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  
•       •       •

4388 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 06:32:54 PM
I still haven't heard a compelling case, from either the prosecutor or those in the thread who would verbally fellate him, as to what danger Swartz posed that we need to incarcerate him. I'm tired of idiot prosecutors and cowardly people thinking that prison is the solution to every problem... irresponsible kid, prison... download an mp3, prison... make academic papers available without making money, prison... mentally ill, prison... at some point reasonable people need to stand up to these "get tough" morons and make them face the harsh reality that prison is not a panacea, it can't fix all that's wrong with society, and imprisoning people does not magically make them better, us safer, or provide any societal benefit. Prison has a role in the justice system, but I'm farking tired of people thinking that it should have EVERY role.
 
2013-01-14 07:33:29 PM
Subby: JSTOR itself believed...

At 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th, 1997, JSTOR became self-aware.
 
2013-01-14 08:13:00 PM

BarkingUnicorn: 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.

 It's the TOS that spells out what's "authorized access" and what isn't.  So yes, violating the TOS can be the crime of "unauthorized access."

/where is your bludgeon now?


Ketchup packets are $1 on wednesdays. Free every other day.

Terms subject to change without notice.
 
2013-01-14 08:19:27 PM

Kinek: TheOtherGuy: All I want to know is this:

If cyber-bullies can be held responsible (civilly, if not criminally) for harassing a teen girl to the point of suicide, why is this motherfarker of a prosecutor any different? If I were his parents, in my grief, I might not be able to resist the temptation to sue him to death. Since I'm not his parents, I have enough clarity left to note how bad an idea it is to sue anybody at the DOJ, just on general principal, but you see my point...

Amusingly enough, we were just discussing the case that created those laws. Well, I was at least.


I'm just waiting for the first person charged after Facebook finds out that the didn't use their "real" name.
 
2013-01-14 08:44:23 PM

firefly212: I still haven't heard a compelling case, from either the prosecutor or those in the thread who would verbally fellate him, as to what danger Swartz posed that we need to incarcerate him.


I'm not sure that anyone was verbally fellating her in this thread. In fact, I think you'll find that those of us who weren't calling for her to be crucified weren't at the opposite end of the spectrum, but rather felt that she didn't do anything illegal that should get her disbarred, and that jail time probably isn't necessarily the best answer here and she could have used her discretion better.

Understand? On a scale of 1 to 10, there's a bunch of people at the "string her up" side of 1, and there were a bunch of us at the "maybe this isn't the greatest decision, but we shouldn't string her up" side of 4-6. No one was at the "let's go down on her" side of 10. I know we like to think of anything political as an us vs. them, black and white dichotomy, but outside of conservative fantasies, the world doesn't actually work that way. It's possible to disagree with someone's decision, while not calling them the worst thing since Hitler and not calling them the greatest thing since sliced bread.
 
2013-01-14 08:53:11 PM

Theaetetus: firefly212: I still haven't heard a compelling case, from either the prosecutor or those in the thread who would verbally fellate him, as to what danger Swartz posed that we need to incarcerate him.

I'm not sure that anyone was verbally fellating her in this thread. In fact, I think you'll find that those of us who weren't calling for her to be crucified weren't at the opposite end of the spectrum, but rather felt that she didn't do anything illegal that should get her disbarred, and that jail time probably isn't necessarily the best answer here and she could have used her discretion better.

Understand? On a scale of 1 to 10, there's a bunch of people at the "string her up" side of 1, and there were a bunch of us at the "maybe this isn't the greatest decision, but we shouldn't string her up" side of 4-6. No one was at the "let's go down on her" side of 10. I know we like to think of anything political as an us vs. them, black and white dichotomy, but outside of conservative fantasies, the world doesn't actually work that way. It's possible to disagree with someone's decision, while not calling them the worst thing since Hitler and not calling them the greatest thing since sliced bread.


What's so great about sliced bread? It goes stale faster.

Bet you feel smart dropping a Hitler reference on the interweb.
 
2013-01-15 12:52:21 AM

Giltric: 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


Thanks.
 
2013-01-15 03:45:56 AM
This case will reverberate through generations of Internet, copyright and security law for generations.

The Swartz will be with us, always.
 
2013-01-15 03:46:39 AM
Did I mention "generations"? Well, I meant it!
 
2013-01-15 08:45:02 AM
Alright, subbies in the geeks page, knock it off with all the goddamned acronyms in the headlines.
 
2013-01-16 02:55:18 AM
 
2013-01-17 11:22:09 PM

BullBearMS:

Representative Loftgren:
Lofgren said the government was able to levy "such disproportionate charges" against Swartz because of "the broad scope of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the wire fraud statute." Lofgren's draft bill, which she hopes to name "Aaron's Law," would amend these measures so they exclude terms of service violations.

"It looks like the government used the vague wording of those laws to claim that violating an online service's user agreement or terms of service is a violation of the CFAA and the wire fraud statute," she said. "Using the law in this way could criminalize many everyday activities and allow for outlandishly severe penalties."


Not an overreaction at all for a multimillionaire to get special services through the government after denying a few months in a minimum security comfy federal institution.
 
Displayed 12 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 »






Report