5 ms·

>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 acce

>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.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Surely Aaron was aware at the time of any of the prior CFAA cases on the books. It's not as if he was the very first "network hacker" in U.S. legal history. But either way even if he was not aware, that was a failure on his part, not the prosecutors. The law was not amended specifically for Aaron, it was on the books in substantially it's current form for more than enough time for Aaron to have researched it.
        gress 13y ago
        It's not at all obvious that he would be prosecuted under that law, assuming he was prosecuted at all. And this has nothing to do with whether it's the prosecutors fault or not (although their behavior was clearly morally reprehensible). The point is that he likely did not know to expect 'the time'. You have committed numerous felonies. Did you consider 'the time' before you committed them? http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.asp...
- ericd 13y ago
  I'm sorry, but you clearly don't know what the culture at MIT is like. People at MIT break into places like network closets all the time, including picking the locks (a popular hobby). It's not officially encouraged, but it's endemic, and the administration generally doesn't mind that much. Accessing places you're not supposed to be in and doing neat hacks is a big part of the culture. Lots of people "get kicked off the network" and warned about their behavior. Any administration that actively tried to tamp down on the culture would be shooting themselves in the foot in a big way, as that's a big part of what attracts a lot of people to the place. The incongruity with that normal attitude and spirit is a big part of what shocks people about this.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > People at MIT But Aaron was at Harvard. He was not an MIT student or part of their faculty. At what point does MIT get to take charge of their own network against third parties?
    - ericd 13y ago
      Harvard and MIT have a lot of crosstalk. If he knew people at MIT and was around, which I assume he did and was, it's generally socially acceptable to take part in "hacks" (breaking into locked places is one type).
      - mpyne 13y ago
        But he wasn't "taking part in" a hack, he was the hack. Ringleader, sole proprietor, everything. Crosstalk or not he should have started it at Harvard if it were so obviously on the up and up. And in any event once he was kicked off the network to such an extent as to require entering a network closet (note it was never locked, so there was no 'hack' to be had here physically) to regain the subnet he should have taken that as notice that his 'hack' was unwelcome. Well, he should have taken the hint earlier too...
        ericd 13y ago

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.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Surely Aaron was aware at the time of any of the prior CFAA cases on the books. It's not as if he was the very first "network hacker" in U.S. legal history. But either way even if he was not aware, that was a failure on his part, not the prosecutors. The law was not amended specifically for Aaron, it was on the books in substantially it's current form for more than enough time for Aaron to have researched it.
      - gress 13y ago
        It's not at all obvious that he would be prosecuted under that law, assuming he was prosecuted at all. And this has nothing to do with whether it's the prosecutors fault or not (although their behavior was clearly morally reprehensible). The point is that he likely did not know to expect 'the time'. You have committed numerous felonies. Did you consider 'the time' before you committed them? http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.asp...
ericd 13y ago
I'm sorry, but you clearly don't know what the culture at MIT is like. People at MIT break into places like network closets all the time, including picking the locks (a popular hobby). It's not officially encouraged, but it's endemic, and the administration generally doesn't mind that much. Accessing places you're not supposed to be in and doing neat hacks is a big part of the culture. Lots of people "get kicked off the network" and warned about their behavior. Any administration that actively tried to tamp down on the culture would be shooting themselves in the foot in a big way, as that's a big part of what attracts a lot of people to the place. The incongruity with that normal attitude and spirit is a big part of what shocks people about this.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > People at MIT But Aaron was at Harvard. He was not an MIT student or part of their faculty. At what point does MIT get to take charge of their own network against third parties?
  - ericd 13y ago
    Harvard and MIT have a lot of crosstalk. If he knew people at MIT and was around, which I assume he did and was, it's generally socially acceptable to take part in "hacks" (breaking into locked places is one type).
    - mpyne 13y ago
      But he wasn't "taking part in" a hack, he was the hack. Ringleader, sole proprietor, everything. Crosstalk or not he should have started it at Harvard if it were so obviously on the up and up. And in any event once he was kicked off the network to such an extent as to require entering a network closet (note it was never locked, so there was no 'hack' to be had here physically) to regain the subnet he should have taken that as notice that his 'hack' was unwelcome. Well, he should have taken the hint earlier too...
      - ericd 13y ago