6 ms·

> On top of that, Aaron "would have had to swear under oath that he committed a crime, something he did not actually believe". Many people, almost by definitio

by mpyne 13y ago

> On top of that, Aaron "would have had to swear under oath that he committed a crime, something he did not actually believe". Many people, almost by definition, do not believe that their own criminal acts were actually a "crime". Rationalization is a well-known human psychological phenomenon. Whatever else Aaron thought about his idealistic mission, being on the MIT subnet without permission was wrong (both morally and legally), as was entering into the MIT server farm to gain that access. But this wasn't even something that Aaron naïvely didn't recognize... he knew this was wrong to do as he had the same level of JSTOR access at his own campus at Harvard. But he didn't leech JSTOR from his own campus, he traveled across the city to surreptitiously do it from MIT. He even once covered his face with his bicycle helmet when he noticed a security camera so let's know act like "I didn't commit a crime" was his big hang-up. He did know, even if he disagreed personally with the law itself. > Due to the obscenely high maximum penalty, it is no longer a sane option to fight to prove one's innocence, even in the case of what would be a minor crime, as the risk in case of failure is disastrous. Well for starters you don't need to prove your innocence, you need only demonstrate that the government was unable to prove your guilt. But either way Dr. Granick covered this point already, and her treatment was comprehensive. I do apologize for misunderstanding your point to include Tsarnaev, though I think it still applies even for the accomplices. You said you pass by that memorial every week... you think the people of Boston would let anyone involved skate?

omegaworks 13y ago
>his idealistic mission We don't know what he intended to do with the JSTOR data. >being on the MIT subnet without permission was wrong MIT grants guest access to its network while on the physical premises. >MIT’s open-network policies at the time allowed anyone visiting campus to access services like JSTOR.
- roel_v 13y ago
  > MIT grants guest access to its network while on the physical premises. > >MIT’s open-network policies at the time allowed anyone visiting campus to access services like JSTOR. Please not this misinformation again. I have no horse in this race, but he was repeatedly kicked off the network, told not to mass-download again, and yet he chose to find ever-more invasive ways of accessing JSTOR, eventually planting a computer directly on the network access point; and doing so while disguised so as to avoid being caught on camera. It's not like he didn't know what was coming - and if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
  - ogreyonder 13y ago
    > if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. That is entirely the point. He may well have been willing to do "the time". But "the time" is wildly disproportionate to "the crime". This is bad for the same reason that we don't execute everyone convicted of breaking the law. Furthermore, how does your logic apply to the NSA? A group of someones very clearly broke the law hundreds of millions of times after being told to stop and being kicked off networks, then finding ever-more invasive ways of stealing our emails to grandma. Remind me, who is threatened with jail for the next billion (!) years under the CFAA?
    - roel_v 13y ago
      I'm not sure what points you're arguing, or what position you think I'm defending. He knew what 'the time' was, the saying doesn't go 'don't do the crime if you can't do what you feel is a reasonable amount of time for said crime'. I'm also not sure why you think this whole NSA bruha is relevant to this. What 'the law' is for an individual isn't always 'the law' for state actors, otherwise every soldier who ever killed someone would have to be jailed. I'm not interested in discussing whether the NSA spying is lawful, the point of my post was to counter the demagogy of 'oh he was just downloading stuff within his rights and then they killed him'. He deliberately broke the law, which is exactly what 'activism' is, but then when the time came to reap what he sewed, well we all know what happened then. Which is a tragedy, and I feel for the family having had two suicides close to me last year, but if you're going to make a point about sentencing practices or penalties of computer fraud laws, make them about actual issues, and don't distort what actually happened for your rhetorical convenience, otherwise you're no better than Fox News. (all 'you' in this not directed at 'you you' but meant as a generic 'you' that refers to everybody acting as described).
      - gress 13y ago
        How can you possibly assert that Aaron "knew what 'the time' was?" I'm sure he was aware that there could be legal repercussions, but I sincerely doubt that he thought he was risking a felony conviction, bankruptcy, and prison.
walid 13y ago
> Many people, almost by definition, do not believe that their own criminal acts were actually a "crime". Rationalization is a well-known human psychological phenomenon. It is problematic when you accept people's sworn testimony when it is against their true belief. Usually that is what is called a lie and sometimes a form of slavery. Disagreeing with clearly stated laws is one thing, but signing in agreement on what you totally disagree with and only because you were compelled is suppression of expression. I'm NOT trying to convert Aaron's position to one of free speech, but there is a line when you decide that someone has broken the law whether they agree to it or not and making them against their beliefs sign on a paper that becomes public record stating that they knowingly broke the law. The case here is when a law's validity is being challenged, this signed piece of paper removes any doubts about wrong doing and seals the fate of the signer. The law is validated by invalidating the counterargument through coercion. > Whatever else Aaron thought about his idealistic mission, being on the MIT subnet without permission was wrong (both morally and legally), as was entering into the MIT server farm to gain that access. But this wasn't even something that Aaron naïvely didn't recognize... he knew this was wrong to do as he had the same level of JSTOR access at his own campus at Harvard. But he didn't leech JSTOR from his own campus, he traveled across the city to surreptitiously do it from MIT. He even once covered his face with his bicycle helmet when he noticed a security camera so let's know act like "I didn't commit a crime" was his big hang-up. He did know, even if he disagreed personally with the law itself. This I totally agree with and even if he disagreed personally with the law itself he did what he did and it was at least in my opinion somehow not right and obviously illegal. > Well for starters you don't need to prove your innocence, you need only demonstrate that the government was unable to prove your guilt. But either way Dr. Granick covered this point already, and her treatment was comprehensive. The problem with this argument is that his life was already nuked. The prosecution and MIT were in cahoots. If you read the article carefully you can see that Aaron's lawyers were upset that the prosecution was getting documents from MIT without warrants and hence violating Aaron's 4th amendment rights. Tensions at MIT heightened in October after Aaron’s lawyers filed a motion alleging the university was “acting in concert” with the prosecution, violating federal law and Aaron’s Fourth Amendment rights protecting him from unreasonable search and seizure. The motion sought to suppress the indictment and all information gathered during the investigation. MIT was afraid its employees might have to defend themselves on the stand, which Abelson concluded served to further align the university’s interests with the prosecution.

by mpyne 13y ago

omegaworks 13y ago

>his idealistic mission We don't know what he intended to do with the JSTOR data. >being on the MIT subnet without permission was wrong MIT grants guest access to its network while on the physical premises. >MIT’s open-network policies at the time allowed anyone visiting campus to access services like JSTOR.

roel_v 13y ago
> MIT grants guest access to its network while on the physical premises. > >MIT’s open-network policies at the time allowed anyone visiting campus to access services like JSTOR. Please not this misinformation again. I have no horse in this race, but he was repeatedly kicked off the network, told not to mass-download again, and yet he chose to find ever-more invasive ways of accessing JSTOR, eventually planting a computer directly on the network access point; and doing so while disguised so as to avoid being caught on camera. It's not like he didn't know what was coming - and if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
- ogreyonder 13y ago
  > if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. That is entirely the point. He may well have been willing to do "the time". But "the time" is wildly disproportionate to "the crime". This is bad for the same reason that we don't execute everyone convicted of breaking the law. Furthermore, how does your logic apply to the NSA? A group of someones very clearly broke the law hundreds of millions of times after being told to stop and being kicked off networks, then finding ever-more invasive ways of stealing our emails to grandma. Remind me, who is threatened with jail for the next billion (!) years under the CFAA?
  - roel_v 13y ago
    I'm not sure what points you're arguing, or what position you think I'm defending. He knew what 'the time' was, the saying doesn't go 'don't do the crime if you can't do what you feel is a reasonable amount of time for said crime'. I'm also not sure why you think this whole NSA bruha is relevant to this. What 'the law' is for an individual isn't always 'the law' for state actors, otherwise every soldier who ever killed someone would have to be jailed. I'm not interested in discussing whether the NSA spying is lawful, the point of my post was to counter the demagogy of 'oh he was just downloading stuff within his rights and then they killed him'. He deliberately broke the law, which is exactly what 'activism' is, but then when the time came to reap what he sewed, well we all know what happened then. Which is a tragedy, and I feel for the family having had two suicides close to me last year, but if you're going to make a point about sentencing practices or penalties of computer fraud laws, make them about actual issues, and don't distort what actually happened for your rhetorical convenience, otherwise you're no better than Fox News. (all 'you' in this not directed at 'you you' but meant as a generic 'you' that refers to everybody acting as described).
    - gress 13y ago
      How can you possibly assert that Aaron "knew what 'the time' was?" I'm sure he was aware that there could be legal repercussions, but I sincerely doubt that he thought he was risking a felony conviction, bankruptcy, and prison.

walid 13y ago

> Many people, almost by definition, do not believe that their own criminal acts were actually a "crime". Rationalization is a well-known human psychological phenomenon. It is problematic when you accept people's sworn testimony when it is against their true belief. Usually that is what is called a lie and sometimes a form of slavery. Disagreeing with clearly stated laws is one thing, but signing in agreement on what you totally disagree with and only because you were compelled is suppression of expression. I'm NOT trying to convert Aaron's position to one of free speech, but there is a line when you decide that someone has broken the law whether they agree to it or not and making them against their beliefs sign on a paper that becomes public record stating that they knowingly broke the law. The case here is when a law's validity is being challenged, this signed piece of paper removes any doubts about wrong doing and seals the fate of the signer. The law is validated by invalidating the counterargument through coercion. > Whatever else Aaron thought about his idealistic mission, being on the MIT subnet without permission was wrong (both morally and legally), as was entering into the MIT server farm to gain that access. But this wasn't even something that Aaron naïvely didn't recognize... he knew this was wrong to do as he had the same level of JSTOR access at his own campus at Harvard. But he didn't leech JSTOR from his own campus, he traveled across the city to surreptitiously do it from MIT. He even once covered his face with his bicycle helmet when he noticed a security camera so let's know act like "I didn't commit a crime" was his big hang-up. He did know, even if he disagreed personally with the law itself. This I totally agree with and even if he disagreed personally with the law itself he did what he did and it was at least in my opinion somehow not right and obviously illegal. > Well for starters you don't need to prove your innocence, you need only demonstrate that the government was unable to prove your guilt. But either way Dr. Granick covered this point already, and her treatment was comprehensive. The problem with this argument is that his life was already nuked. The prosecution and MIT were in cahoots. If you read the article carefully you can see that Aaron's lawyers were upset that the prosecution was getting documents from MIT without warrants and hence violating Aaron's 4th amendment rights. Tensions at MIT heightened in October after Aaron’s lawyers filed a motion alleging the university was “acting in concert” with the prosecution, violating federal law and Aaron’s Fourth Amendment rights protecting him from unreasonable search and seizure. The motion sought to suppress the indictment and all information gathered during the investigation. MIT was afraid its employees might have to defend themselves on the stand, which Abelson concluded served to further align the university’s interests with the prosecution.