then there’s the chummy note from an IS & T security analyst who had worked closely with the Secret Service. > On the day Aaron was indicted, the analyst emailed Heymann: “Nicely done Steve and kudos! …it’s just a true relief and very refreshing to see your accuracy and precision.”
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    Does anyone know who that person is?
justin66 13y ago
> What would be a less strict university in USA, more libertarian, less police state if you would? MIT is supposed to be the model of an environment where people who want to break the rules and hack the system can function. Students breaking into buildings, for example, has a long tradition there. The article sort of hinted at the way what happened was not just a problem for Swartz, but for MIT itself. It is not clear what MIT actually is with the current status quo.

What would be a less strict university in USA, more libertarian, less police state if you would?

rayiner 13y ago

What's more libertarian than calling the police when someone misuses and infringes on your property?

dreamdu5t 13y ago
Libertarians (at least consistent ones) call out intellectual property for what it is: government monopoly. In libertopia... Aaron would only face life in prison if he entered into a contract with MIT agreeing to life in prison for accessing the systems in the way he did. In libertopia... you cannot consent to terms you cannot negotiate (IE accessing a website does not magically enter you into some agreement).
- rayiner 13y ago
  First, all property is a government monopoly, unless you're one of those religious libertarians that believe God created rights in real and chattel property. But I meet lots of libertarians that reject the idea that adultery should be illegal, so maybe there's some other holy book they follow. Second, the root of the CFAA charge wasn't intellectual property, but physical property: MIT's network. Libertarians certainly do recognize non-contractual violations of property rights, i.e. various incarnations of trespass.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    The CFAA charges were dubious at best, and were only pursued because the copyright charges were looking pretty shaky. The prosecutor also tacked additional charges on when Aaron decided to exercise his civil rights. I do not know many libertarians who support that kind of abuse of prosecutor power.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      The premise of the CFAA charge is entirely consistent with libertarian thinking: owners of private property, like computer networks, are entitled to exclude people from their use, or revoke a previously granted license of use, for any reason at all. This charge makes sense even if you don't believe in intellectual property: it doesn't matter what he was doing on the network, only that he had reasonable notice that his license to use it had been revoked when they banned his MAC, but then continued to use it, thus trespassing. That's "get off my lawn or I'll call the cops." That's as libertarian as it gets. If you're talking about classic libertarianism, prosecuting trespassers (I.e. Securing property rights) is one of the few legitimate functions of government. Arguing that violation of property rights is justified by some greater social purpose is distinctly unlibertarian. As for "abuse" of the process, that's orthogonal to libertarianism. Classic libertarians believe in limited government, but once the legitimate object of government is implicated, in this case protecting property rights, they do not have any tendency towards favoring more forgiving or lenient prosecution.
      - nitrogen 13y ago
        Banning a MAC from an open network isn't "get off my lawn or I'll call the cops", it's more like "quit taking all the potato chips; save some for others and come back later."
        mpyne 13y ago
        That might help your argument if that was the extent of the measures used to kick Aaron off of MIT's network...
        rayiner 13y ago
        That's an utterly ridiculous characterization. Its an attempt to convey that someone is no longer welcome to use your property. Not only is it such that a reasonable person would take it to have that meaning, which is all that's required, but Aaron actually understood that he was no longer welcome to use the property because his subsequent accesses to the network were under disguise.
    - 13y ago

Zigurd 13y ago

I know some of the people who run MIT's networks. They deal with a lot of ignorant jerks who would deserve to be turned into an example by an overzealous prosecutor. That's what makes the Swartz case baffling. I think someone got starstruck dealing with Federal Prosecutors and became a toady.

Maxious 13y ago
> Then there’s the chummy note from an IS & T security analyst who had worked closely with the Secret Service. > On the day Aaron was indicted, the analyst emailed Heymann: “Nicely done Steve and kudos! …it’s just a true relief and very refreshing to see your accuracy and precision.”
- Zigurd 13y ago
  Does anyone know who that person is?

justin66 13y ago

> What would be a less strict university in USA, more libertarian, less police state if you would? MIT is supposed to be the model of an environment where people who want to break the rules and hack the system can function. Students breaking into buildings, for example, has a long tradition there. The article sort of hinted at the way what happened was not just a problem for Swartz, but for MIT itself. It is not clear what MIT actually is with the current status quo.