5 ms·

> I feel rather silly commenting as a voice of dissent here, against a man who cannot defend himself, but here goes. I agree. AS being dead makes it difficult

by anon3_ 11y ago

> I feel rather silly commenting as a voice of dissent here, against a man who cannot defend himself, but here goes. I agree. AS being dead makes it difficult to discuss issues related to him. I don't view AS as wise sage. I always found he was a bit of a self-promoter; a bit of a loose cannon. A person who was a hacker, but like some millennials, the validation from publicity got to his head. It's taboo. If you attack certain things on the merits - certain people will believe you're attacking all freedom of information - because they relate AS to some sort of representation of it. Burglarizing MIT isn't hack in the sense of hacker culture. MIT hacks were clever. Burglarizing for the attempt to swallow data isn't clever - it's a hammer.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
axaxs 11y ago
I see you being downvoted. This doesn't seem right to me in that I agree with you completely, so implicate myself with this comment to show my support.
jamra 11y ago
You really are speaking ill of the dead. Calling him a self-promoter and a loose cannon isn't appropriate. As far as the MIT incident... I don't really think he burglarized MIT. He tried to bring documents that were hidden behind a paywall to the general public. He didn't rob anyone seeing as how the documents were submitted without compensation by the people who created them. Whether or not it's hacker culture, it's a culture of social disruption aimed at the betterment of us all. There will always be shakers, people who raise their voices loud to stand for what they believe in. Unfortunately, they will all be followed by people like you and your parent poster who will attempt to defame their character and negate their contributions.
- hnnewguy 11y ago
  >I don't really think he burglarized MIT I think Mr. Swartz's actions at MIT are admirable, but I don't know how you can deny that what he did was burglary.
  - jamra 11y ago
    Burglary is theft of valuables. What was stolen? Data was copied, not erased. The moral ownership of that data is by the many authors who were never reimbursed. JSTOR is a scam.
    - morganvachon 11y ago
      Burglary isn't theft. Burglary is breaking into a place you don't have permission to enter, with the intent to commit a crime. If you then commit that crime (whether it's theft, vandalism, destruction of property, etc.) you are usually charged with that other crime alongside the burglary charge.
      - jamra 11y ago
        Ok so lets focus on the act of breaking in, though there was no financial loss. Lets ignore the fact that he could have obtained everything without "breaking in" if he did so at Stanford. It's clear to me that in Aaron's mind, he was not breaking in. A laptop in an unlocked cabinet is not really breaking in. It seems as though there is some kind of personal hatred towards Aaron that compels people to try and vilify him as if he was some sort of criminal.
        morganvachon 11y ago
        > It seems as though there is some kind of personal hatred towards Aaron that compels people to try and vilify him as if he was some sort of criminal. Not on my part, I've always thought highly of him. I was just correcting your misconception about burglary laws. > A laptop in an unlocked cabinet is not really breaking in. Burglary, again, is gaining entry to a place you're not authorized to be, with the intent to commit a criminal act. Whether the cabinet was locked or not has no bearing on that charge. In many places, entering an unlocked car or house that doesn't belong to you constitutes burglary, even if you don't do anything while you're there. It's up to the court to prove whether you had intent to commit a crime, but the simple act of gaining unauthorized entry is usually enough to be charged with burglary. One more thing: I agree with you in that I don't think Aaron felt what he was doing was wrong. Given my background in law enforcement, I simply felt compelled to correct a misconception. You can read more about the charge of burglary in general here, though you may wish to read about Massachusetts's specific laws as well: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/burglary-overview.html http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/burglary-overvi...
woah 11y ago
Burglarizing MIT was the right thing to do. This is true, regardless of whether or not you find it inelegant.

by anon3_ 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

axaxs 11y ago

I see you being downvoted. This doesn't seem right to me in that I agree with you completely, so implicate myself with this comment to show my support.

jamra 11y ago

You really are speaking ill of the dead. Calling him a self-promoter and a loose cannon isn't appropriate. As far as the MIT incident... I don't really think he burglarized MIT. He tried to bring documents that were hidden behind a paywall to the general public. He didn't rob anyone seeing as how the documents were submitted without compensation by the people who created them. Whether or not it's hacker culture, it's a culture of social disruption aimed at the betterment of us all. There will always be shakers, people who raise their voices loud to stand for what they believe in. Unfortunately, they will all be followed by people like you and your parent poster who will attempt to defame their character and negate their contributions.

hnnewguy 11y ago
>I don't really think he burglarized MIT I think Mr. Swartz's actions at MIT are admirable, but I don't know how you can deny that what he did was burglary.
- jamra 11y ago
  Burglary is theft of valuables. What was stolen? Data was copied, not erased. The moral ownership of that data is by the many authors who were never reimbursed. JSTOR is a scam.
  - morganvachon 11y ago
    Burglary isn't theft. Burglary is breaking into a place you don't have permission to enter, with the intent to commit a crime. If you then commit that crime (whether it's theft, vandalism, destruction of property, etc.) you are usually charged with that other crime alongside the burglary charge.
    - jamra 11y ago
      Ok so lets focus on the act of breaking in, though there was no financial loss. Lets ignore the fact that he could have obtained everything without "breaking in" if he did so at Stanford. It's clear to me that in Aaron's mind, he was not breaking in. A laptop in an unlocked cabinet is not really breaking in. It seems as though there is some kind of personal hatred towards Aaron that compels people to try and vilify him as if he was some sort of criminal.
      - morganvachon 11y ago
        > It seems as though there is some kind of personal hatred towards Aaron that compels people to try and vilify him as if he was some sort of criminal. Not on my part, I've always thought highly of him. I was just correcting your misconception about burglary laws. > A laptop in an unlocked cabinet is not really breaking in. Burglary, again, is gaining entry to a place you're not authorized to be, with the intent to commit a criminal act. Whether the cabinet was locked or not has no bearing on that charge. In many places, entering an unlocked car or house that doesn't belong to you constitutes burglary, even if you don't do anything while you're there. It's up to the court to prove whether you had intent to commit a crime, but the simple act of gaining unauthorized entry is usually enough to be charged with burglary. One more thing: I agree with you in that I don't think Aaron felt what he was doing was wrong. Given my background in law enforcement, I simply felt compelled to correct a misconception. You can read more about the charge of burglary in general here, though you may wish to read about Massachusetts's specific laws as well: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/burglary-overview.html http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/burglary-overvi...

woah 11y ago

Burglarizing MIT was the right thing to do. This is true, regardless of whether or not you find it inelegant.