7 ms·

We should resume who did what: * Massachusetts US Attorney Carmen Ortiz pushed for the prosecution * MIT (can we be more specific?) did nothing to stop the pr

by zz1 11y ago

We should resume who did what: * Massachusetts US Attorney Carmen Ortiz pushed for the prosecution * MIT (can we be more specific?) did nothing to stop the prosecution (to say the least) Please, continue...

voteforchange 11y ago
Michael Pickett of the secret service who aided MIT's IT staff and security in strong arming Aaron and escalating the case and the relevant charges. His presence and influence was the main factor in pumping up the charges and gathering evidence to support them when this could and should have been a matter between the school and its student.
- tveita 11y ago
  Aaron Swartz was not a MIT student. From the MIT report: "Aaron Swartz was neither a member of the MIT staff, nor an enrolled student nor alumnus, nor a member of the faculty. He was a regular visitor to the MIT campus and interacted with MIT people and groups both on campus and off."
  - voteforchange 11y ago
    I didn't realize that. He was accessing student services allocated to him under his enrollment with the university. I won't try to litigate the case here. I see why it might be complicated by that fact. I want to know who called in the secret service/electronic crimes division here? MIT (who's only concern was trespass) or JSTOR who might be able to enforce contract terms on MIT or a EULA on Aaron at best?
    - tedunangst 11y ago
      Another (rhetorical) question: did they call the secret service before or after they identified who and what was happening?
      - voteforchange 11y ago
        I don't know about you, but I always call the FBI when I leave my facebook open at the public library: http://www.avclub.com/article/updated-fbi-arrests-man-suspected-of-leaking-scarl-63289 http://www.avclub.com/article/updated-fbi-arrests-man-suspec...
        tedunangst 11y ago
        Totally relevant.
        tzs 11y ago
        What was happening at MIT was hardly equivalent to someone leaving their Facebook page open at the library. They had some unknown person massively exceeding the limits of what they intended to offer to the public. When they used blocking methods that would stop most people, he evaded them. When they continued trying to stop him, he continued evading. Then he entered an equipment room off limits to the public, wired equipment into the network, and hid it. He repeatedly trespassed to check his equipment and was grabbing so much data that to stop him JSTOR cut all of MIT off from JSTOR access for a couple days while they tried to figure out what to do next. So at that point he has disrupted research at MIT and possibly put them in violation of their contract with JSTOR. MIT is a major research center, and that research includes quite a bit of research funded by and for the Department of Defense and other government agencies. Poking that kind of thing tends to get agencies like the Secret Service called in.
        voteforchange 11y ago
        That's a debate worth having. My opening salvo: The point at which individuals and corporations use of cryptography can be denigrated as, "Making it hard to detect terrorist activity" is the exact point at which it becomes impossible for the individual or the corporation to meaningfully engage with law enforcement. The escalation of the rhetoric surrounding e-crimes blurs and negates our ability not only to judge appropriate penalties, general severity, but also when, how, and to whom to report these crimes. Its very hard to even tell when and if a crime has been committed. In such a chaotic environment it is inevitable that money and connections and influence supplant the law.
afarrell 11y ago
Those curious about MIT's role should 1) Read Prof Hal Abelson's report http://swartz-report.mit.edu/ http://swartz-report.mit.edu/ 2) Remember that a prosecutor does not serve the person who reported a crime or prompted an investigation. A prosecutor serves The State http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1423 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1423
- yarrel 11y ago
  MIT's neutrality really comes through as a badge of shame there.
- Zigurd 11y ago
  That report is a shameful whitewash
  - afarrell 11y ago
    Do you have sources to contradict it?
    - Zigurd 11y ago
      Contradict what? The report amounts to "It wasn't our fault because, except for the people we won't name, and won't say what they told law enforcement, nobody here told Aaron to kill himself." That doesn't need to be contradicted to call it weak sauce and whitewash.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    You're accusing Hal Abelson of deliberately deceiving the public? Or is there a better way to interpret what you wrote?
    - Zigurd 11y ago
      If you look at my response below, the report does not have to be an outright lie to be a whitewash. It can deceive by omission, for example. The headline of CNN's coverage of the report was "We did not target Aaron." That's true-ish. There's a lot of room between there and the truth, which is more like "We failed to stand up to stop a bad investigation and prosecution, and now we're dodging responsibility." Would you place all the responsibility for the report on Abelson? Or do you think Rafael Reif is responsible for setting the parameters of the report to be produced?

by zz1 11y ago

voteforchange 11y ago

Michael Pickett of the secret service who aided MIT's IT staff and security in strong arming Aaron and escalating the case and the relevant charges. His presence and influence was the main factor in pumping up the charges and gathering evidence to support them when this could and should have been a matter between the school and its student.

tveita 11y ago
Aaron Swartz was not a MIT student. From the MIT report: "Aaron Swartz was neither a member of the MIT staff, nor an enrolled student nor alumnus, nor a member of the faculty. He was a regular visitor to the MIT campus and interacted with MIT people and groups both on campus and off."
- voteforchange 11y ago
  I didn't realize that. He was accessing student services allocated to him under his enrollment with the university. I won't try to litigate the case here. I see why it might be complicated by that fact. I want to know who called in the secret service/electronic crimes division here? MIT (who's only concern was trespass) or JSTOR who might be able to enforce contract terms on MIT or a EULA on Aaron at best?
  - tedunangst 11y ago
    Another (rhetorical) question: did they call the secret service before or after they identified who and what was happening?
    - voteforchange 11y ago
      I don't know about you, but I always call the FBI when I leave my facebook open at the public library: http://www.avclub.com/article/updated-fbi-arrests-man-suspected-of-leaking-scarl-63289 http://www.avclub.com/article/updated-fbi-arrests-man-suspec...
      - tedunangst 11y ago
        Totally relevant.
      - tzs 11y ago
        What was happening at MIT was hardly equivalent to someone leaving their Facebook page open at the library. They had some unknown person massively exceeding the limits of what they intended to offer to the public. When they used blocking methods that would stop most people, he evaded them. When they continued trying to stop him, he continued evading. Then he entered an equipment room off limits to the public, wired equipment into the network, and hid it. He repeatedly trespassed to check his equipment and was grabbing so much data that to stop him JSTOR cut all of MIT off from JSTOR access for a couple days while they tried to figure out what to do next. So at that point he has disrupted research at MIT and possibly put them in violation of their contract with JSTOR. MIT is a major research center, and that research includes quite a bit of research funded by and for the Department of Defense and other government agencies. Poking that kind of thing tends to get agencies like the Secret Service called in.
        voteforchange 11y ago
        That's a debate worth having. My opening salvo: The point at which individuals and corporations use of cryptography can be denigrated as, "Making it hard to detect terrorist activity" is the exact point at which it becomes impossible for the individual or the corporation to meaningfully engage with law enforcement. The escalation of the rhetoric surrounding e-crimes blurs and negates our ability not only to judge appropriate penalties, general severity, but also when, how, and to whom to report these crimes. Its very hard to even tell when and if a crime has been committed. In such a chaotic environment it is inevitable that money and connections and influence supplant the law.

afarrell 11y ago

Those curious about MIT's role should 1) Read Prof Hal Abelson's report http://swartz-report.mit.edu/ http://swartz-report.mit.edu/ 2) Remember that a prosecutor does not serve the person who reported a crime or prompted an investigation. A prosecutor serves The State http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1423 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1423

yarrel 11y ago
MIT's neutrality really comes through as a badge of shame there.
Zigurd 11y ago
That report is a shameful whitewash
- afarrell 11y ago
  Do you have sources to contradict it?
  - Zigurd 11y ago
    Contradict what? The report amounts to "It wasn't our fault because, except for the people we won't name, and won't say what they told law enforcement, nobody here told Aaron to kill himself." That doesn't need to be contradicted to call it weak sauce and whitewash.
- tptacek 11y ago
  You're accusing Hal Abelson of deliberately deceiving the public? Or is there a better way to interpret what you wrote?
  - Zigurd 11y ago
    If you look at my response below, the report does not have to be an outright lie to be a whitewash. It can deceive by omission, for example. The headline of CNN's coverage of the report was "We did not target Aaron." That's true-ish. There's a lot of room between there and the truth, which is more like "We failed to stand up to stop a bad investigation and prosecution, and now we're dodging responsibility." Would you place all the responsibility for the report on Abelson? Or do you think Rafael Reif is responsible for setting the parameters of the report to be produced?