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
 
2013-01-14 07:30:04 AM
You forgot "... said his own lawyer". Oh yes, and the article says that he paid JSTOR compensation.
 
2013-01-14 08:53:01 AM
Doing illegal stuff usually gets you prosecuted.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-14 09:19:20 AM
As I recall the downloading was enough to affect JSTOR's service, so the "information I want to be free wants to be free" argument doesn't carry the day.

Peters said Swartz "obviously was not committing fraud" because "it was public research that should be freely available

That's not what fraud means in federal criminal law. "Wire fraud" and "mail fraud" are extraordinarily broad crimes. They have been used to prosecute cheating on tests, for example, provided the answers were passed on by phone or to another state.
 
2013-01-14 09:42:10 AM

xynix: Doing illegal stuff usually gets you prosecuted.


Illegal, like using a public network to access data you have permission to access.

ZAZ: They have been used to prosecute cheating on tests, for example, provided the answers were passed on by phone or to another state.


And in this case, it's being used to download data you have permission to download via a network you're allowed to use.
 
2013-01-14 09:56:58 AM
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.
 
2013-01-14 09:57:03 AM

orbister: You forgot "... said his own lawyer".


Done in one.

Oh yes, and the article says that he paid JSTOR compensation.

Not to mention that he also turned his drives over to them.

I mean, seriously:
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... 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.

If JSTOR thought he had 'the right' to download that stuff, then why did they insist that it be returned and he pay damages?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-14 09:59:39 AM
t3knomanser

JSTOR TOS:
In addition to agreeing to any Content-Specific Terms and Conditions of Use, you agree that you will not: ... undertake any activity such as computer programs that automatically download or export Content, commonly known as web robots, spiders, crawlers, wanderers or accelerators that may interfere with, disrupt or otherwise burden the JSTOR server(s) or any third-party server(s) being used or accessed in connection with JSTOR
Whether or not his access was otherwise authorized (which I doubt) it was not authorized.
 
2013-01-14 10:04:24 AM

xynix: Doing illegal stuff usually gets you prosecuted.


Except when that illegal thing is actually just an overreach of your legal rights and when your victims don't actually have that much of a problem with anything you did. And they don't usually try to get you 50 years in jail for taking down a network for a couple hours.
 
2013-01-14 10:07:00 AM

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.



Indeed. The crimes prosecuted here were not for infringement but for wire fraud and unauthorized access. Its more akin to breaking and entering than stealing. And if you did break into someone's home just so you could take photos of the furniture, I really wouldn't argue "Hey, that these chairs exist elsewhere, so it should have been legal" as it 1) is irrelevant to the breaking and entering and 2) is kinda dumb.
 
2013-01-14 10:07:58 AM
i'm sure there's someone alot more tech and/or legal saavy than me who can talk more knowledgeably about the specs of this case, but my reading of this yahoo article (and some other articles ) about this stuff leaves me on the fence.

On the one i hand, i do believe, in general, knowledge should be free. this is the idealist side of me. research funded by federal dollars? everything is open, no subscription, no institutional affliation required. need to learn how to wire your house? safe, practical, usable information should be at your fingertips. whether you burn your house down or not is on you.

On the other hand, the realist side of me, which is old and cynical, knows all to well there is no such thing as a free lunch. maybe this kid was trying to move the needle some, fighting the powers that be, but if it comes down to it and you're trying to take food from someone else's bowl, i don't think you should be surprised when they bite. not all dogs, so to speak, share the same values.

\two cents
 
2013-01-14 10:08:18 AM

ZAZ: Whether or not his access was otherwise authorized (which I doubt) it was not authorized.


He had an account through Harvard, and MIT runs an open network for the public. He was definitely authorized.

The wording of the TOS isn't open and shut- he will "not undertake any activity... that may interfere with... JSTOR servers." It doesn't prohibit the use of automatic downloaders, as written. It uses them as an example of software that may disrupt service.

And it's difficult to jump from a TOS violation to this level of prosecution. 99% of the time, violating the TOS is simply grounds for termination of service.
 
2013-01-14 10:08:31 AM

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

Except when that illegal thing is actually just an overreach of your legal rights


See above - it's pretty clear that, contrary to what Swartz' lawyer says, JSTOR didn't actually think he had a right to do what he did, or they wouldn't have insisted on an apology, monetary restitution, and possession of all of his downloads. They may not have thought that criminal penalties were reasonable, but they didn't think he was acting within - or even close to - his legal rights.

and when your victims don't actually have that much of a problem with anything you did.

Domestic abuse victims frequently "don't actually have that much of a problem" with what the perpetrator did, but the state is still allowed to prosecute them for their crimes.

And they don't usually try to get you 50 years in jail for taking down a network for a couple hours.

Let's be realistic - that's the maximum possible for the various charges, if every sentence was applied consecutively rather than concurrently. More likely, he'd be facing a year or two total for the trespassing and wire fraud charges.
 
2013-01-14 10:08:59 AM

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.
 
2013-01-14 10:10:28 AM

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

Except when that illegal thing is actually just an overreach of your legal rights and when your victims don't actually have that much of a problem with anything you did. And they don't usually try to get you 50 years in jail for taking down a network for a couple hours.


Well, when my internet goes down for "a couple of hours" I really do want to stick someone in prison for 50 years.
 
2013-01-14 10:11:04 AM
Could be worse.
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-14 10:11:32 AM
Its more akin to breaking and entering than stealing.

It was probably literally breaking and entering, i.e. felony burglary.
 
2013-01-14 10:12:33 AM
I wonder if his family will pursue a wrongful death suit.
 
2013-01-14 10:12:55 AM
I don't get the jstor thing, you can pretty much go to any library and access Jstor from there
 
2013-01-14 10:15:03 AM

soia: I don't get the jstor thing, you can pretty much go to any library and access Jstor from there


Which is essentially what he was doing, but he was archiving the contents so that they could be reposted elsewhere. These documents were not protected by copyright.
 
2013-01-14 10:15:21 AM

t3knomanser: ZAZ: Whether or not his access was otherwise authorized (which I doubt) it was not authorized.

He had an account through Harvard, and MIT runs an open network for the public. He was definitely authorized.


... to access MIT's wireless network, yes.
However, once he was blocked from accessing that network, he was no longer authorized. His MAC spoofing was an intentional attempt to circumvent that block, so he couldn't claim that he thought he was authorized at that point.

... and of course, hooking up his machine in a network closet really isn't justifiable, and when you're covering your face to avoid being seen on camera, it's tough to argue that you thought you were authorized:
i.dailymail.co.uk

The wording of the TOS isn't open and shut- he will "not undertake any activity... that may interfere with... JSTOR servers." It doesn't prohibit the use of automatic downloaders, as written. It uses them as an example of software that may disrupt service.

... or may burden service. And an automatic downloader burdens service, by definition. We can discuss how much it burdens service (e.g. does it have bandwidth limits or a timer that slows request rate, etc.), but the TOS is clear - you can't use any automatic downloader that may burden the service. Note that it even says "may", not "does", so the arguments about how much are actually irrelevant.

And it's difficult to jump from a TOS violation to this level of prosecution. 99% of the time, violating the TOS is simply grounds for termination of service.

Yeah, but when you then start spoofing addresses and trespassing to get around their attempts to block you, you fall into that 1%.
 
Esn
2013-01-14 10:16:05 AM

xynix: Doing illegal stuff usually gets you prosecuted.


Hahah. That's funny. I don't remember any bankers ever being prosecuted.

I love how Farkers are so quick to jump to the government's defense on this, too. Over 30 years for breaking & entering (without actually stealing anything) - yeah, that totally makes sense. What scumbags you people are.
 
2013-01-14 10:17:25 AM

t3knomanser: These documents were not protected by copyright.


Uh, yeah, they were. Unless they're explicitly made public domain (i.e. by expiration of copyright term or other statutory means, or an express release by the copyright owner), all documents are protected by copyright.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-14 10:19:52 AM
According to previous stories, he did interfere with JSTOR service by downloading too many files.
 
Esn
2013-01-14 10:19:56 AM
Also, this is the first thread I've seen about this on Fark - don't think it's ever been mentioned in the liter section before.

So for those people wondering what all this is about:

Good Washington Post article

Lawrence Lessig's eulogy
 
2013-01-14 10:21:10 AM

Esn: Hahah. That's funny. I don't remember any bankers ever being prosecuted.


Fun fact - much of what the bankers did that torched the world economy was not illegal.

/Meaning of course we have a legislation problem, rather than a judicial one.
 
2013-01-14 10:21:28 AM

Theaetetus: dehehn: xynix: Doing illegal stuff usually gets you prosecuted.

Except when that illegal thing is actually just an overreach of your legal rights

See above - it's pretty clear that, contrary to what Swartz' lawyer says, JSTOR didn't actually think he had a right to do what he did, or they wouldn't have insisted on an apology, monetary restitution, and possession of all of his downloads. They may not have thought that criminal penalties were reasonable, but they didn't think he was acting within - or even close to - his legal rights.

and when your victims don't actually have that much of a problem with anything you did.

Domestic abuse victims frequently "don't actually have that much of a problem" with what the perpetrator did, but the state is still allowed to prosecute them for their crimes.

And they don't usually try to get you 50 years in jail for taking down a network for a couple hours.

Let's be realistic - that's the maximum possible for the various charges, if every sentence was applied consecutively rather than concurrently. More likely, he'd be facing a year or two total for the trespassing and wire fraud charges.


Did you really just compare a TOS violation to beating your spouse? Really?
 
2013-01-14 10:24:45 AM
I have to be honest...I don't care about this. I see it has the tech nerds up in arms, and seems to really drive page clicks for Fark so I expect to see about 200 more threads about this.

But really, I don't see what the big deal is, whether he was guilty of a crime or not, he offed himself so it is pretty much moot at this point.
 
2013-01-14 10:25:01 AM

Kinek: Did you really just compare a TOS violation to beating your spouse? Really?


Nope, I noted that criminal prosecutions are pursued by the state and do not necessarily need to the cooperation or approval of the victim. Do you disagree with this statement?
 
2013-01-14 10:26:07 AM

Kinek: Did you really just compare a TOS violation to beating your spouse? Really?


Ah and this rears it's head. Where someone uses an analogy that is apt for what is being discussed, and someone else, not recognizing how analogies work, gets in a huff because the two things being compared are not the same!

Look, lawyers are taught to analogize. It is literally what the practice of law is. Thus sometimes, when it is appropriate, you can compare child rape and illegal downloads: for example if we are discussing the fact that both topics inspire knee jerk positions that have as much to do with emotional valence as they do law and order.

Humans and dogs both lactate and both form long term bonds. I have not just called you or any other person a dog. Can we please let this old "argument" tactic die already?
 
2013-01-14 10:27:13 AM

Theaetetus: However, once he was blocked from accessing that network, he was no longer authorized. His MAC spoofing was an intentional attempt to circumvent that block, so he couldn't claim that he thought he was authorized at that point.


It's an open question as to whether or not MIT has the power to do that, thanks to its charter with the city. Similarly, it's an open question as to whether or not he could technically be trespassing. MIT's power to limit access to its facilities is very restricted. There was a crappy Robin Williams movie based on this premise. No, wait, Joe Pesci. It was Joe Pesci. But with a beard. It was like Good Will Hunting but with homelessness.

Was he being a bad citizen in regards to his access of these public resources? Certainly. But that's not against the law.

Theaetetus: all documents are protected by copyright.


You are pedantically correct, but the documents in question were public records. The last I checked, they were legal codes and court documents. Since governments don't have the funds or interest in making these documents easily accessible, gatekeepers like JSTOR organize and provide access to those documents for a fee. They do not own those documents.
 
2013-01-14 10:27:16 AM

Theaetetus: need to the cooperation

                            ^have
 
2013-01-14 10:30:17 AM
Had I been in charge of overseeing the case, considering Swartz's motive and what he actually did, I would have recommended he receive community service in the form of setting up a really big open-source alternative to JSTOR suitable for use by impoverished public school districts. It should take about 1200-1500 hours and the end result should be something the offended parties, MIT and JSTOR, are able to get back something like a reasonable value of the material taken with via charitable tax deductions for licensing it free to broke schools. Swartz would've been awesome at that, the punishment would've fit the crime and the end result would've been the world's being a better place.

Some nonviolent crimes are really best handled with a rehabilitative and publically beneficial sentence. Someone shoplifts, make them sweep the whole parking lot clean and bring the store's employees coffee for a week. It saves the company the value of the item taken and the criminal makes amends in a way that teaches them and benefits the victims. Someone tries to download eleventy bazillion articles for the purpose of making knowledge more widely available, make that person help with a knowledge database for the poor and deserving so the victims can get the value back via charity. It's so difficult to put a meaningful price on information, it seems to me that this "omg! hackers and pirates must die!!!11!" RIAA-style bullshiat is hurting the world more than the criminals possibly could.

It's like how our library gives some people the choice of either paying late-book fines in cashy money or reading aloud to at-risk children until the fines are satisfied. So long as life gets better, why bother to be a hard-ass about a crime that doesn't cause any particular harm?
 
2013-01-14 10:30:27 AM

t3knomanser: Theaetetus: However, once he was blocked from accessing that network, he was no longer authorized. His MAC spoofing was an intentional attempt to circumvent that block, so he couldn't claim that he thought he was authorized at that point.

It's an open question as to whether or not MIT has the power to do that, thanks to its charter with the city. Similarly, it's an open question as to whether or not he could technically be trespassing. MIT's power to limit access to its facilities is very restricted.


I believe they're allowed to take steps to prevent harmful intrusion.

Theaetetus: all documents are protected by copyright.

You are pedantically correct,


That's the best kind of correct.

but the documents in question were public records. The last I checked, they were legal codes and court documents. Since governments don't have the funds or interest in making these documents easily accessible, gatekeepers like JSTOR organize and provide access to those documents for a fee. They do not own those documents.

I believe you may be confusing the JSTOR intrusion with his 2009 PACER intrusion. PACER is the system that publishes federal court documents. JSTOR is academic journals, and their authors have copyright protection.
 
2013-01-14 10:30:31 AM

Teiritzamna: Kinek: Did you really just compare a TOS violation to beating your spouse? Really?

Ah and this rears it's head. Where someone uses an analogy that is apt for what is being discussed, and someone else, not recognizing how analogies work, gets in a huff because the two things being compared are not the same!

Look, lawyers are taught to analogize. It is literally what the practice of law is. Thus sometimes, when it is appropriate, you can compare child rape and illegal downloads: for example if we are discussing the fact that both topics inspire knee jerk positions that have as much to do with emotional valence as they do law and order.

Humans and dogs both lactate and both form long term bonds. I have not just called you or any other person a dog. Can we please let this old "argument" tactic die already?


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

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?
 
2013-01-14 10:30:44 AM

xynix: Doing illegal stuff usually gets you prosecuted.


Exactly! This is why the people responsible for the 2008 economic crisis, the subprime mortgage lendings, banks funding terrorist organizations and authorizing waterboarding are all awaiting trials and facing 50 years in jail. The United States is a nation of laws and we won't tolerate people who break them.
 
2013-01-14 10:32:26 AM

Theaetetus: t3knomanser: Theaetetus: However, once he was blocked from accessing that network, he was no longer authorized. His MAC spoofing was an intentional attempt to circumvent that block, so he couldn't claim that he thought he was authorized at that point.

It's an open question as to whether or not MIT has the power to do that, thanks to its charter with the city. Similarly, it's an open question as to whether or not he could technically be trespassing. MIT's power to limit access to its facilities is very restricted.

I believe they're allowed to take steps to prevent harmful intrusion.

Theaetetus: all documents are protected by copyright.

You are pedantically correct,

That's the best kind of correct.

but the documents in question were public records. The last I checked, they were legal codes and court documents. Since governments don't have the funds or interest in making these documents easily accessible, gatekeepers like JSTOR organize and provide access to those documents for a fee. They do not own those documents.

I believe you may be confusing the JSTOR intrusion with his 2009 PACER intrusion. PACER is the system that publishes federal court documents. JSTOR is academic journals, and their authors have copyright protection.


NIH and NSF funded research is often required to be publically accessible as a condition of its funding. In practice, this is not always the case, and there is often delays. But in essence, they should be publically accessible.
 
Esn
2013-01-14 10:32:31 AM

Teiritzamna: Esn: Hahah. That's funny. I don't remember any bankers ever being prosecuted.

Fun fact - much of what the bankers did that torched the world economy was not illegal.

/Meaning of course we have a legislation problem, rather than a judicial one.


Oh yes, sure. The real reason is that the bankers were "too big to fail", just like the banks. Nobody even made an honest attempt.  With this legal system we have now, you can find dirt on just about anyone if you try. Everyone's broken some law or other, amount of resources determine whether you can pursue it or not. At the very least something should have been started to put some fear into those people, but nothing ever was.
 
2013-01-14 10:32:52 AM

ZAZ: According to previous stories, he did interfere with JSTOR service by downloading too many files.


He did. But again, it's definitely highly unusual for someone to get a federal indictment for violating someone's TOS. Imagine if Fark started pressing charges instead of handing out bans.

The question here isn't, "Did this guy do things he shouldn't have?" Obviously he did. Were these things crimes? Possibly, but it does fall into a grey area (and his actions were specifically structured to place it into a gray area). 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.
 
2013-01-14 10:34:35 AM

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?
 
2013-01-14 10:35:38 AM

Kinek: 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?


The trick is that you are getting mad at Theae for doing something that his job actively requires - its like you getting mad at a doctor for discussing humans as if they were biologically interconnected systems.

I mean i suppose we could take it your way, and from ever after we could only discuss laws by only considering them within the context of themselves. Ok. He was prosecuted because it was arguable that under the elements of the crimes discussed, the evidence suggested to a prosecutor that charges could be brought.

Tada!
 
2013-01-14 10:35:59 AM

Kinek: NIH and NSF funded research is often required to be publically accessible as a condition of its funding. In practice, this is not always the case, and there is often delays. But in essence, they should be publically accessible.


Regardless, he wasn't accused of copyright violation. It's a moot point.

Theaetetus: I believe they're allowed to take steps to prevent harmful intrusion.


Which, again, this falls into a gray area. Yes, he was monopolizing resources and disrupting service for others. But does that rise to a threshold where they can revoke his access to what is, essentially, a public space?
 
2013-01-14 10:36:19 AM

xynix: Doing illegal stuff usually gets you prosecuted.


I've done illegal things many times before in my life... from jaywalking to smoking cannabis to ripping CDs I didn't pay for to driving with a little buzz on. I have never been prosecuted in my life.
 
2013-01-14 10:36:55 AM

t3knomanser: ZAZ: According to previous stories, he did interfere with JSTOR service by downloading too many files.

He did. But again, it's definitely highly unusual for someone to get a federal indictment for violating someone's TOS. Imagine if Fark started pressing charges instead of handing out bans.

The question here isn't, "Did this guy do things he shouldn't have?" Obviously he did. Were these things crimes? Possibly, but it does fall into a grey area (and his actions were specifically structured to place it into a gray area). 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.


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.

Coming soon: Patent for crime. Patent for Crime ON A COMPUTER.
 
2013-01-14 10:37:54 AM

js34603: I have to be honest...I don't care about this. I see it has the tech nerds up in arms, and seems to really drive page clicks for Fark so I expect to see about 200 more threads about this.

But really, I don't see what the big deal is, whether he was guilty of a crime or not, he offed himself so it is pretty much moot at this point.


It's kind of a big deal.

It really shows how crazy prosecutor leway has become. Compare the Swartz case with David Gregory. In the Swartz case, JSTOR said he violated the TOS. The prosecutor decided that it was, in fact, a felony "hacking" offense because it involved him accessing the network from a different location.

Now David Gregory waves a "high capacity" magazine on national TV which is illegal to possess in DC, where he was at the time. However, the prosecutor there decided that no crime occurred, so he walks. Never mind the same office charges others with the same offense every year.

Too many laws are written in vague terms that it's not too difficult for a prosecutor to have several possible charges for seemingly innocent actions. One researcher claims that the "average" citizen violates 3 state and federal statutes every day - often without knowing.
 
2013-01-14 10:39:25 AM

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


alas, illegal acts are unpatentable subject matter.

Also some fairly big novelty/obviousness problems.
 
2013-01-14 10:40:23 AM

t3knomanser: Theaetetus: I believe they're allowed to take steps to prevent harmful intrusion.

Which, again, this falls into a gray area. Yes, he was monopolizing resources and disrupting service for others. But does that rise to a threshold where they can revoke his access to what is, essentially, a public space?


I'd compare it to a public disturbing the peace-type charge. You can be ejected from a public space for interfering with others' rightful use of that public space.

Additionally, regardless of whether they were right or wrong to revoke his access initially, the proper response if he disagreed would be to communicate with them, not spoof his address or tap into a network closet.
 
2013-01-14 10:43:08 AM
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.
 
2013-01-14 10:43:32 AM

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. It's telling of the sanctity of particular aspects of the law to you. And if the state does not demonstrate a compelling interest in prosecuting, no, I don't think they should be able to take out a vendetta over the PACER fark-up on a guy for what was essentially a private disagreement. The problem here is that Computer fraud is defined so nebulously that violation of TOS (which nobody reads, and which may not be enforceable anyways) is equated with hacking the State department. Hell, looking at fark is technically Computer Fraud, under the right circumstances. This has more to do with a vendetta, and ill-defined laws than anything else.
 
Esn
2013-01-14 10:43:36 AM

js34603: I have to be honest...I don't care about this. I see it has the tech nerds up in arms, and seems to really drive page clicks for Fark so I expect to see about 200 more threads about this.

But really, I don't see what the big deal is, whether he was guilty of a crime or not, he offed himself so it is pretty much moot at this point.


I will tell you why it's a big deal.

It's a big deal because the United States has reached the point where it treats its dissidents like the Soviet Union used to. You have this underclass of brilliant idealists and average folks who are trying to open up society in the way that Soviet citizens used to do by spreading samizdat literature, by-passing the state's intellectual controls, and you have the government using its heavy hand to relentlessly spy on them, prosecute them, drive them to ostracization, ruin, exile and suicide. This is part of a bigger pattern, and this particular case is a microcosm of the bigger picture. It is making people take notice.  It is blatantly obvious that this idealistic young person, in trying to better humanity, attracted the disproportionate wrath of the government.
 
2013-01-14 10:44:01 AM

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.
 
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.
 
2013-01-14 01:11:57 PM

BullBearMS: 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.


So uh, which plutocrats and politicians were in on this? And what was their motivation?

Really, that's all the more reason to go to trial.
 
2013-01-14 01:22:14 PM

HotWingConspiracy: So uh, which plutocrats and politicians were in on this? And what was their motivation?


Asks one of the biggest Obama shills on the Politics tab?

Which politician controls the Department of Justice?

Which plutocrats agenda did the dead kid shut down?
 
2013-01-14 01:24:42 PM

BullBearMS: HotWingConspiracy: So uh, which plutocrats and politicians were in on this? And what was their motivation?

Asks one of the biggest Obama shills on the Politics tab?

Which politician controls the Department of Justice?

Which plutocrats agenda did the dead kid shut down?


Oh I was hoping you had some sort of evidence.
 
2013-01-14 01:25:57 PM

SpiderQueenDemon: Had I been in charge of overseeing the case, considering Swartz's motive and what he actually did, I would have recommended he receive community service in the form of setting up a really big open-source alternative to JSTOR suitable for use by impoverished public school districts. It should take about 1200-1500 hours and the end result should be something the offended parties, MIT and JSTOR, are able to get back something like a reasonable value of the material taken with via charitable tax deductions for licensing it free to broke schools. Swartz would've been awesome at that, the punishment would've fit the crime and the end result would've been the world's being a better place.

Some nonviolent crimes are really best handled with a rehabilitative and publically beneficial sentence. Someone shoplifts, make them sweep the whole parking lot clean and bring the store's employees coffee for a week. It saves the company the value of the item taken and the criminal makes amends in a way that teaches them and benefits the victims. Someone tries to download eleventy bazillion articles for the purpose of making knowledge more widely available, make that person help with a knowledge database for the poor and deserving so the victims can get the value back via charity. It's so difficult to put a meaningful price on information, it seems to me that this "omg! hackers and pirates must die!!!11!" RIAA-style bullshiat is hurting the world more than the criminals possibly could.

It's like how our library gives some people the choice of either paying late-book fines in cashy money or reading aloud to at-risk children until the fines are satisfied. So long as life gets better, why bother to be a hard-ass about a crime that doesn't cause any particular harm?


The only problem with that approach, in this case, is that it would not have deterred similar crimes by the same perpetrator.  Swarz didn't think he needed "rehabilitation."

The heavy prosecution wasn't for the JSTOR incident alone, any more than Al Capone's tax evasion was the sole reason for his prosecution.

Swarz would not have gone to jail for anywhere near 35 years.  A plea deal would have been struck including minimal or even no  prison time.  But he would definitely have gotten lengthy probation including restrictions on computer and Internet access.  I wager that is what he could not face.
 
2013-01-14 01:27:49 PM
Are Millennials the biggest bunch of wimps we have ever had the miss fortune to call humans? Seriously, some of these assholes are saying this bozo is a martyr. A martyr? You know who farking murderer this shiat head? Himself. That is not a martyr that is farking coward.

If he had gone to prison, then he would have been a martyr, but as it is he is just another farking loser who would not stand up for his principals.
 
2013-01-14 01:29:10 PM

BarkingUnicorn: SpiderQueenDemon: Had I been in charge of overseeing the case, considering Swartz's motive and what he actually did, I would have recommended he receive community service in the form of setting up a really big open-source alternative to JSTOR suitable for use by impoverished public school districts. It should take about 1200-1500 hours and the end result should be something the offended parties, MIT and JSTOR, are able to get back something like a reasonable value of the material taken with via charitable tax deductions for licensing it free to broke schools. Swartz would've been awesome at that, the punishment would've fit the crime and the end result would've been the world's being a better place.

Some nonviolent crimes are really best handled with a rehabilitative and publically beneficial sentence. Someone shoplifts, make them sweep the whole parking lot clean and bring the store's employees coffee for a week. It saves the company the value of the item taken and the criminal makes amends in a way that teaches them and benefits the victims. Someone tries to download eleventy bazillion articles for the purpose of making knowledge more widely available, make that person help with a knowledge database for the poor and deserving so the victims can get the value back via charity. It's so difficult to put a meaningful price on information, it seems to me that this "omg! hackers and pirates must die!!!11!" RIAA-style bullshiat is hurting the world more than the criminals possibly could.

It's like how our library gives some people the choice of either paying late-book fines in cashy money or reading aloud to at-risk children until the fines are satisfied. So long as life gets better, why bother to be a hard-ass about a crime that doesn't cause any particular harm?

The only problem with that approach, in this case, is that it would not have deterred similar crimes by the same perpetrator.  Swarz didn't think he needed "rehabilitation."

The heavy prosecution wasn't for ...


Dip shiat should have said no farking deals. He should have pleaded not guilty, gone to trial and dared them to send him to prison.
 
2013-01-14 01:30:31 PM

BullBearMS: 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.


I thought Drew was in favor of SOPA or something?
 
2013-01-14 01:31:19 PM

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?
 
2013-01-14 01:32:23 PM

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


That is my understanding of how it is supposed to work........disobey the law/rules, take your lumps and get charged, then fight the charges all the way up to the Supreme Court.
 
2013-01-14 01:33:15 PM

HotWingConspiracy: So uh, which plutocrats and politicians were in on this?


The Just Us system.
 
2013-01-14 01:33:48 PM

BullBearMS: 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.


those chemtrails at it again
 
2013-01-14 01:38:48 PM

AdamK: BullBearMS: 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.

those chemtrails at it again


It was probably made to look like an accident, just like John Noveskes death.
 
2013-01-14 01:46:40 PM

Bartleby the Scrivener: i'm sure there's someone alot more tech and/or legal saavy than me who can talk more knowledgeably about the specs of this case, but my reading of this yahoo article (and some other articles ) about this stuff leaves me on the fence.

On the one i hand, i do believe, in general, knowledge should be free. this is the idealist side of me. research funded by federal dollars? everything is open, no subscription, no institutional affliation required. need to learn how to wire your house? safe, practical, usable information should be at your fingertips. whether you burn your house down or not is on you.

On the other hand, the realist side of me, which is old and cynical, knows all to well there is no such thing as a free lunch. maybe this kid was trying to move the needle some, fighting the powers that be, but if it comes down to it and you're trying to take food from someone else's bowl, i don't think you should be surprised when they bite. not all dogs, so to speak, share the same values.

\two cents


The JStor stuff aside, MIT was pissed due to the fact he snuck into their switch rooms and physically attached stuff to it. The whole JStor thing aside, that kind of network intrusion is always going to result in severe legal problems.
 
2013-01-14 01:48:16 PM
Look, I think it's tragic that this guy found himself in an environment that made him decide the only way out was to take his own life.

But Holy Jebus people! If you intend to "Fight the System"tm don't get upset that the system fights back. If you can't handle the consequences don't start the fight.
 
2013-01-14 01:50:04 PM

Teiritzamna: 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.


Right, it's not false equivalence. However, it is a subversive appeal to emotion. It's the difference between saying "fraud is a crime, just as petty theft is a crime!" and "fraud is a crime, just as rape is a crime!" Intentional or not, it serves to invoke an emotional appeal from the non-equivalent aspects of the two things rather than the aspects that ARE equivalent.
 
2013-01-14 01:51:27 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Oh I was hoping you had some sort of evidence.


Evidence that the RIAA owned the Obama administration right from the start? That's certainly easy to come by.

Let's turn the clock back to only a few weeks after his inauguration back in 2009.

Nearly two dozen public interest groups, trade pacts and library groups urged President Barack Obama on Thursday to quit filling his administration with insiders plucked from the Recording Industry Association of America.

The demands came a week after the Justice Department, fresh with two RIAA attorneys in its No. 2 and No. 3 positions.


Of course, the Obama administration's response to criticism from public interest groups was to keep on appointing RIAA officials to leadership positions in the Justice Department.

Then there was the Administration's first attempt to allow his weathy donor friends to censor the internet, ACTA. The most open administration EVAR's response to a freedom of information act request for the ACTA treaty text went like this:

When the Obama administration took over, there was a public stance that this administration was going to be more transparent -- especially with regards to things like Freedom of Information Act requests. The nonprofit group Knowledge Ecology International took that to heart and filed an FOIA request to get more info on ACTA. The US Trade Representative's Office responded denying the request, saying that the information was "classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958." This is a treaty about changing copyright law, not sending missiles somewhere. To claim that it's a national security matter is just downright scary. As KEI points out, the text of the documents requested have been available to tons of people, including more than 30 governments around the world and lobbyists from the entertainment industry, pharma industry and publishing industry.

But when the public asks for them, we're told they're state secrets? This is transparency? This is openness?


Thankfully, ACTA was shut down by the EU where the politicians weren't as owned as the RIAA thought they were..

Then, when a Federal judge found that a $675,000 dollar fine for a penniless college student downloading a few 99 cent music track was was Unconstitutionally excessive, and that a $67,000 fine was more than sufficient, the Obama administration to leap into action to screw over another young kid's life.

Do federal judges have the power to reduce jury awards in copyright-infringement cases?

The Obama administration and the Recording Industry Association of America don't think so. They argued that point Monday before a three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston


It's pretty hard to ignore that the Obama administration has been doing the RIAA and MPAA's bidding right from the start.
 
2013-01-14 01:54:49 PM

BullBearMS: HotWingConspiracy: Oh I was hoping you had some sort of evidence.

Evidence that the RIAA owned the Obama administration right from the start? That's certainly easy to come by.

Let's turn the clock back to only a few weeks after his inauguration back in 2009.

Nearly two dozen public interest groups, trade pacts and library groups urged President Barack Obama on Thursday to quit filling his administration with insiders plucked from the Recording Industry Association of America.

The demands came a week after the Justice Department, fresh with two RIAA attorneys in its No. 2 and No. 3 positions.

Of course, the Obama administration's response to criticism from public interest groups was to keep on appointing RIAA officials to leadership positions in the Justice Department.

Then there was the Administration's first attempt to allow his weathy donor friends to censor the internet, ACTA. The most open administration EVAR's response to a freedom of information act request for the ACTA treaty text went like this:

When the Obama administration took over, there was a public stance that this administration was going to be more transparent -- especially with regards to things like Freedom of Information Act requests. The nonprofit group Knowledge Ecology International took that to heart and filed an FOIA request to get more info on ACTA. The US Trade Representative's Office responded denying the request, saying that the information was "classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958." This is a treaty about changing copyright law, not sending missiles somewhere. To claim that it's a national security matter is just downright scary. As KEI points out, the text of the documents requested have been available to tons of people, including more than 30 governments around the world and lobbyists from the entertainment industry, pharma industry and publishing industry.

But when the public asks for them, we're told they're state secrets? This i ...


So when does this nexus of evil personally get involved with this case?

I'm sorry, as one of the biggest Obama shills on the Politics tab, I was recruited to help organize the Israeli commando hit on Sandy Hook Elementary.

This low level stuff was farmed out to smaller shills than I.
 
2013-01-14 02:00:11 PM

HotWingConspiracy: So when does this nexus of evil personally get involved with this case?


At the point where the same Justice Department that refused to charge any of the fraudulent bankers who destroyed our economy with fraud, and refused to charge any of the politicians who ordered torture with a crime, and refused to charge any of the telecoms who illegally wiretapped American's phones with a crime... suddenly decided that trespassing in an unlocked closet deserved decades in prison despite the "victim" of the "crime" directly asking for all charges to be dropped.
 
2013-01-14 02:03:13 PM

ProfessorOhki: Right, it's not false equivalence. However, it is a subversive appeal to emotion. It's the difference between saying "fraud is a crime, just as petty theft is a crime!" and "fraud is a crime, just as rape is a crime!" Intentional or not, it serves to invoke an emotional appeal from the non-equivalent aspects of the two things rather than the aspects that ARE equivalent.


i think it is more fair to say that it can evoke an emotion. Let us assume we are discussing a crime which rises or falls on the consent of the victim. Say, for example that Alice is charged with trespass on Bob's land. Alice wants to argue that Bob gave her permission, which vitiates any crime.

Let us then assume that Carol and Dave are debating this. Carol says that Alice is full of shiat, as there is no crime where the consent of the victim matters. Dave says, "aha! what about rape. In that case the consent of the victim is the crux of the crime!" Carol responds: how dare you compare simple trespass with rape.

Note that in this scenario Dave is not comparing the severity, reprehensibility, or social opprobrium of the two crimes. Dave is in fact comparing the actus rea requirements of the crime and suggesting that there are in fact crimes where victim consent is part of that actus. Carol is in fact the one who is (either honestly, or as part of an argumentative tactic) conflating the severity, reprehensibility, etc. of the crimes.

This can be seen in a different scenario. Carol argues "of course victim consent is important, that is an element of every crime!" Dave responds "well, no. Homicide cannot be excused by consent." Would you say "how dare Dave bring up murder!?" Likely no.

On one level this reminds me of the old debate that over whether there are certain subjects that cannot be used for comedy. Rape is often discussed there as well. Here, the discussion seems to be that unless crimes are of exactly the same severity, the legal facets that they have in common cannot be discussed, as someone may get a case of the vapors. I disagree.

This is not to say that actual real cases of false equivalence are deeply irritating and bad. See any drug discussion where people compare pot to crack or whathaveyou. Here, however there was an argument made that the state shouldn't prosecute when the victim doesn't want to press charges. A counter argument was made using an example of another crime - a crime famous for the reticence of the victim to want the state to proceed. This was then declared emotionally manipulative, in a fashion that itself was emotionally manipulative. That is at least how i see it.
 
2013-01-14 02:03:30 PM
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...
 
2013-01-14 02:07:20 PM

Giltric: BullBearMS: 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.

I thought Drew was in favor of SOPA or something?


If he was, then I'm not sure how his website joined the protest against it.
 
2013-01-14 02:11:41 PM

TheOtherGuy: 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...


You really cannot have a cause of action against a prosecutor based on the fact that they prosecuted someone for a crime that they colorably committed. Even if they prosecuted you for less than savory reasons. If it is abuse of process (i.e. there is no colorable claim that you committed the crime), sure fine - 1983 will have your back. Otherwise prosecutorial immunity would be pretty ironclad.
 
2013-01-14 02:13:15 PM

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.
 
2013-01-14 02:18:00 PM

Teiritzamna: Note that in this scenario Dave is not comparing the severity, reprehensibility, or social opprobrium of the two crimes. Dave is in fact comparing the actus rea requirements of the crime and suggesting that there are in fact crimes where victim consent is part of that actus. Carol is in fact the one who is (either honestly, or as part of an argumentative tactic) conflating the severity, reprehensibility, etc. of the crimes.


Sure, but you obviously have the knowledge of the differences in types of comparison and how they could be interpreted by someone not adhering strictly to your argument. I'm sure there's more than one analogy for prosecution where the victim doesn't want to bring charges; you're also smart enough to know exactly what you were doing when you did it. Now, I'm not going to say there's some, "rational man's burden," where it's solely up to you to keep the other party from responding emotionally, but you're also not going to convince me that you weren't aware of the potential for derailing the argument.
 
2013-01-14 02:25:09 PM

ProfessorOhki: Teiritzamna: Note that in this scenario Dave is not comparing the severity, reprehensibility, or social opprobrium of the two crimes. Dave is in fact comparing the actus rea requirements of the crime and suggesting that there are in fact crimes where victim consent is part of that actus. Carol is in fact the one who is (either honestly, or as part of an argumentative tactic) conflating the severity, reprehensibility, etc. of the crimes.

Sure, but you obviously have the knowledge of the differences in types of comparison and how they could be interpreted by someone not adhering strictly to your argument. I'm sure there's more than one analogy for prosecution where the victim doesn't want to bring charges; you're also smart enough to know exactly what you were doing when you did it. Now, I'm not going to say there's some, "rational man's burden," where it's solely up to you to keep the other party from responding emotionally, but you're also not going to convince me that you weren't aware of the potential for derailing the argument.


It was Thaeteus, the other patent lawyer who made the comparison. But yes, bringing up domestic abuse rather than, I dunno. Saying; "There are mandatory prosecution laws for hacking under X, Y, and Z." Is definitely made as an emotional appeal.

Tell me Tez. If I went into the court and made the comparison in front of a Jury, would the prosecution raise an objection?
 
2013-01-14 02:28:04 PM

ProfessorOhki: Sure, but you obviously have the knowledge of the differences in types of comparison and how they could be interpreted by someone not adhering strictly to your argument. I'm sure there's more than one analogy for prosecution where the victim doesn't want to bring charges; you're also smart enough to know exactly what you were doing when you did it. Now, I'm not going to say there's some, "rational man's burden," where it's solely up to you to keep the other party from responding emotionally, but you're also not going to convince me that you weren't aware of the potential for derailing the argument.


Well three things -
1) I didn't make the argument in the first place - just commenting along about it ^_^

2) as discussed above - more than anything else i think this is one of the big communicative differences between lawyers and non-lawyers. Amongst the people i know from law school and my job - no one would bat an eye at such a comparison because this is what we do and are trained to do. So when discussing the law, i will find an analogy that is on point and use it. The trick is that i try not to do it as much in my normal life for exactly the reasons you noted. The one place i wont dumb down is when discussing the law. Because if people feel like they want to get their GED-in-law on, then they are gonna deal with the way the game is played at the pro level.

3) If this were a one off scenario, i think your point would have more oomph. True, here, we have a set arguers who are accusing another of being emotionally manipulative. Yet when the actual basis of the agrument is explained, the offended parties have responded: "nope, you compared wife beating to fraud and trespass! thus you are teh evuls, Q.E.D.!"

At that point i feel even a reasonable rational man's burden as you call it (which i like and may steal) has transformed into situation where one side is pulling a "oh my stars and garters!" act as a way of neutering what is a fairly good substantive point.
 
2013-01-14 02:30:03 PM

Kinek: Tell me Tez. If I went into the court and made the comparison in front of a Jury, would the prosecution raise an objection?


Of course they would, as any attorney argument is not allowed. There would be an objection if you compared it to anything. Of course, dragging the rules of evidence into this muddies the point as what they would require is irrelevant to the point at hand.
 
2013-01-14 02:36:30 PM

Teiritzamna: ProfessorOhki: Sure, but you obviously have the knowledge of the differences in types of comparison and how they could be interpreted by someone not adhering strictly to your argument. I'm sure there's more than one analogy for prosecution where the victim doesn't want to bring charges; you're also smart enough to know exactly what you were doing when you did it. Now, I'm not going to say there's some, "rational man's burden," where it's solely up to you to keep the other party from responding emotionally, but you're also not going to convince me that you weren't aware of the potential for derailing the argument.

Well three things -
1) I didn't make the argument in the first place - just commenting along about it ^_^

2) as discussed above - more than anything else i think this is one of the big communicative differences between lawyers and non-lawyers. Amongst the people i know from law school and my job - no one would bat an eye at such a comparison because this is what we do and are trained to do. So when discussing the law, i will find an analogy that is on point and use it. The trick is that i try not to do it as much in my normal life for exactly the reasons you noted. The one place i wont dumb down is when discussing the law. Because if people feel like they want to get their GED-in-law on, then they are gonna deal with the way the game is played at the pro level.

3) If this were a one off scenario, i think your point would have more oomph. True, here, we have a set arguers who are accusing another of being emotionally manipulative. Yet when the actual basis of the agrument is explained, the offended parties have responded: "nope, you compared wife beating to fraud and trespass! thus you are teh evuls, Q.E.D.!"

At that point i feel even a reasonable rational man's burden as you call it (which i like and may steal) has transformed into situation where one side is pulling a "oh my stars and garters!" act as a way of neutering what is a fairly good sub ...


Except T then proceeded to call it back, over and over and over. And be the arrogant jackass that he is. It was emotionally manipulative. And continual denial that it could possibly viewed as manipulative doesn't help your case that it wasn't so.

AND FOR THE LAST FARKING TIME. Mandatory prosecution in hacking laws is retarded. The state, in this case, should have to demonstrate COMPELLING FARKING INTEREST. Mandatory prosecution in even violent cases is not compulsory all the time under all circumstances. Domestic abuse cases ARE DIFFERENT because they have a likelihood of repeating until one party is dead or so severely injured that the state foots the medical bill. Also, the children. In this case, it was JSTOR, MIT, and Swartz. All private entities. Breach of TOS (And aside from the trespassing, that's where all the charges stem from.) is a private contract breach. Not a public interest.
 
2013-01-14 02:39:13 PM

Teiritzamna: Kinek: Tell me Tez. If I went into the court and made the comparison in front of a Jury, would the prosecution raise an objection?

Of course they would, as any attorney argument is not allowed. There would be an objection if you compared it to anything. Of course, dragging the rules of evidence into this muddies the point as what they would require is irrelevant to the point at hand.


Then why are you defending the comparison now? The comparison was emotionally burdened. Why not a more proper definition, as I know lawyers love definitions.

Hacking requires mandatory prosecution under X statute.

Hey look, I didn't mention rape, beating your spouse, child porn, or lighting puppies on fire anywhere! Lookat that.
 
2013-01-14 02:45:13 PM

Kinek: Then why are you defending the comparison now? The comparison was emotionally burdened.


Wait, what? The reason you cannot argue it to a jury is that it is legal argument. You don't get do that to a jury because juries DON'T MAKE RULINGS ON LAW. Judges do. And in briefs or oral argument before a judge, lawyers would make such comparisons. They do. All the time.

Arguing by analogy is a technique just like arguing based on text. You seem to have a problem with it. That's cool. I am just saying that argument by analogy is
 
2013-01-14 02:45:56 PM
d'oh

I am just saying that argument by analogy is a thing we do.
 
2013-01-14 02:47:24 PM

Teiritzamna: 1) I didn't make the argument in the first place - just commenting along about it ^_^


Kinek: It was Thaeteus, the other patent lawyer who made the comparison.


Oh. Sorry, Teiritzamna.

/I KNOW Thaeteus does it on purpose
//But gave up on that many many threads ago
 
2013-01-14 02:49:51 PM

Teiritzamna: You don't get do that to a jury because juries DON'T MAKE RULINGS ON LAW.


aaaaaand, I'm ejecting from this thread before the jury nullification folks show up.
 
2013-01-14 02:52:52 PM

ProfessorOhki: aaaaaand, I'm ejecting from this thread before the jury nullification folks show up.


heh - yeah. In the words of the Doctor: "run for your life!"
 
2013-01-14 02:53:17 PM
If you need more evidence of the Obama administration being the RIAA's little biatch...

A bizarre attempt by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to seize the domain name of a hip-hop blog accused of copyright infringement ended today with the government abruptly abandoning the lawsuit.

Government officials initially trumpeted the seizure of the music blog, DaJaz1.com as an example of the law prevailing over pirates. Attorney General Eric Holder warned at the time that "intellectual property crimes are not victimless," and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) director John Morton proclaimed that "today, we turn the tables on these Internet thieves."

The only problem? It turns out that Holder's and Morton's claims appear to have been, well, exaggerated.

That started to become apparent when Dajaz1's editor, who's known as Splash, showed The New York Times e-mail messages from record label employees sending him unreleased songs. ICE had claimed that the music was "unauthorized."

What's unusual here is that normally U.S. law strongly discourages efforts to censor Web sites before a full trial can be held. That's called "prior restraint," and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Pentagon Papers case that even top-secret national defense information did not qualify for temporary, pre-trial censorship.

But in the DaJaz1 case, a series of allegations of dubious reliability offered in an ICE affidavit were enough to censor a popular music blog--which had been featured on MTV News a few months earlier--for over a year.


After this effort to allow the RIAA to take down a music blog just because they wanted to failed, the push for SOPA/PIPA began.

Seizing a website because the RIAA wants it seized was exactly what the SOPA/PIPA legislation was supposed to allow, and exactly what the the poor kid who was just hounded to death by the RIAA's pet politicians prevented from passing.
 
2013-01-14 03:21:47 PM

Teiritzamna: Kinek: Then why are you defending the comparison now? The comparison was emotionally burdened.

Wait, what? The reason you cannot argue it to a jury is that it is legal argument. You don't get do that to a jury because juries DON'T MAKE RULINGS ON LAW. Judges do. And in briefs or oral argument before a judge, lawyers would make such comparisons. They do. All the time.

Arguing by analogy is a technique just like arguing based on text. You seem to have a problem with it. That's cool. I am just saying that argument by analogy is


Sorry. I misread what you meant. I thought you meant that the comparison is not a legal argument, but an emotional one and such not a proper argument to be made to a jury, since it's not predicated on facts or evidence. Since that is not your argument, I retract my own. I still fully argue that the use in Thaeteus's statement was something that he's known to do. And no, juries don't get to make rulings on law. I'm making the argument that the choice of analogy is not based on equivalency (There are plenty of mandatory prosecution crimes) but rather based on emotional linkage, and that repeated feigned outrage is further evidence that I caught him being a gigantic turd. As he is wont to do.

Anyways, I'm out. Going to go eat lunch and have a romp in the winter wonderland.
 
2013-01-14 03:31:59 PM

Kinek: It was Thaeteus, the other patent lawyer who made the comparison. But yes, bringing up domestic abuse rather than, I dunno. Saying; "There are mandatory prosecution laws for hacking under X, Y, and Z." Is definitely made as an emotional appeal.


Not at all, and I never said that, nor would I - there are no mandatory prosecution laws for hacking.
Which again leads me to think that you're either missing the point or trying to hide it so as to make your emotional appeal. The point is that the state can bring charges without the cooperation or approval of the victim. JSTOR can say "no, we're cool" and the government can still pursue charges. Similarly, in domestic violence cases, the victim can say "no, we're cool" and the government can still pursue charges.

But for some reason, merely mentioning that the same rules apply to both wire fraud and domestic violence causes you to shiat yourself with frothy outrage. Apparently, you'd prefer some other analogy? Well, statutory rape can be prosecuted without the consent or approval of the victim. Possession or creation of child porn, too. In murder, you clearly can't get the victim to work with you.
Let me guess - you have a problem with all of those analogies, too? If so, then how about you suggest a good analogy?
 
2013-01-14 03:35:02 PM

ProfessorOhki: Sure, but you obviously have the knowledge of the differences in types of comparison and how they could be interpreted by someone not adhering strictly to your argument. I'm sure there's more than one analogy for prosecution where the victim doesn't want to bring charges


As noted above, murder (where they can't), domestic violence, statutory rape, child pornography, sex trafficking... Frankly, I'm not sure any of those are less likely to make you or Kinek clutch your pearls and accuse me of psychopathic tendencies for comparing them.
 
2013-01-14 03:36:27 PM

Kinek: Teiritzamna: Kinek: Then why are you defending the comparison now? The comparison was emotionally burdened.

Wait, what? The reason you cannot argue it to a jury is that it is legal argument. You don't get do that to a jury because juries DON'T MAKE RULINGS ON LAW. Judges do. And in briefs or oral argument before a judge, lawyers would make such comparisons. They do. All the time.

Arguing by analogy is a technique just like arguing based on text. You seem to have a problem with it. That's cool. I am just saying that argument by analogy is

Sorry. I misread what you meant. I thought you meant that the comparison is not a legal argument, but an emotional one and such not a proper argument to be made to a jury, since it's not predicated on facts or evidence. Since that is not your argument, I retract my own. I still fully argue that the use in Thaeteus's statement was something that he's known to do. And no, juries don't get to make rulings on law. I'm making the argument that the choice of analogy is not based on equivalency (There are plenty of mandatory prosecution crimes) but rather based on emotional linkage, and that repeated feigned outrage is further evidence that I caught him being a gigantic turd. As he is wont to do.

Anyways, I'm out. Going to go eat lunch and have a romp in the winter wonderland.


No prob chief, I hear you.

Enjoy the wintering!
 
2013-01-14 03:38:55 PM

Kinek: But yes, bringing up domestic abuse rather than, I dunno. Saying; "There are mandatory prosecution laws for hacking under X, Y, and Z."

Kinek: Mandatory prosecution in hacking laws is retarded.

Kinek: Hacking requires mandatory prosecution under X statute.

Kinek: There are plenty of mandatory prosecution crimes


Before someone other than Kinek gets confused, it should be pointed out that there's no mandatory prosecution required here.

The point was whether the government can bring charges without the consent or approval of the victim, i.e. JSTOR. They can, hence the complaints about the victim not having a huge problem with what Swartz did is just as irrelevant as such complaints are in other crimes where the state doesn't need the cooperation or approval of the victim to prosecute.
 
2013-01-14 03:58:41 PM

Theaetetus: Kinek: It was Thaeteus, the other patent lawyer who made the comparison. But yes, bringing up domestic abuse rather than, I dunno. Saying; "There are mandatory prosecution laws for hacking under X, Y, and Z." Is definitely made as an emotional appeal.

Not at all, and I never said that, nor would I - there are no mandatory prosecution laws for hacking.
Which again leads me to think that you're either missing the point or trying to hide it so as to make your emotional appeal. The point is that the state can bring charges without the cooperation or approval of the victim. JSTOR can say "no, we're cool" and the government can still pursue charges. Similarly, in domestic violence cases, the victim can say "no, we're cool" and the government can still pursue charges.

But for some reason, merely mentioning that the same rules apply to both wire fraud and domestic violence causes you to shiat yourself with frothy outrage. Apparently, you'd prefer some other analogy? Well, statutory rape can be prosecuted without the consent or approval of the victim. Possession or creation of child porn, too. In murder, you clearly can't get the victim to work with you.
Let me guess - you have a problem with all of those analogies, too? If so, then how about you suggest a good analogy?


How about,

The point is that the state can bring charges without the cooperation or approval of the victim. JSTOR can say "no, we're cool" and the government can still pursue charges.

And not bringing up rape, domestic abuse, or anything else? How about that?
 
2013-01-14 04:05:20 PM

Theaetetus: ProfessorOhki: Sure, but you obviously have the knowledge of the differences in types of comparison and how they could be interpreted by someone not adhering strictly to your argument. I'm sure there's more than one analogy for prosecution where the victim doesn't want to bring charges

As noted above, murder (where they can't), domestic violence, statutory rape, child pornography, sex trafficking... Frankly, I'm not sure any of those are less likely to make you or Kinek clutch your pearls and accuse me of psychopathic tendencies for comparing them.


The better question is, one of these things is not like the other. Why is that? Is it because it doesn't belong? I think it is!

Hacking, domestic violence, statutory rape, CP, and Sex trafficking. One of these things is not like the others.
 
2013-01-14 04:10:28 PM

Theaetetus: ProfessorOhki: Sure, but you obviously have the knowledge of the differences in types of comparison and how they could be interpreted by someone not adhering strictly to your argument. I'm sure there's more than one analogy for prosecution where the victim doesn't want to bring charges

As noted above, murder (where they can't), domestic violence, statutory rape, child pornography, sex trafficking... Frankly, I'm not sure any of those are less likely to make you or Kinek clutch your pearls and accuse me of psychopathic tendencies for comparing them.


Actually, if those are the only ones you can come up with, it's a great indicator that the crimes in this instance don't belong on that list.
 
2013-01-14 04:18:18 PM

ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: ProfessorOhki: Sure, but you obviously have the knowledge of the differences in types of comparison and how they could be interpreted by someone not adhering strictly to your argument. I'm sure there's more than one analogy for prosecution where the victim doesn't want to bring charges

As noted above, murder (where they can't), domestic violence, statutory rape, child pornography, sex trafficking... Frankly, I'm not sure any of those are less likely to make you or Kinek clutch your pearls and accuse me of psychopathic tendencies for comparing them.

Actually, if those are the only ones you can come up with, it's a great indicator that the crimes in this instance don't belong on that list.


I'm sorry, are we talking about the law how it is or the law how you think it should be? See, I was talking about existing laws and why the fact that JSTOR said they're okay is irrelevant. Kinek there then accused me of all sorts of shameful things. If he was instead suggesting that he'd like the law changed, he should make that clear, rather than throwing a tantrum and flinging around insults just because people point out that current reality differs from his fantasy.
 
2013-01-14 04:38:22 PM

xynix: Doing illegal stuff usually gets you prosecuted.


Unless you're a Wall Street fraudster.
 
2013-01-14 04:39:50 PM

Theaetetus: orbister: You forgot "... said his own lawyer".

Done in one.

Oh yes, and the article says that he paid JSTOR compensation.

Not to mention that he also turned his drives over to them.

I mean, seriously:
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... 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.

If JSTOR thought he had 'the right' to download that stuff, then why did they insist that it be returned and he pay damages?


I don't see where they insisted there.
 
2013-01-14 04:41:22 PM
This kid was hounded to suicide by a Federal Prosecutor seeking not to do any justice for JSTOR, but to exact revenge on him for the incident years before, when he released all of those federal court docs and was not prosecuted. You mess with the gravy train, you get smacked.
 
2013-01-14 04:43:12 PM

xynix: Doing illegal stuff usually gets you prosecuted.


Unless you're a bank in which case funding terrorists gets you a slap n the wris
 
2013-01-14 04:43:28 PM

Theaetetus: ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: ProfessorOhki: Sure, but you obviously have the knowledge of the differences in types of comparison and how they could be interpreted by someone not adhering strictly to your argument. I'm sure there's more than one analogy for prosecution where the victim doesn't want to bring charges

As noted above, murder (where they can't), domestic violence, statutory rape, child pornography, sex trafficking... Frankly, I'm not sure any of those are less likely to make you or Kinek clutch your pearls and accuse me of psychopathic tendencies for comparing them.

Actually, if those are the only ones you can come up with, it's a great indicator that the crimes in this instance don't belong on that list.

I'm sorry, are we talking about the law how it is or the law how you think it should be? See, I was talking about existing laws and why the fact that JSTOR said they're okay is irrelevant. Kinek there then accused me of all sorts of shameful things. If he was instead suggesting that he'd like the law changed, he should make that clear, rather than throwing a tantrum and flinging around insults just because people point out that current reality differs from his fantasy.


I think your account of events is off:
1) dehehn said "when your victims don't actually have that much of a problem with anything you did."
2) You drew the domestic abuse analogy
3) Kinek gets upset over your analogy
4) You, me, Kinek, and Teiritzamna debate emotionally charged analogies and their validity in arguments involving laypeople.
5) You and Kinek start going at it again over their misuse of "mandatory"
5) I say that, given the list you've just produced, I'm of the opinion the crimes in the article should require the victim to bring charges
6) You somehow get confused about 5 (replace "don't belong" with "shouldn't be" if it makes it more obvious)

I don't think Kinek has ever addressed the law except in the context of not liking your analogy... so the bulk of what you just said is sort of lost to the aether.
 
2013-01-14 05:06:58 PM

ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: ProfessorOhki: Sure, but you obviously have the knowledge of the differences in types of comparison and how they could be interpreted by someone not adhering strictly to your argument. I'm sure there's more than one analogy for prosecution where the victim doesn't want to bring charges

As noted above, murder (where they can't), domestic violence, statutory rape, child pornography, sex trafficking... Frankly, I'm not sure any of those are less likely to make you or Kinek clutch your pearls and accuse me of psychopathic tendencies for comparing them.

Actually, if those are the only ones you can come up with, it's a great indicator that the crimes in this instance don't belong on that list.

I'm sorry, are we talking about the law how it is or the law how you think it should be? See, I was talking about existing laws and why the fact that JSTOR said they're okay is irrelevant. Kinek there then accused me of all sorts of shameful things. If he was instead suggesting that he'd like the law changed, he should make that clear, rather than throwing a tantrum and flinging around insults just because people point out that current reality differs from his fantasy.

I think your account of events is off:
1) dehehn said "when your victims don't actually have that much of a problem with anything you did."
2) You drew the domestic abuse analogy
3) Kinek gets upset over your analogy
4) You, me, Kinek, and Teiritzamna debate emotionally charged analogies and their validity in arguments involving laypeople.
5) You and Kinek start going at it again over their misuse of "mandatory"
5) I say that, given the list you've just produced, I'm of the opinion the crimes in the article should require the victim to bring charges
6) You somehow get confused about 5 (replace "don't belong" with "shouldn't be" if it makes it more obvious)

I don't think Kinek has ever addressed the law except in the context of not liking your analogy... so the bulk of what you just said is sort of lost to the aether.


Number 5 (the first one) is about Kinek's apparent (and erroneous) belief that the law requires mandatory prosecution, so yes, he's apparently addressing the law as he thinks it is.

Number 6 shows no confusion - I understand that, at number 5 (the second one), you're expressing your opinion of how the law should be changed, a reasonable avenue for discussion albeit a new one in this thread. I pointed out at number 6 that Kinek is not doing anything of the sort.
 
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 162 of 162 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report