4 ms·

hope the movie is not as one sided as the long version trailer. aaron knew about the current laws. aaron decided to break the law, absolutely no grey area ther

hope the movie is not as one sided as the long version trailer. aaron knew about the current laws. aaron decided to break the law, absolutely no grey area there. trespassed, hooked his machine physically up where it did not belong. aaron tried to be a hero, just like ghandi or mandela. when he faced similar consequences like those - his weakened state of mind kicked in and he ended his life. a little bit like a little kid touching a hot plate and then being surprised about the massive consequences and overwhelming pain. where were all his friends and peers during those actions? did nobody notice he was playing with fire? nobody told him to back off?

lostlogin 12y ago
The last paragraph of your statement could be applied to MIT or the prosecutor.
- pinaceae 12y ago
  they don't appear teary eyed in the video. i am sorry, but the trailer makes it look like a one-sided propaganda piece. angels & demons. and as i wrote, i hope the trailer does not reflect the whole documentary.
atmosx 12y ago
So you're saying that all he received was justice?
fossuser 12y ago
Aaron went into a place with public access internet (MIT) and had a python script download public documents that anyone on MIT's network had access (and the legal right) to download. While an argument could be made that JSTOR didn't want people downloading so many so quickly they could have solved that other ways - nothing here was breaking the law. It was technically legal. An argument could be made that Aaron planned to publicly release them to everyone on the internet for free (I didn't get to meet him personally, but from what I know about him I think this is likely). That was never part of the crimes he was charged for and frankly I'm not sure if it was even alleged. JSTOR understood this, dropped charges and backed out. He was then charged with 13 felonies: Wire Fraud - 2 counts Computer Fraud - 5 counts Unlawfully Obtaining Information from a Protected Computer - 5 counts Recklessly Damaging a Protected Computer - 1 count Aaron was someone who probably would have been acquitted ($1.5 million dollars in legal costs later), who's actions weren't illegal that was bullied with multiple decades in prison and driven to suicide because he was trying to do the right thing. When asked about the government's actions in pursuing him, Carmen Ortiz defended her (and the government's) actions as "appropriate". Is that Justice? Copyright law was originally intended as an incentive for people to create, a deal with the government for a limited time monopoly in order to generate content for the public's benefit. The original spirit of the law has been lost - along with our republic. [1] [1] http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_t...
- record_reason 12y ago
  I know a little about this situation, but not the legal proceedings. Aaron downloaded JSTOR documents (bulk scrape) over the wireless network, and was blocked by the sysadmins (rate ban). So he spoofed his MAC address, and the cat and mouse game continued. When wireless was throttled (and the ban/spoof game reduced the rate of download to something too slow), Aaron then accessed a data closet and plugged a cable into a switch, leaving his notebook in the switch room with a USB drive. The admins traced the JSTOR downloads to the switch port, and installed a video camera to see who was accessing their switch. Aaron would access the closet to retrieve his USB drive full of downloaded files, saw the camera, and on return visits he hid his face with a bike helmet. (He could see through the air slats on the helmet.) These facts, called "atmospherics" by some, really changed my mind about the case. Prosecutors call this "intent" to gain unauthorized access to a network (the cisco switch and data closet, after repeated attempts to ban access). I've also heard the prosecution was aggressive, and read this everywhere, mostly focusing on Ortiz as a person and her judgement (which worries me, since I don't know if we'd use the same 'aggressive' adjective for a male prosecutor). I think 'zealous' is the word lawyers use generally for being tough. I don't know enough about computer crime to judge, but if this guy behaved this way on my network, I would call the police, frankly. A few events evading a ban? Ok fine. Account jigger and email or in-person discussion to get them to stop. Accessing a data closet to keep it up, and installing a cable to my switch, and installing gear? And then wearing a mask to get the hard drives? Wow. In my mind, all I can think of is: "he knows it's wrong". So I think Aaron should have answered for this. What degree of prosecution would be non-"aggressive"? (And isn't the whole thing like an auction where the state starts high and pleas down?) I think Aaron really just lost perspective (about access. Suicide is a whole other thing). It's very sad, how it ended in Aaron's death, but for me, I just can't put that blood on Ortiz.
- danielweber 12y ago
  The MIT network isn't "public." They let guests use it with proper registration. You ignore MIT's repeated attempts to lock him out and his working around their countermeasures each time, leading to more and more escalation. If he had just run his scraper exactly once and then stopped the first time he was kicked off, no one would have cared. He also wasn't facing "multiple decades in prison." This has been debunked so many times it's getting exhausting, but once again I'll point out that his lawyer was not a complete hayseed and understood that, even if Aaron went to trial and was found guilty on every single count, he would face at most a few years in jail, and quite possibly no jail time at all.
forgottenpass 12y ago
I dunno, middle of the road-ing the issue by focusing on "don't rock the boat" aspects is both boring and more suited to daytime cable news viewers with their brains turned off or never progressed past Kohlberg's 4th stage.

lostlogin 12y ago

The last paragraph of your statement could be applied to MIT or the prosecutor.

pinaceae 12y ago
they don't appear teary eyed in the video. i am sorry, but the trailer makes it look like a one-sided propaganda piece. angels & demons. and as i wrote, i hope the trailer does not reflect the whole documentary.

atmosx 12y ago

So you're saying that all he received was justice?

fossuser 12y ago

Aaron went into a place with public access internet (MIT) and had a python script download public documents that anyone on MIT's network had access (and the legal right) to download. While an argument could be made that JSTOR didn't want people downloading so many so quickly they could have solved that other ways - nothing here was breaking the law. It was technically legal. An argument could be made that Aaron planned to publicly release them to everyone on the internet for free (I didn't get to meet him personally, but from what I know about him I think this is likely). That was never part of the crimes he was charged for and frankly I'm not sure if it was even alleged. JSTOR understood this, dropped charges and backed out. He was then charged with 13 felonies: Wire Fraud - 2 counts Computer Fraud - 5 counts Unlawfully Obtaining Information from a Protected Computer - 5 counts Recklessly Damaging a Protected Computer - 1 count Aaron was someone who probably would have been acquitted ($1.5 million dollars in legal costs later), who's actions weren't illegal that was bullied with multiple decades in prison and driven to suicide because he was trying to do the right thing. When asked about the government's actions in pursuing him, Carmen Ortiz defended her (and the government's) actions as "appropriate". Is that Justice? Copyright law was originally intended as an incentive for people to create, a deal with the government for a limited time monopoly in order to generate content for the public's benefit. The original spirit of the law has been lost - along with our republic. [1] [1] http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_t...

record_reason 12y ago
I know a little about this situation, but not the legal proceedings. Aaron downloaded JSTOR documents (bulk scrape) over the wireless network, and was blocked by the sysadmins (rate ban). So he spoofed his MAC address, and the cat and mouse game continued. When wireless was throttled (and the ban/spoof game reduced the rate of download to something too slow), Aaron then accessed a data closet and plugged a cable into a switch, leaving his notebook in the switch room with a USB drive. The admins traced the JSTOR downloads to the switch port, and installed a video camera to see who was accessing their switch. Aaron would access the closet to retrieve his USB drive full of downloaded files, saw the camera, and on return visits he hid his face with a bike helmet. (He could see through the air slats on the helmet.) These facts, called "atmospherics" by some, really changed my mind about the case. Prosecutors call this "intent" to gain unauthorized access to a network (the cisco switch and data closet, after repeated attempts to ban access). I've also heard the prosecution was aggressive, and read this everywhere, mostly focusing on Ortiz as a person and her judgement (which worries me, since I don't know if we'd use the same 'aggressive' adjective for a male prosecutor). I think 'zealous' is the word lawyers use generally for being tough. I don't know enough about computer crime to judge, but if this guy behaved this way on my network, I would call the police, frankly. A few events evading a ban? Ok fine. Account jigger and email or in-person discussion to get them to stop. Accessing a data closet to keep it up, and installing a cable to my switch, and installing gear? And then wearing a mask to get the hard drives? Wow. In my mind, all I can think of is: "he knows it's wrong". So I think Aaron should have answered for this. What degree of prosecution would be non-"aggressive"? (And isn't the whole thing like an auction where the state starts high and pleas down?) I think Aaron really just lost perspective (about access. Suicide is a whole other thing). It's very sad, how it ended in Aaron's death, but for me, I just can't put that blood on Ortiz.
danielweber 12y ago
The MIT network isn't "public." They let guests use it with proper registration. You ignore MIT's repeated attempts to lock him out and his working around their countermeasures each time, leading to more and more escalation. If he had just run his scraper exactly once and then stopped the first time he was kicked off, no one would have cared. He also wasn't facing "multiple decades in prison." This has been debunked so many times it's getting exhausting, but once again I'll point out that his lawyer was not a complete hayseed and understood that, even if Aaron went to trial and was found guilty on every single count, he would face at most a few years in jail, and quite possibly no jail time at all.

forgottenpass 12y ago

I dunno, middle of the road-ing the issue by focusing on "don't rock the boat" aspects is both boring and more suited to daytime cable news viewers with their brains turned off or never progressed past Kohlberg's 4th stage.