Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Anonymous)   Anonymous takes down USSC website in response to persecution of Aaron Schwartz   (webcitation.org) divider line 98
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

4365 clicks; posted to Geek » on 26 Jan 2013 at 8:29 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-26 08:09:32 AM  
OH NO!  A website???!!!

Anonymous is the fat, lonely, misguided attention-whore of the internet.
 
2013-01-26 08:32:58 AM  
The ability to destroy a website is insignificant next to the power of the Government.
 
2013-01-26 08:37:18 AM  
What do they have against the United States Sign Council?

Link is farked, by the way
 
2013-01-26 08:42:37 AM  
imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-01-26 08:54:01 AM  
 
2013-01-26 08:58:05 AM  
Wow, Anonymous. You took down the public front site.

Meanwhile, the clerks in their offices are laughing at you while they browse the docket intranet. I'll be impressed if you make their lives a living hell.

Maybe you can dig up some dirt on a few senators.
 
2013-01-26 09:05:03 AM  
Arron? Jeez, get it right.
 
2013-01-26 09:05:06 AM  
I don't know about their hacking ability, but they write more boring press releases than the government.
 
2013-01-26 09:07:40 AM  
imgs.xkcd.com

/bears repeating
 
2013-01-26 09:16:20 AM  
This isn't really helping to honor the memory of Aaron Schwartz. He was charged for doing something illegal, and it would be nice to see something done in his memory that was legal and helped free the information he was trying to get out there in the first place. The way JSTOR and PACER is currently set up is ridiculous. We have to pay again for papers that were already paid for by taxes?
 
2013-01-26 09:20:35 AM  
Subby fails at spelling. It's Aaron not Arron.

And did none of you RTF press release? They didn't just deface the site, but claim to have infiltrated other sites and obtained secret government information. They released encrypted files, and can release the keys to decrypt them if they so choose. Personally if I worked in government I'd be worried about what else they accessed.

If you think I don't know what I'm talking about, I'll just point to my Fark headline suggesting that Sabu got arrested -- almost seven months before the arrest was announced. This stuff is very entertaining when you pay attention.
 
2013-01-26 09:26:00 AM  

Lsherm: Anonymous is the fat, lonely, misguided attention-whore of the internet.


See you in the Politics tab!
 
2013-01-26 09:26:56 AM  

skinink: The way JSTOR and PACER is currently set up is ridiculous. We have to pay again for papers that were already paid for by taxes?


The real problem is twofold; first, the absurdly-written CFAA, which criminalizes "unauthorized access" without defining either of those terms. It was first written in the mid-80s and last updated in the mid-90s. Second, the immense power granted to prosecutors by plea deals; this leads directly to the kind of situations like Aaron Swartz, where the US Attorney was threatening a massive sentence entirely out of proportion with the "crime" in order to coerce him to take a plea bargain.
 
2013-01-26 09:41:02 AM  

PunkRockLawyer: They released encrypted files, and can release the keys to decrypt them if they so choose.


They may as well just release the keys now, none of their demands will be met.
I hope they do, but I get the feeling this will just be a let down, like the whole BoA/Wikileaks encrypted file fiasco.
 
2013-01-26 09:44:38 AM  

qorkfiend: skinink: The way JSTOR and PACER is currently set up is ridiculous. We have to pay again for papers that were already paid for by taxes?

The real problem is twofold; first, the absurdly-written CFAA, which criminalizes "unauthorized access" without defining either of those terms. It was first written in the mid-80s and last updated in the mid-90s. Second, the immense power granted to prosecutors by plea deals; this leads directly to the kind of situations like Aaron Swartz, where the US Attorney was threatening a massive sentence entirely out of proportion with the "crime" in order to coerce him to take a plea bargain.


The problem is that these laws are written by old white guys who have trouble operating a touch tone phone, and enforced by middle-aged white guys who want to make a name for themselves.

They don't care who they harm, or whether it's just or not, so long as they get theirs.
 
2013-01-26 09:50:44 AM  

Ordinary Genius: enforced by middle-aged white guys who want to make a name for themselves.


Point of order; I believe the US Attorney in the Swartz case was a middle-aged Hispanic woman. Other than that, yeah; prosecutors love them a three decades out-of-date, vaguely written law. "Tough on crime" looks great on the resume when it comes time to run for political office.
 
2013-01-26 09:52:31 AM  
img.photobucket.com

When you have to hack, hack. Don't talk.
 
2013-01-26 09:59:25 AM  
Ooh. It's so scawy!

If they've got this nasty-wasty-poo "warhead", just bragging about it is stupid. It's obvious that this is nothing but a bunch of clueless kids. Here is what they did wrong:

They said "I have a gun" instead of announcing their possession by SHOOTING IT. If they weren't just pissing in the wind, they would have simply flooded the public with all their Super-Scary Secret Stuff.
 
2013-01-26 09:59:55 AM  
I like their cause but their methods will only hurt them.
 
2013-01-26 10:00:17 AM  

skinink: This isn't really helping to honor the memory of Aaron Schwartz. He was charged for doing something illegal, and it would be nice to see something done in his memory that was legal and helped free the information he was trying to get out there in the first place. The way JSTOR and PACER is currently set up is ridiculous. We have to pay again for papers that were already paid for by taxes?


I wanted to jump in here and say that JSTOR is not the bad guy here. It's a nonprofit that abides by the law and publisher agreements. It doesn't try to gouge libraries for subscriptions. I'm a librarian and we get articles at the equivalent of 25 cents a pop.

There are much worse journal publishers out there if you want to get outraged. Ones that work out to $10, $15, $20 an article and make sure their packages increase in price 9% a year or more.

Anyway if you want to get all upset, 1) Change the system and/or 2) hack the worst assholes, not the least of all evils in the game.
 
2013-01-26 10:21:48 AM  

Gunderson: [img.photobucket.com image 500x222]

When you have to hack, hack. Don't talk.


Wrong guy.
 
2013-01-26 10:22:40 AM  
"besmirked"?
 
2013-01-26 10:28:26 AM  

Egalitarian: I wanted to jump in here and say that JSTOR is not the bad guy here. It's a nonprofit that abides by the law and publisher agreements. It doesn't try to gouge libraries for subscriptions. I'm a librarian and we get articles at the equivalent of 25 cents a pop.

There are much worse journal publishers out there if you want to get outraged. Ones that work out to $10, $15, $20 an article and make sure their packages increase in price 9% a year or more.


When you say $0.25 or $10 per article, do you mean for permanent access, or is that per download/per person?  I ask because as a grad student, I go through articles like crazy, and I'm kinda hoping colleges and universities have a more affordable flat rate for their collective students/faculty.
 
2013-01-26 10:39:47 AM  
"Persecution"? Really? That's going overboard.
 
2013-01-26 10:49:38 AM  
Subby, when God was handing out brains, he must have given you a potato sack.
 
2013-01-26 11:10:03 AM  

RodneyToady: Egalitarian: I wanted to jump in here and say that JSTOR is not the bad guy here. It's a nonprofit that abides by the law and publisher agreements. It doesn't try to gouge libraries for subscriptions. I'm a librarian and we get articles at the equivalent of 25 cents a pop.

There are much worse journal publishers out there if you want to get outraged. Ones that work out to $10, $15, $20 an article and make sure their packages increase in price 9% a year or more.

When you say $0.25 or $10 per article, do you mean for permanent access, or is that per download/per person?  I ask because as a grad student, I go through articles like crazy, and I'm kinda hoping colleges and universities have a more affordable flat rate for their collective students/faculty.


All the articles are republished on Westlaw and LexisNexis, and when I was in law school those two services gave students free access (presumably to get them hooked on researching through their service once they were in practice) during the school year.

Of course, you have to change your habits a bit once you're out in the world. Towards the end of 3L year the school gave us a little lesson on how not to use Westlaw when somebody has to pay for it, because you can rack up four- or five-figure bills in a matter of minutes if you're not careful.
 
2013-01-26 11:11:02 AM  

Egalitarian:
I wanted to jump in here and say that JSTOR is not the bad guy here. It's a nonprofit that abides by the law and publisher agreements. It doesn't try to gouge libraries for subscriptions. I'm a librarian and we get articles at the equivalent of 25 cents a pop.

There are much worse journal publishers out there if you want to get outraged. Ones that work out to $10, $15, $20 an article and make sure their packages increase in price 9% a year or more.

Anyway if you want to get all upset, 1) Change the system and/or 2) hack the worst assholes, not the least of all evils in the game.


That's not how it's done. Changing the system requires actual work. So, hacktivists don't have what it takes. Hacking the worst assholes takes actual work. It's easier for online peener-wigglers to take out sites like JSTOR, which aren't rich enough to have real defenses. So, like all bullies, including those that use manufactured outrage as excuses, they pick on the weaker targets.
 
2013-01-26 11:11:10 AM  

Lsherm: OH NO!  A website???!!!

Anonymous is the fat, lonely, misguided attention-whore of the internet.


That's a big 10-4, good buddy!
 
2013-01-26 11:20:55 AM  

skinink: that was legal and helped free the information he was trying to get out there in the first place. The way JSTOR and PACER is currently set up is ridiculous. We have to pay again for papers that were already paid for by taxes?


holy crap i've never thought of it that way.
 
2013-01-26 11:23:23 AM  

skinink: This isn't really helping to honor the memory of Aaron Schwartz. He was charged for doing something illegal, and it would be nice to see something done in his memory that was legal and helped free the information he was trying to get out there in the first place. The way JSTOR and PACER is currently set up is ridiculous. We have to pay again for papers that were already paid for by taxes?


You must be a professional idiot or a very talented amateur. Let me guess, your dumbass comment is based on US government-derived funding for research, right? Guess what: THAT RESEARCH IS ALREADY AVAILABLE FOR FREE! Any researcher who is funded by a US government agency is REQUIRED by the terms of that funding to ensure that all publications are available to the public. NIH even runs a national ONLINE repository for such publications. This is well known by all non-morons.
 
2013-01-26 11:28:50 AM  

Silly_Sot: NIH even runs a national ONLINE repository for such publications. This is well known by all non-morons.


So people with little to no knowledge of the Internet forfeit their status as "non-morons"?
 
2013-01-26 11:35:19 AM  

utah dude: skinink: that was legal and helped free the information he was trying to get out there in the first place. The way JSTOR and PACER is currently set up is ridiculous. We have to pay again for papers that were already paid for by taxes?

holy crap i've never thought of it that way.


Here's a counter though: If you make the system free you have to remove all the checks and balances that cost cash to operate and the thing sinks to the credibility of wikipedia or google search in a matter of weeks.
 
2013-01-26 11:45:05 AM  
Anonymous is just a bunch of overhyped hacks.  If you don't believe me, just as Aaron Barr.  Aaron?  Aaron?
 
2013-01-26 11:53:25 AM  

Gunderson: [img.photobucket.com image 500x222]

When you have to hack, hack. Don't talk.


Wrong picture.

i70.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-26 11:55:00 AM  
"The thing that galls me is that I told Heymann the kid was a suicide risk" (from wikipedia)

So his lawyer knew that he was a suicide risk but didnt have him locked up on a 5150?
farkEM

If you know someone is suicidal and that person later commits suicide, you dont get to point fingers at other people.
You knew enough to get the guy a psych eval and didnt.
/that being said, suicidal people tend to be successful when they want to.
 
2013-01-26 11:55:54 AM  
Who the Fark is Arron Schwartz?
 
2013-01-26 11:58:28 AM  

Oliver Twisted: Who the Fark is Arron Schwartz?


suicidal person, that evidently other people knew was suicidal, but it was the GOVERNMENTS fault that he committed suicide.

evidently he was an electronic robin hood super hero
YAWN
 
2013-01-26 12:07:54 PM  

Robo Beat: RodneyToady: Egalitarian: I wanted to jump in here and say that JSTOR is not the bad guy here. It's a nonprofit that abides by the law and publisher agreements. It doesn't try to gouge libraries for subscriptions. I'm a librarian and we get articles at the equivalent of 25 cents a pop.

There are much worse journal publishers out there if you want to get outraged. Ones that work out to $10, $15, $20 an article and make sure their packages increase in price 9% a year or more.

When you say $0.25 or $10 per article, do you mean for permanent access, or is that per download/per person?  I ask because as a grad student, I go through articles like crazy, and I'm kinda hoping colleges and universities have a more affordable flat rate for their collective students/faculty.

All the articles are republished on Westlaw and LexisNexis, and when I was in law school those two services gave students free access (presumably to get them hooked on researching through their service once they were in practice) during the school year.

Of course, you have to change your habits a bit once you're out in the world. Towards the end of 3L year the school gave us a little lesson on how not to use Westlaw when somebody has to pay for it, because you can rack up four- or five-figure bills in a matter of minutes if you're not careful.


If you rack up that high of a bill you are a moran and don't deserve your law license.

Step one, get Westlaw Next. Step two, set your preferences at Transactional and Bill By Document. Step three, pay $13 per case outside your plan or (step four) run a search, get the case name or citation you need and go to google scholar.
Or you could call customer service and get a two week temporary password.
 
2013-01-26 12:11:58 PM  
Let the fireworks fly. It's about time the DoJ started taking fire, they need to be reminded that their status above the political spectrum does not mean they are above accountability.

That being said, Schwartz's suicide is not at their feet. His attorney needs to have his feet held to the fire for not taking steps to put him on a suicide watch, he is far more to blame than the DoJ.
 
2013-01-26 12:14:02 PM  

Hetfield: Lsherm: Anonymous is the fat, lonely, misguided attention-whore of the internet.

See you in the Politics tab!


Flamingtromboneofsuck.jpeg
 
2013-01-26 12:14:40 PM  
if we are doing spagetti westerns i'll go with
Morton: Not bad. Congratulations. Tell me, was it necessary that you kill all of them? I only told you to scare them.
Frank: People scare better when they're dying.
 
2013-01-26 12:14:46 PM  
Hey, maybe they'll release Obama's birth certificate!
 
2013-01-26 12:16:30 PM  
Actual Anonymous member 1: "Wait...we didn't order a hit on that website. WTF is this?"

Actual Anonymous member 2: "But if we announce it wasn't us, no one will believe us. We have to remain 'anonymous', remember?"

Actual Anonymous member 1: "Dammit!"
 
2013-01-26 12:25:20 PM  

namatad: "The thing that galls me is that I told Heymann the kid was a suicide risk" (from wikipedia)

So his lawyer knew that he was a suicide risk but didnt have him locked up on a 5150?
farkEM

If you know someone is suicidal and that person later commits suicide, you dont get to point fingers at other people.
You knew enough to get the guy a psych eval and didnt.
/that being said, suicidal people tend to be successful when they want to.


Forget layer. Suicidal person suicided? That's what they do. It's his own fault. If you kill yourself don't come crying to me
 
2013-01-26 12:27:14 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-26 12:32:32 PM  
If you're going to try to martyr an entitled zealot who did something stupid, feared to pay the price, and did something else stupid, then the least you could do is spell his name right.
 
2013-01-26 12:39:14 PM  

mrmyxolodian: Robo Beat: RodneyToady: Egalitarian: I wanted to jump in here and say that JSTOR is not the bad guy here. It's a nonprofit that abides by the law and publisher agreements. It doesn't try to gouge libraries for subscriptions. I'm a librarian and we get articles at the equivalent of 25 cents a pop.

There are much worse journal publishers out there if you want to get outraged. Ones that work out to $10, $15, $20 an article and make sure their packages increase in price 9% a year or more.

When you say $0.25 or $10 per article, do you mean for permanent access, or is that per download/per person?  I ask because as a grad student, I go through articles like crazy, and I'm kinda hoping colleges and universities have a more affordable flat rate for their collective students/faculty.

All the articles are republished on Westlaw and LexisNexis, and when I was in law school those two services gave students free access (presumably to get them hooked on researching through their service once they were in practice) during the school year.

Of course, you have to change your habits a bit once you're out in the world. Towards the end of 3L year the school gave us a little lesson on how not to use Westlaw when somebody has to pay for it, because you can rack up four- or five-figure bills in a matter of minutes if you're not careful.

If you rack up that high of a bill you are a moran and don't deserve your law license.

Step one, get Westlaw Next. Step two, set your preferences at Transactional and Bill By Document. Step three, pay $13 per case outside your plan or (step four) run a search, get the case name or citation you need and go to google scholar.
Or you could call customer service and get a two week temporary password.


Oh indeed. I'm sure that little lesson was supposed to be a "scared-straight" sort of thing, and even then 99% of such a bill is laziness, inattentiveness and having your searches set to hit every single database they have.

My firm doesn't have an active WL/LN account, because we can get virtually everything we need through the USPTO/EPO/JPO's websites, Google, or in very, very rare cases by calling one of our sister offices in DC or NYC and having them send an intern over to the relevant clerk of court's office with a checklist and a roll of quarters for the copy machine.
 
2013-01-26 12:48:46 PM  
The weird thing about this thread is, the "computer experts" in the XKCD comic are clearly the ones who don't understand power or politics. Yet the thread makes it look like the "computer experts" are somehow wise!
 
2013-01-26 12:55:03 PM  
"We are going to teach you a lesson because our dumbass of a friend committed suicide."
 
2013-01-26 01:01:38 PM  

RodneyToady: Egalitarian: I wanted to jump in here and say that JSTOR is not the bad guy here. It's a nonprofit that abides by the law and publisher agreements. It doesn't try to gouge libraries for subscriptions. I'm a librarian and we get articles at the equivalent of 25 cents a pop.

There are much worse journal publishers out there if you want to get outraged. Ones that work out to $10, $15, $20 an article and make sure their packages increase in price 9% a year or more.

When you say $0.25 or $10 per article, do you mean for permanent access, or is that per download/per person?  I ask because as a grad student, I go through articles like crazy, and I'm kinda hoping colleges and universities have a more affordable flat rate for their collective students/faculty.


JSTOR is one of the few vendors that actually sells permanent access to journals. Most of their packages run in the $10,000-$20,000 (for an institution) and each package will have 30-50 or so titles. The best part is, not only are you paying for perpetual access, you keep getting new content as well. The biggest drawback is that most titles have a moving wall, meaning you can access articles from the previous 3-5 years.

Most other vendors sell subscription access to their databases, so you pay an annual fee for access and, if you stop paying, you lose access.
 
Displayed 50 of 98 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report