3 ms·
I continue to be astounded by the unprofessional, predatory manner in which MIT, JSTOR and in particular the federal prosecutors in this case handled themselves
by snsr 13y ago
I continue to be astounded by the unprofessional, predatory manner in which MIT, JSTOR and in particular the federal prosecutors in this case handled themselves.
The article also reiterates that the ridiculous CFAA charges centered on the claim that Swartz had unauthorized access to MIT and JSTOR’s networks (he was signed in as a guest).
- MIT officials openly mocking Mr Swartz - "LOL" -
http://www.bostonglobe.com/2014/03/29/documents-how-aaron-swartz-case-unfolded/sZR308WPbCx8ojopccHqEN/story.html#mit323 http://www.bostonglobe.com/2014/03/29/documents-how-aaron-sw...
- JSTOR equates downloading files with loss of physical property while simultaneously admitting this is an inaccurate comparison -
http://www.bostonglobe.com/2014/03/29/documents-how-aaron-swartz-case-unfolded/sZR308WPbCx8ojopccHqEN/story.html#jstor614 http://www.bostonglobe.com/2014/03/29/documents-how-aaron-sw...
- mc_hammer 13y agoI came here to post this as well, and to say it sounds incompetent that they required no credentials and no authorization to let someone use their systems - yet claim it was a a crime. They did not even look for the person for 2 months (according to the article). What's worse is he basically broke the terms and conditions on JSTOR's site, and the MIT networking terms, and got charged with 30+ years of felonies (!). Possibly because he was a critic of the government as noted in the article (!). Be careful what crap you agree to when you agree to a network or sites terms and conditions!