If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   JSTOR itself believed that Aaron Swartz had "the right" to download from the site, and was not doing anything illegal   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 162
    More: Followup, Aaron Swartz, Computer Crime, JSTOR, force of law, internet freedom, MIT  
•       •       •

4390 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Jan 2013 at 9:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



162 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-14 10:45:02 AM  

Teiritzamna: Kinek: Coming soon: Patent for crime. Patent for Crime ON A COMPUTER.

alas, illegal acts are unpatentable subject matter.


Arguably, that's not true after Juicy Whip v. Orange Bang, which said that something that was potentially fraudulent could still be patented. ;)
 
2013-01-14 10:45:48 AM  

Kinek: I just note that your worldview places TOS violations within easy analogy distance of beating your spouse. It's telling of the sanctity of particular aspects of the law to you.


ah and now the implied ad hominem becomes explici:. How dare you, Theaetetus, be one of those people who see that different things can still have attributes that are similar! How dare you, sir!
 
2013-01-14 10:46:13 AM  

China White Tea: Wait, when the fark did we get back to the idiotic notion that violating TOS = a criminal offense? I could swear that idea had previously received a thorough bludgeoning.


We haven't. Computer Fraud and 'Hacking' and any number of computer related criminal offenses are so ill defined that you can pretty much guaruntee that anyone within twenty feet of a computer while committing a crime is guilty of them. Stack on the charges at prosecutorial discretion.
 
2013-01-14 10:46:56 AM  

Theaetetus: Teiritzamna: Kinek: Coming soon: Patent for crime. Patent for Crime ON A COMPUTER.

alas, illegal acts are unpatentable subject matter.

Arguably, that's not true after Juicy Whip v. Orange Bang, which said that something that was potentially fraudulent could still be patented. ;)


I totally knew you would attempt to come back with Juicy Whip.

/also IP cases have the second best names in all of law - after in rem actions.
 
2013-01-14 10:47:23 AM  

Kinek: Theaetetus: Kinek: Except that such comparisons can be used to frame a 'crime' in a way that seems more dispalatable to a general audience.

If you're blaming me for your reading too much in my analogy, then I think your ire is misplaced.

Which one of you was the one who told me that we have different words for different crimes? That I should just go on down to the convenience store and rape me a packet of cigarettes? Comparing TOS violations to domestic abuse, a highly inflammatory subject suggest that the two are in some way equivalent. I think that suggests more your frame of mind, than anything in reality. Tell me, which is worse; Violating copyright or Violating a woman?

Again, I think you read far too much into this. Perhaps you'd like to answer the question above - are you disagreeing with the underlying point regarding the state's ability to prosecute crimes, even over the protests of the victim?

I just note that your worldview places TOS violations within easy analogy distance of beating your spouse.


I just note that your worldview says that "A cannot be compared to B, if B gives me the ability to express EMOTIONAL OUTRAGE!"

I also just note that you refused, twice, to answer my question, and are instead trolling on such EMOTIONAL OUTRAGE. Pretty shameful, honestly. I normally expect better from you.
 
2013-01-14 10:50:11 AM  
Should point out too that we're not talking about "TOS violations" being compared to domestic abuse, but rather "wire fraud" and "trespassing".

Bit of goalpost moving there, Kinek?
 
Esn
2013-01-14 10:50:42 AM  

Teiritzamna: Kinek: I just note that your worldview places TOS violations within easy analogy distance of beating your spouse. It's telling of the sanctity of particular aspects of the law to you.

ah and now the implied ad hominem becomes explici:. How dare you, Theaetetus, be one of those people who see that different things can still have attributes that are similar! How dare you, sir!


It's a perfectly reasonable criticism. See, to most people, beating your spouse is a far worse thing than breaking the TOS on a website. Making easy comparisons between the two indicates that your moral compass is, let us say... either very unusual, nonexistent or heavily suppressed.
 
Esn
2013-01-14 10:53:17 AM  

Theaetetus: Kinek: Theaetetus: Kinek: Except that such comparisons can be used to frame a 'crime' in a way that seems more dispalatable to a general audience.

If you're blaming me for your reading too much in my analogy, then I think your ire is misplaced.

Which one of you was the one who told me that we have different words for different crimes? That I should just go on down to the convenience store and rape me a packet of cigarettes? Comparing TOS violations to domestic abuse, a highly inflammatory subject suggest that the two are in some way equivalent. I think that suggests more your frame of mind, than anything in reality. Tell me, which is worse; Violating copyright or Violating a woman?

Again, I think you read far too much into this. Perhaps you'd like to answer the question above - are you disagreeing with the underlying point regarding the state's ability to prosecute crimes, even over the protests of the victim?

I just note that your worldview places TOS violations within easy analogy distance of beating your spouse.

I just note that your worldview says that "A cannot be compared to B, if B gives me the ability to express EMOTIONAL OUTRAGE!"

I also just note that you refused, twice, to answer my question, and are instead trolling on such EMOTIONAL OUTRAGE. Pretty shameful, honestly. I normally expect better from you.


You're the one who started it by trying to transfer the emotional response associated with wife-beating to something that does not elicit that response in people. Don't play innocent now after someone called you out on it.
 
2013-01-14 10:56:11 AM  

Esn: Teiritzamna: Kinek: I just note that your worldview places TOS violations within easy analogy distance of beating your spouse. It's telling of the sanctity of particular aspects of the law to you.

ah and now the implied ad hominem becomes explici:. How dare you, Theaetetus, be one of those people who see that different things can still have attributes that are similar! How dare you, sir!

It's a perfectly reasonable criticism. See, to most people, beating your spouse is a far worse thing than breaking the TOS on a website. Making easy comparisons between the two indicates that your moral compass is, let us say... either very unusual, nonexistent or heavily suppressed.


Shoplifting is a misdemeanor that may include up to a year in prison. First-degree murder is a felony that may include life without parole, or even capital punishment.

HOLY CRAP! I just compared those two! I'm a MONSTER!
 
2013-01-14 10:58:22 AM  

Theaetetus: t3knomanser: Considering he and the alleged victim reached an understanding without needing Federal charges being filed, and the unlikelyhood of any kind of recidivism along these lines, it's a perfect example of where prosecutorial discretion comes into play.

I'd disagree about the recidivism - he did it previously with the PACER library, and has defended his actions as morally justifiable. I'd say that he'd be highly likely to do it again, in fact.
That said, I agree that it's really not that terrible, and community service would be a better move. Jail would be unlikely to have any positive results in his case.

Kinek: Agreed. This, along with the nebulous nature of the crime of Computer fraud, which seems to be the catch-all term for 'You did something that we don't like with a computer. Whether that's DDOS the Dow, or break the TOS on Imgur it's all the same'. It really is one of those laws thats been twisted to be a prosecuters Swiss army knife, rather than to indicate any damage or egregiousness.

There's nothing nebulous about it. Just because you haven't bothered to read the statute doesn't mean it's nebulous or a catch-all.


The classic appeal to the fact that I'm not a lawyer.

Alright, I will present this case.

Woman impersonates a girl on facebook in order to get her daughter's friend (who recently farked with the daughter)'s trust. Gets all that information. Releases it publically, 'causes' her to commit suicide. In the absence of any real crimes that they could make stick, they decided to invoke Computer Fraud. That's the problem here. Prosecuters look, see that there's 'Something' wrong, but have no chargable crime. But a computer was involved in what was -obviously- a crime. Even though they can't actually find a crime. But computer fraud is 'Any unauthorized use of a computer'. Which, lets face it. Most people break every day. No. I don't have to read the CDCFAA to recognize when its used by prosecutors as a last ditch effort to get someone for something. That's what happened here. Swartz was a dissident. He'd previously made the court system look bad. So they kept an eye on him and threw everything they could in the book at him.

Computer crime is a law that everyone breaks every day. That's why it's dangerous as a law.
 
2013-01-14 11:00:24 AM  

Esn: You're the one who started it by trying to transfer the emotional response associated with wife-beating to something that does not elicit that response in people.


Not at all. I was using it as an example of a crime that may be prosecuted against the wishes of the victim. I actually lifted the analogy from a Slashdot comment, since I thought it was apt. Want more? Statutory rape. Or how about murder - the victim certainly isn't cooperating there. Sex trafficking prosecutions frequently don't get the cooperation of the victim, due to fear of reprisal.

It's a great dodge for you and Kinek, though, since it allows you to express EMOTIONAL OUTRAGE!!! without ever acknowledging the underlying point: that the state doesn't necessarily need approval or cooperation of the victim to prosecution a crime. I mean, it's got everything for you: righteous anger, threadjacking, ad hominems. Shiat, a troll could have a pretty good thread with all that stuff.
 
2013-01-14 11:01:16 AM  

Theaetetus: Should point out too that we're not talking about "TOS violations" being compared to domestic abuse, but rather "wire fraud" and "trespassing".

Bit of goalpost moving there, Kinek?


Wire fraud. Fraud committed by means of electronic communication, as by telephone or modem.

Huh. Sounds exactly like computer fraud, but redundant so we can stick even more charges on him because he made us look like shiat with the PACER case.
 
2013-01-14 11:02:07 AM  

Esn: You're the one who started it by trying to transfer the emotional response associated with wife-beating to something that does not elicit that response in people. Don't play innocent now after someone called you out on it.


No. Seriously No.

This is one of the biggest differences between lawyers and non-lawyers. Do you know what law school is? Its 3 years of learning to do this. To take disparate concepts, and find out where they have points in common, and then argue based on them. All of law is basically the art of figuring out how are, say, murder, rape and littering similar? How are they different?

Read any legal opinion and you will see judges comparing the legal equivalent of apples to oranges (hint they are both fruit). If this bothers you, god forbid you ever read a legal journal - which tend to be chock full of this stuff. hell among lawyers its kinda our sport.
 
2013-01-14 11:03:16 AM  

ZAZ: Its more akin to breaking and entering than stealing.

It was probably literally breaking and entering, i.e. felony burglary.


Well, considering he apparently walked into a utility room holding the JSTOR database and retrieved hard drives he had put there earlier to copy data, yes.

img2u.info

I feel bad when people decide to kill themselves over crap like this. Terminal illness, mental health issues, quality of life, I can see, but over this? Sad.

The prosecutor is a dick, but let's be clear on a couple of things here: There are three types of prosecutors: Honest, fair prosecutors, Honest, hardass prosecutors, and dishonest prosecutors. The last two are going for 100% conviction rates, and if they have the evidence to convict, they will (the dishonest one is willing to cover up exonerating evidence, but that isn't the case here). The hardass will nail you for 1mph over the speed limit, for running the yellow that changes to red, for jaywalking at 4am when there isn't a car in sight. They have no heart, but they are 100% correct in their actions, because the law says so... that's doesn't make it right, however. In our justice system, the layers of justice are there to provide leniency under various circumstances, which is where the Honest, Fair prosecutor comes into play. He's the guy who has to say, JSTOR isn't pressing the issue, MIT is silent, and we are hard pressed to find a real victim without JSTOR... so let's drop the charges. Swartz committed a crime, and as such, he should have expected to be convicted of that crime... there was no guarantee he'd get a fair prosecutor; if he was lucky, he'd get a fair jury, though. Ultimately that's the last line of defense in the justice system; this kid just wasn't patient enough to see it through.
 
2013-01-14 11:04:48 AM  

Theaetetus: Esn: You're the one who started it by trying to transfer the emotional response associated with wife-beating to something that does not elicit that response in people.

Not at all. I was using it as an example of a crime that may be prosecuted against the wishes of the victim. I actually lifted the analogy from a Slashdot comment, since I thought it was apt. Want more? Statutory rape. Or how about murder - the victim certainly isn't cooperating there. Sex trafficking prosecutions frequently don't get the cooperation of the victim, due to fear of reprisal.

It's a great dodge for you and Kinek, though, since it allows you to express EMOTIONAL OUTRAGE!!! without ever acknowledging the underlying point: that the state doesn't necessarily need approval or cooperation of the victim to prosecution a crime. I mean, it's got everything for you: righteous anger, threadjacking, ad hominems. Shiat, a troll could have a pretty good thread with all that stuff.


All things you're very familiar with, since I've see them from you on a regular basis.

Again, the state should have to prove a compelling interest to interfere between JSTOR, MIT, and Swartz. They only filed the level of charges they did because Swartz was a rabblerouser. This whole debacle is the equivalent of slamming someone in jail for questioning because you found a doobie in their pocket. Or trumping up charges because you just don't like them.
 
2013-01-14 11:06:04 AM  

xynix: Doing illegal stuff usually gets you prosecuted.


Usually?
 
2013-01-14 11:07:38 AM  

Teiritzamna: Esn: You're the one who started it by trying to transfer the emotional response associated with wife-beating to something that does not elicit that response in people. Don't play innocent now after someone called you out on it.

No. Seriously No.

This is one of the biggest differences between lawyers and non-lawyers. Do you know what law school is? Its 3 years of learning to do this. To take disparate concepts, and find out where they have points in common, and then argue based on them. All of law is basically the art of figuring out how are, say, murder, rape and littering similar? How are they different?

Read any legal opinion and you will see judges comparing the legal equivalent of apples to oranges (hint they are both fruit). If this bothers you, god forbid you ever read a legal journal - which tend to be chock full of this stuff. hell among lawyers its kinda our sport.


I think that tells me more about Lawyers than I ever wanted to learn.

But seriously, that's an emotional trick. It's called false equivalency.
 
2013-01-14 11:11:25 AM  

Kinek: The classic appeal to the fact that I'm not a lawyer.


Not at all. The statutes are public available, and don't require a law degree to access or read. It's a classic appeal to the fact that you're arguing out of willful ignorance on a topic you could research, but can't be arsed to.

Alright, I will present this case.

Woman impersonates a girl on facebook in order to get her daughter's friend (who recently farked with the daughter)'s trust. Gets all that information. Releases it publically, 'causes' her to commit suicide. In the absence of any real crimes that they could make stick, they decided to invoke Computer Fraud. That's the problem here.


The problem being that you made up a case and claimed application of a law you know nothing about, and are then outraged about your facts being wrong?
Here is the wire fraud statute. You'll notice that if you click that link, your browser responds, without you having to flash your bar card at the camera.
You'll further notice that it requires an attempt to defraud someone of money or property. Your hypothetical doesn't apply, because there's no property involved.

"Bu-bu-bu-but there's a real case about this stuff! I couldn't be bothered to look it up, or link it, or cite it, or anything else, but how dare you say I made it up?!" You protest.
Ah, but your case has the prosecution allegedly using "computer fraud". The real case had no charges.


But computer fraud is 'Any unauthorized use of a computer'.

This is simply incorrect. See the linked statute above, which you don't even require a law degree to read.

I don't have to read the CDCFAA to recognize when its used by prosecutors as a last ditch effort to get someone for something.

You do, however, have to read the statute to not look like an idiot when you say shiat like "computer fraud is 'Any unauthorized use of a computer'."

Computer crime is a law that everyone breaks every day. That's why it's dangerous as a law.

"Computer crime" isn't a law, Area Man, no matter how outraged you are about what you think the Code says.
 
2013-01-14 11:12:57 AM  

Kinek: Theaetetus: Should point out too that we're not talking about "TOS violations" being compared to domestic abuse, but rather "wire fraud" and "trespassing".

Bit of goalpost moving there, Kinek?

Wire fraud. Fraud committed by means of electronic communication, as by telephone or modem.

Huh. Sounds exactly like computer fraud, but redundant so we can stick even more charges on him because he made us look like shiat with the PACER case.


Did you just compare computer and wire fraud to domestic abuse to justify your goalpost moving?! I'm OUTRAGED!

/not really outraged
 
2013-01-14 11:13:04 AM  
1. "Elliot Peters, Swartz's attorney, told The Associated Press on Sunday that the case "was horribly overblown" because JSTOR itself believed that Swartz had "the right" to download from the site. Swartz was not formally affiliated with MIT, but was a fellow at nearby Harvard University. MIT maintains an open campus and open computer network, Peters said. He said that made Swartz's accessing the network legal"

2: "JSTOR, one alleged victim, agreed with Peters that those terms were excessive, Peters said. JSTOR came over to Swartz's side after "he gave the stuff back to JSTOR, paid them to compensate for any inconveniences and apologized," Peters said."

These two statements are inconsistent and probably indicate that the author of the article is either intentionally hiding something, did sloppy research, or doesn't know what he's talking about (possibly all three).

If JSTOR actually believed that Swartz could freely download all of their articles and publish them freely (NOT TRUE) then he had no need to sneak around and could have just gone in the front door publicly. Also, if JSTOR actually believed no wrong was done, then they wouldn't have needed the files returned and a payoff in order to back off. The likely actual state of play is that JSTOR actually believed it had been wronged, but was happy just getting its files back because it doesn't want the attention of a full-blown federal case featuring a sympathetic defendant, which would put more scrutiny on its business practices.

Plus, the support of the victim is helpful but not necessary for prosecution - they protect the public's laws, not individuals.
 
2013-01-14 11:14:19 AM  

Kinek: But seriously, that's an emotional trick. It's called false equivalency.


oh for the love of pete - you have no idea what false equivalency means do you?

it requires two steps:

1) Person A notes that there is a shared trait between two different objects/concepts/etc.
2) Person A then uses this to argue that the two are therefore the same.

What happened here is only step 1). You yourself injected step 2).

Time for uncle Tier's example time:

I say puppies and kittens are both fluffy. This is NOT false equivalence. You say "hey that means puppies and kitties are the same animal!" that IS false equivalence.

Saying that the state can bring charges whenever there is a crime, even if the victim doesn't want it to - like in this case, or domestic abuse - is not a false equivalence. This is not a logical fallacy. It is in fact just good old fashioned logic. If we went on to say, "and that is why all crimes should be punished the same" then we would be guilty of a logical fallacy.
 
2013-01-14 11:18:47 AM  

Theaetetus: You are pedantically correct,

That's the best kind of correct.



The best kind of correct is the one that gets you paid.
 
2013-01-14 11:19:30 AM  

Kinek: Theaetetus: Esn: You're the one who started it by trying to transfer the emotional response associated with wife-beating to something that does not elicit that response in people.

Not at all. I was using it as an example of a crime that may be prosecuted against the wishes of the victim. I actually lifted the analogy from a Slashdot comment, since I thought it was apt. Want more? Statutory rape. Or how about murder - the victim certainly isn't cooperating there. Sex trafficking prosecutions frequently don't get the cooperation of the victim, due to fear of reprisal.

It's a great dodge for you and Kinek, though, since it allows you to express EMOTIONAL OUTRAGE!!! without ever acknowledging the underlying point: that the state doesn't necessarily need approval or cooperation of the victim to prosecution a crime. I mean, it's got everything for you: righteous anger, threadjacking, ad hominems. Shiat, a troll could have a pretty good thread with all that stuff.

All things you're very familiar with, since I've see them from you on a regular basis.


taxdollars.ocregister.com
Proud.


Your "I know you are, but what I am" aside, this thread has great examples of you dodging the question (which you still haven't answered), moving goalposts, and making ad hominems. Trying to claim that I've done that elsewhere, in another thread, that you can't cite because we haven't it read it, it's only available in Canada, is a laughable attempt to deflect criticism of you in this thread.

Again, the state should have to prove a compelling interest to interfere between JSTOR, MIT, and Swartz. They only filed the level of charges they did because Swartz was a rabblerouser. This whole debacle is the equivalent of slamming someone in jail for questioning because you found a doobie in their pocket. Or trumping up charges because you just don't like them.

How DARE you compare minor possession of a drug with no intent to distribute to wire fraud?! I'm OUTRAGED!

Actually, yes - it's the equivalent of applying a law to someone who broke that law, and pursuing charges for the violation. And yes, maybe a no-prosecution agreement and community service, with the charges dropped after a number of years would be a better outcome, but that doesn't mean that the charges are illegal or crazy or "vague".
 
2013-01-14 11:21:11 AM  
pbs.twimg.com

:(
 
2013-01-14 11:24:55 AM  
Bottom Line: the Owners of this Nation and its Government, whose numbers are quite small compared to the general population, have the goal of Owning knowledge and information and contolling same.

the Internet is, in their words "out of control" and they don't like anything that they don't control. the public be damned.

and the reason they want control is so that they can steal all the money/wealth.

welcome to Crony Capitalism, American Style.
 
2013-01-14 11:26:41 AM  

xynix: Doing illegal stuff usually gets you prosecuted.



yea, just like your boys on Wall Stroke and their little stunt in 2008/2009 that contiues to this day because they feel like doing it. not one of those Turds is in Prison now.
 
2013-01-14 11:27:54 AM  

Theaetetus: Kinek: The classic appeal to the fact that I'm not a lawyer.

Not at all. The statutes are public available, and don't require a law degree to access or read. It's a classic appeal to the fact that you're arguing out of willful ignorance on a topic you could research, but can't be arsed to.

Alright, I will present this case.

Woman impersonates a girl on facebook in order to get her daughter's friend (who recently farked with the daughter)'s trust. Gets all that information. Releases it publically, 'causes' her to commit suicide. In the absence of any real crimes that they could make stick, they decided to invoke Computer Fraud. That's the problem here.

The problem being that you made up a case and claimed application of a law you know nothing about, and are then outraged about your facts being wrong?
Here is the wire fraud statute. You'll notice that if you click that link, your browser responds, without you having to flash your bar card at the camera.
You'll further notice that it requires an attempt to defraud someone of money or property. Your hypothetical doesn't apply, because there's no property involved.

"Bu-bu-bu-but there's a real case about this stuff! I couldn't be bothered to look it up, or link it, or cite it, or anything else, but how dare you say I made it up?!" You protest.
Ah, but your case has the prosecution allegedly using "computer fraud". The real case had no charges.


But computer fraud is 'Any unauthorized use of a computer'.

This is simply incorrect. See the linked statute above, which you don't even require a law degree to read.

I don't have to read the CDCFAA to recognize when its used by prosecutors as a last ditch effort to get someone for something.

You do, however, have to read the statute to not look like an idiot when you say shiat like "computer fraud is 'Any unauthorized use of a computer'."

Computer crime is a law that everyone breaks every day. That's why it's dangerous as a law.

"Computer crime" isn't a law, Area Man, ...


Link

WRONG!
 
2013-01-14 11:28:00 AM  
Aaron Swartz:

It was really stopped by the people; the people themselves-they killed the bill dead. So dead, that when members of Congress propose something now that even touches the Internet, they have to give a long speech beforehand about how it is definitely not like SOPA. So dead, that when you ask Congressional staffers about it, they groan and shake their heads, like it's all a bad dream they're trying really hard to forget. So dead, that it's kind of hard to believe this story; hard to remember how close it all came to actually passing. Hard to remember how this could have gone any other way. But it wasn't a dream or a nightmare-it was all very real. And it will happen again; sure, it will have another name, and maybe a different excuse, and probably do its damage in a different way, but make no mistake, the enemies of the freedom to connect have not disappeared. The fire in those politician's eyes has not been put out. There are a lot of people, a lot of powerful people, who wanna clamp down on the Internet. And to be honest, there aren't a whole lot who have a vested interest in protecting it from all of that ... We won this fight because everyone made themselves the hero of their own story. Everyone took it as their job to save this crucial freedom ... the senators were right-the Internet really is out of control![24]
 
2013-01-14 11:34:09 AM  

hungryhungryhorus: xynix: Doing illegal stuff usually gets you prosecuted.

Usually?



unless you are white collar and work on Wall Street.
 
2013-01-14 11:41:01 AM  

LesserEvil: ZAZ: Its more akin to breaking and entering than stealing.

It was probably literally breaking and entering, i.e. felony burglary.

Well, considering he apparently walked into a utility room holding the JSTOR database and retrieved hard drives he had put there earlier to copy data, yes.

[img2u.info image 634x365]

I feel bad when people decide to kill themselves over crap like this. Terminal illness, mental health issues, quality of life, I can see, but over this? Sad.

The prosecutor is a dick, but let's be clear on a couple of things here: There are three types of prosecutors: Honest, fair prosecutors, Honest, hardass prosecutors, and dishonest prosecutors. The last two are going for 100% conviction rates, and if they have the evidence to convict, they will (the dishonest one is willing to cover up exonerating evidence, but that isn't the case here). The hardass will nail you for 1mph over the speed limit, for running the yellow that changes to red, for jaywalking at 4am when there isn't a car in sight. They have no heart, but they are 100% correct in their actions, because the law says so... that's doesn't make it right, however. In our justice system, the layers of justice are there to provide leniency under various circumstances, which is where the Honest, Fair prosecutor comes into play. He's the guy who has to say, JSTOR isn't pressing the issue, MIT is silent, and we are hard pressed to find a real victim without JSTOR... so let's drop the charges. Swartz committed a crime, and as such, he should have expected to be convicted of that crime... there was no guarantee he'd get a fair prosecutor; if he was lucky, he'd get a fair jury, though. Ultimately that's the last line of defense in the justice system; this kid just wasn't patient enough to see it through.



the prosecuter is apparently not getting any dick. and she needs some real bad.
 
2013-01-14 11:42:30 AM  

Theaetetus: Kinek: Theaetetus: Esn: You're the one who started it by trying to transfer the emotional response associated with wife-beating to something that does not elicit that response in people.

Not at all. I was using it as an example of a crime that may be prosecuted against the wishes of the victim. I actually lifted the analogy from a Slashdot comment, since I thought it was apt. Want more? Statutory rape. Or how about murder - the victim certainly isn't cooperating there. Sex trafficking prosecutions frequently don't get the cooperation of the victim, due to fear of reprisal.

It's a great dodge for you and Kinek, though, since it allows you to express EMOTIONAL OUTRAGE!!! without ever acknowledging the underlying point: that the state doesn't necessarily need approval or cooperation of the victim to prosecution a crime. I mean, it's got everything for you: righteous anger, threadjacking, ad hominems. Shiat, a troll could have a pretty good thread with all that stuff.

All things you're very familiar with, since I've see them from you on a regular basis.

[taxdollars.ocregister.com image 400x414]
Proud.

Your "I know you are, but what I am" aside, this thread has great examples of you dodging the question (which you still haven't answered), moving goalposts, and making ad hominems. Trying to claim that I've done that elsewhere, in another thread, that you can't cite because we haven't it read it, it's only available in Canada, is a laughable attempt to deflect criticism of you in this thread.

Again, the state should have to prove a compelling interest to interfere between JSTOR, MIT, and Swartz. They only filed the level of charges they did because Swartz was a rabblerouser. This whole debacle is the equivalent of slamming someone in jail for questioning because you found a doobie in their pocket. Or trumping up charges because you just don't like them.

How DARE you compare minor possession of a drug with no intent to distribute to wire fraud?! I'm OUTRAGED!

Actual ...


I did acknowledge that. And then pointed out that compelling interests should have a higher bar, and that in this case, previous embarassment on the PACER documents, combined with Ortiz's hard-on for Les Mis and being inspector Javert suggests that there was prosecution for crimes which nobody had an interest in prosecuting, save for Ortiz's ego.
 
2013-01-14 11:43:39 AM  

Kinek: Theaetetus: Kinek: The classic appeal to the fact that I'm not a lawyer.

Not at all. The statutes are public available, and don't require a law degree to access or read. It's a classic appeal to the fact that you're arguing out of willful ignorance on a topic you could research, but can't be arsed to.

Alright, I will present this case.

Woman impersonates a girl on facebook in order to get her daughter's friend (who recently farked with the daughter)'s trust. Gets all that information. Releases it publically, 'causes' her to commit suicide. In the absence of any real crimes that they could make stick, they decided to invoke Computer Fraud. That's the problem here.

The problem being that you made up a case and claimed application of a law you know nothing about, and are then outraged about your facts being wrong?
Here is the wire fraud statute. You'll notice that if you click that link, your browser responds, without you having to flash your bar card at the camera.
You'll further notice that it requires an attempt to defraud someone of money or property. Your hypothetical doesn't apply, because there's no property involved.

"Bu-bu-bu-but there's a real case about this stuff! I couldn't be bothered to look it up, or link it, or cite it, or anything else, but how dare you say I made it up?!" You protest.
Ah, but your case has the prosecution allegedly using "computer fraud". The real case had no charges.


But computer fraud is 'Any unauthorized use of a computer'.

This is simply incorrect. See the linked statute above, which you don't even require a law degree to read.

I don't have to read the CDCFAA to recognize when its used by prosecutors as a last ditch effort to get someone for something.

You do, however, have to read the statute to not look like an idiot when you say shiat like "computer fraud is 'Any unauthorized use of a computer'."

Computer crime is a law that everyone breaks every day. That's why it's dangerous as a law.

"Computer crime" isn't a law ...


Maybe you should read your own link, Mr. "Computer crime is 'any unauthorized use of a computer'." Your case also has nothing to do with wire fraud, and Meier wasn't ever charged with wire fraud, as I said. You'll also note, if you read your link, that Meier was acquitted of the CFAA charges.
But yeah, Meier was charged with a computer fraud statute, so you get a nickel. Care to respond to any of the other points in this or any other post?
 
2013-01-14 11:52:30 AM  

Theaetetus: Kinek: Theaetetus: Kinek: The classic appeal to the fact that I'm not a lawyer.

Not at all. The statutes are public available, and don't require a law degree to access or read. It's a classic appeal to the fact that you're arguing out of willful ignorance on a topic you could research, but can't be arsed to.

Alright, I will present this case.

Woman impersonates a girl on facebook in order to get her daughter's friend (who recently farked with the daughter)'s trust. Gets all that information. Releases it publically, 'causes' her to commit suicide. In the absence of any real crimes that they could make stick, they decided to invoke Computer Fraud. That's the problem here.

The problem being that you made up a case and claimed application of a law you know nothing about, and are then outraged about your facts being wrong?
Here is the wire fraud statute. You'll notice that if you click that link, your browser responds, without you having to flash your bar card at the camera.
You'll further notice that it requires an attempt to defraud someone of money or property. Your hypothetical doesn't apply, because there's no property involved.

"Bu-bu-bu-but there's a real case about this stuff! I couldn't be bothered to look it up, or link it, or cite it, or anything else, but how dare you say I made it up?!" You protest.
Ah, but your case has the prosecution allegedly using "computer fraud". The real case had no charges.


But computer fraud is 'Any unauthorized use of a computer'.

This is simply incorrect. See the linked statute above, which you don't even require a law degree to read.

I don't have to read the CDCFAA to recognize when its used by prosecutors as a last ditch effort to get someone for something.

You do, however, have to read the statute to not look like an idiot when you say shiat like "computer fraud is 'Any unauthorized use of a computer'."

Computer crime is a law that everyone breaks every day. That's why it's dangerous as a law.

"Computer crime" isn' ...


I didn't say Wire Fraud. I said Computer fraud, you dipshiat. And she was prosecuted under the CFAA. Who knows what Swartz would have gotten, had the case gone to trial. But he's dead. What I'm saying, and what was demonstrated in this court filing is exactly what I said. The CFAA, and associated laws, are used when no other laws have been breached as a last ditch effort for a prosecutor to find someone guilty for something.

Just say it with me. You. Were. Wrong. I know it hurts to hear. But you were wrong. There was a case where the CFAA was used as a last ditch effort to find someone guilty, and it was not made up.

Additionally, considering we currently have a seventh and ninth circuit split on what Authorization even means, yes, I would say that the CFAA is broadly written. Wire fraud and the other computer related crimes go in the same vein. Especially in this case where prosecutorial egos are on the line.
 
2013-01-14 11:53:08 AM  
This kid's real crime was that he led the fight to stop the RIAA and MPAA from being allowed to censor the internet with their SOPA/PIPA legislation.

Accessing a website from an unlocked closet is the excuse they used to hound him to death.

When even the "victim" of the crime asks for the charges to be dropped and has since made all it's contents freely available to the general public, you'd have to be an idiot or a sock puppet to claim this kid deserved decades in prison.

This kid pissed off rich people and the politicians they own had him hounded, quite literally, to death.
 
2013-01-14 11:58:13 AM  

Kinek: Theaetetus: Kinek: Theaetetus: Esn: You're the one who started it by trying to transfer the emotional response associated with wife-beating to something that does not elicit that response in people.

Not at all. I was using it as an example of a crime that may be prosecuted against the wishes of the victim. I actually lifted the analogy from a Slashdot comment, since I thought it was apt. Want more? Statutory rape. Or how about murder - the victim certainly isn't cooperating there. Sex trafficking prosecutions frequently don't get the cooperation of the victim, due to fear of reprisal.

It's a great dodge for you and Kinek, though, since it allows you to express EMOTIONAL OUTRAGE!!! without ever acknowledging the underlying point: that the state doesn't necessarily need approval or cooperation of the victim to prosecution a crime...

I did acknowledge that.


Not in this thread, as several people have noted.

And then pointed out that compelling interests should have a higher bar, and that in this case, previous embarassment on the PACER documents, combined with Ortiz's hard-on for Les Mis and being inspector Javert suggests that there was prosecution for crimes which nobody had an interest in prosecuting, save for Ortiz's ego.

Considering that Ortiz wasn't the US Attorney for Mass. in 2009 during the PACER incident, it seems you're pulling things out of your ass to accuse someone of bias. Not that that's anything new for you.
 
2013-01-14 12:00:21 PM  
Additionally.

I would like to Venture that Thaeteus is like John Wayne Gacey, in that they are both -presumably- male.

If this presumption is false, then I would presume that Thaeteus is like Elizabeth Bathory. In that they have breasts.
 
2013-01-14 12:00:47 PM  

Kinek: I didn't say Wire Fraud. I said Computer fraud, you dipshiat...
Just say it with me. You. Were. Wrong.


Okay. You. Were. Wrong. This case is about wire fraud. "Wire" and "computer" are different words, and there are different statutes involved. I don't see why you wanted me to rub more salt into that wound, but I'm happy to help.

Anyway, let's get back to this thread, because your incessant trolling and threadjacking is getting boring.
 
2013-01-14 12:01:27 PM  

Kinek: Theaetetus: Esn: You're the one who started it by trying to transfer the emotional response associated with wife-beating to something that does not elicit that response in people.

Not at all. I was using it as an example of a crime that may be prosecuted against the wishes of the victim. I actually lifted the analogy from a Slashdot comment, since I thought it was apt. Want more? Statutory rape. Or how about murder - the victim certainly isn't cooperating there. Sex trafficking prosecutions frequently don't get the cooperation of the victim, due to fear of reprisal.

It's a great dodge for you and Kinek, though, since it allows you to express EMOTIONAL OUTRAGE!!! without ever acknowledging the underlying point: that the state doesn't necessarily need approval or cooperation of the victim to prosecution a crime. I mean, it's got everything for you: righteous anger, threadjacking, ad hominems. Shiat, a troll could have a pretty good thread with all that stuff.

All things you're very familiar with, since I've see them from you on a regular basis.

Again, the state should have to prove a compelling interest to interfere between JSTOR, MIT, and Swartz. They only filed the level of charges they did because Swartz was a rabblerouser. This whole debacle is the equivalent of slamming someone in jail for questioning because you found a doobie in their pocket. Or trumping up charges because you just don't like them.


You even responded to this one! Can you even read?
 
2013-01-14 12:03:37 PM  

BullBearMS: This kid's real crime was that he led the fight to stop the RIAA and MPAA from being allowed to censor the internet with their SOPA/PIPA legislation.

Accessing a website from an unlocked closet is the excuse they used to hound him to death.

When even the "victim" of the crime asks for the charges to be dropped and has since made all it's contents freely available to the general public, you'd have to be an idiot or a sock puppet to claim this kid deserved decades in prison.

This kid pissed off rich people and the politicians they own had him hounded, quite literally, to death.



there's meat in that! well put.
 
2013-01-14 12:05:06 PM  

Theaetetus: Kinek: Theaetetus: Kinek: Theaetetus: Esn: You're the one who started it by trying to transfer the emotional response associated with wife-beating to something that does not elicit that response in people.

Not at all. I was using it as an example of a crime that may be prosecuted against the wishes of the victim. I actually lifted the analogy from a Slashdot comment, since I thought it was apt. Want more? Statutory rape. Or how about murder - the victim certainly isn't cooperating there. Sex trafficking prosecutions frequently don't get the cooperation of the victim, due to fear of reprisal.

It's a great dodge for you and Kinek, though, since it allows you to express EMOTIONAL OUTRAGE!!! without ever acknowledging the underlying point: that the state doesn't necessarily need approval or cooperation of the victim to prosecution a crime...

I did acknowledge that.

Not in this thread, as several people have noted.

And then pointed out that compelling interests should have a higher bar, and that in this case, previous embarassment on the PACER documents, combined with Ortiz's hard-on for Les Mis and being inspector Javert suggests that there was prosecution for crimes which nobody had an interest in prosecuting, save for Ortiz's ego.

Considering that Ortiz wasn't the US Attorney for Mass. in 2009 during the PACER incident, it seems you're pulling things out of your ass to accuse someone of bias. Not that that's anything new for you.


Considering the fact that the Mass Attorney Generals office was previously embarassed by being unable to charge someone, I don't think that an accusation of bias when 50 years of felony charges are lumped at your door by people who would enjoy nothing more than serving you up because they were shamed.
 
Esn
2013-01-14 12:06:44 PM  

BullBearMS: This kid's real crime was that he led the fight to stop the RIAA and MPAA from being allowed to censor the internet with their SOPA/PIPA legislation.

Accessing a website from an unlocked closet is the excuse they used to hound him to death.

When even the "victim" of the crime asks for the charges to be dropped and has since made all it's contents freely available to the general public, you'd have to be an idiot or a sock puppet to claim this kid deserved decades in prison.

This kid pissed off rich people and the politicians they own had him hounded, quite literally, to death.


Yep, see my post from 10:36:43 AM. He is a martyr, except here there is no Voice of America to speak against it. Nobody will start an international incident over his death, as they did with Sergei Magnitsky.
 
2013-01-14 12:07:13 PM  

Theaetetus: Kinek: I didn't say Wire Fraud. I said Computer fraud, you dipshiat...
Just say it with me. You. Were. Wrong.

Okay. You. Were. Wrong. This case is about wire fraud. "Wire" and "computer" are different words, and there are different statutes involved. I don't see why you wanted me to rub more salt into that wound, but I'm happy to help.

Anyway, let's get back to this thread, because your incessant trolling and threadjacking is getting boring.

Woman impersonates a girl on facebook in order to get her daughter's friend (who recently farked with the daughter)'s trust. Gets all that information. Releases it publically, 'causes' her to commit suicide. In the absence of any real crimes that they could make stick, they decided to invoke Computer Fraud. That's the problem here.


What did I say? Computer Fraud. What did you decide to talk about? Wire Fraud. Words mean things T. You're a lawyer. You know this.
 
2013-01-14 12:22:52 PM  

MagSeven: Giltric: As someone else in another thread said..."all the stuff he copied was available for free elsewhere"

Well maybe he should have copied it from those places and kept out of trouble.

Where was the first thread about this? I can't seem to find it.


Link
 
2013-01-14 12:29:08 PM  
ya know fighting for your rights is kind of a moot point when you kill yourself, and not even in a martyr-way
 
2013-01-14 12:46:16 PM  
Something a little connectable here too ... Bradley Manning ...
 
2013-01-14 12:47:00 PM  

AdamK: ya know fighting for your rights is kind of a moot point when you kill yourself, and not even in a martyr-way


He was quite successful at shutting down the MPAA and RIAA's attempt to censor the internet through the SOPA/PIPA legislation. If you recall, FARK and many other websites joined in the political protest he and others organized.

Let's imagine Kennedy deciding to destroy the life of a political activist like Rosa Parks despite the Montgomery Bus Line begging him to drop all charges.
 
2013-01-14 12:52:49 PM  

BullBearMS: AdamK: ya know fighting for your rights is kind of a moot point when you kill yourself, and not even in a martyr-way

He was quite successful at shutting down the MPAA and RIAA's attempt to censor the internet through the SOPA/PIPA legislation. If you recall, FARK and many other websites joined in the political protest he and others organized.

Let's imagine Kennedy deciding to destroy the life of a political activist like Rosa Parks despite the Montgomery Bus Line begging him to drop all charges.


still pointless to kill yourself in this situation
 
2013-01-14 12:59:16 PM  

AdamK: BullBearMS: AdamK: ya know fighting for your rights is kind of a moot point when you kill yourself, and not even in a martyr-way

He was quite successful at shutting down the MPAA and RIAA's attempt to censor the internet through the SOPA/PIPA legislation. If you recall, FARK and many other websites joined in the political protest he and others organized.

Let's imagine Kennedy deciding to destroy the life of a political activist like Rosa Parks despite the Montgomery Bus Line begging him to drop all charges.

still pointless to kill yourself in this situation


The plutocrats and their politicians decide to ruin you financially and put you into prison for decades, even though your crime's "victim" begs them to drop all charges? This, despite widespread knowledge that you have always suffered from debilitating depression?

This wasn't an accidental death.
 
2013-01-14 12:59:24 PM  
I always thought a major component of civil disobedience is going to trial for it.

For all he knew, a judge could have tossed everything the prosecutor was angling for.

So now he'll be a largely forgotten dead guy, where a trial could have opened legal questions that might have lead to his vindication and an examination of how law deals with future cases.
 
2013-01-14 01:07:33 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: I always thought a major component of civil disobedience is going to trial for it.


They didn't charge him with his real crime, which was trespassing in an unlocked closet.

The plutocrats had their politicians drum up false charges to throw a political activist who had thwarted their will into prison for decades.
 
Displayed 50 of 162 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report