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.

(Boston.com)   Not wanting its employees to be murdered, MIT opposes release of details of investigation of Aaron Swartz   (boston.com) divider line 17
    More: Obvious, Aaron Swartz, MIT, secret service, foia requests, United States Secret Service, file folders  
•       •       •

1983 clicks; posted to Geek » on 19 Jul 2013 at 11:34 AM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



17 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-19 11:43:56 AM
And I'm opposed to secret government funded investigations driven towards jailing people for decades based on non-existent IP violations. Turn over the damned data, MIT... it's gonna come out eventually no matter what, so you might as well take the hit now.
 
2013-07-19 11:46:06 AM
Let's just make this clear :


A) Aaron was downloading journals through the on-campus JStor account through a robot system in a closet in MIT.

B) He was then saving those documents off-line for undetermined use

C) When MIT Learned about this backdoor through their security, they called the feds.

D) The Feds decided to Max out the prosecution of this Crime (and it was a crime)

E) Swartz killed himself, because he knew he was guilty and was about to basically get life in prison.

Here's the Question :

Was he getting life in prison for the theft of the intellectual 'property' acquired through jStor?

Or

Was he getting life in prison because he penetrated the security of a top-tier National Technology research institution which probably wins millions in federal research grants annually, as well as possible military contracts?
There is a great big farking problem when Public (NSF, et. al.) dollars go to fund research that is not thereafter made publicly available. On the other hand, it does cost real money to provide the peer-review that is necessary to validate these published results.

/Discuss
 
2013-07-19 11:48:56 AM

rubi_con_man: Let's just make this clear :


A) Aaron was downloading journals through the on-campus JStor account through a robot system in a closet in MIT.

B) He was then saving those documents off-line for undetermined use

C) When MIT Learned about this backdoor through their security, they called the feds.

D) The Feds decided to Max out the prosecution of this Crime (and it was a crime)

E) Swartz killed himself, because he knew he was guilty and was about to basically get life in prison.

Here's the Question :

Was he getting life in prison for the theft of the intellectual 'property' acquired through jStor?

Or

Was he getting life in prison because he penetrated the security of a top-tier National Technology research institution which probably wins millions in federal research grants annually, as well as possible military contracts?
There is a great big farking problem when Public (NSF, et. al.) dollars go to fund research that is not thereafter made publicly available. On the other hand, it does cost real money to provide the peer-review that is necessary to validate these published results.

/Discuss


You forgot F

F) Holder tells Congress the DoJ did the right thing
 
2013-07-19 11:51:27 AM
People kill themselves for illegally accessing Lexis Nexus all the time.
 
2013-07-19 12:06:51 PM
Why bother reading this site anymore? It's basically Infowars now. ;p
 
2013-07-19 12:10:28 PM

rubi_con_man: D) The Feds decided to Max out the prosecution of this Crime (and it was a crime)


Surely you can be more specific.
 
2013-07-19 12:22:51 PM

rubi_con_man: Let's just make this clear :


A) Aaron was downloading journals through the on-campus JStor account through a robot system in a closet in MIT.

B) He was then saving those documents off-line for undetermined use

C) When MIT Learned about this backdoor through their security, they called the feds.

D) The Feds decided to Max out the prosecution of this Crime (and it was a crime)

E) Swartz killed himself, because he knew he was guilty and was about to basically get life in prison.

Here's the Question :

Was he getting life in prison for the theft of the intellectual 'property' acquired through jStor?

Or

Was he getting life in prison because he penetrated the security of a top-tier National Technology research institution which probably wins millions in federal research grants annually, as well as possible military contracts?
There is a great big farking problem when Public (NSF, et. al.) dollars go to fund research that is not thereafter made publicly available. On the other hand, it does cost real money to provide the peer-review that is necessary to validate these published results.

/Discuss


Sorry, maybe they *were* top-tier when I was a kid, but now... if you're a Top Tier National Technology Research Institution, you can't seriously let people install whatever backdoors they want. Either way, life in prison is insanely disproportionate... you can steal billions of dollars and throw the economy into a tailspin through fraud and not spend a day in jail... you can murder people (in the second degree) and get less time than the Federal government wanted for Schwartz for "illegal access" to free, publicly published academic articles (Including some that I've written)... the reality is that JSTOR wants to maintain a near monopoly on academia, and MIT got caught with its digital pants down, and this was about sending a young man to jail for the rest of his life for embarrassing politically-well-connected donors.
 
2013-07-19 12:26:17 PM
rubi_con_man:  When MIT Learned about this backdoor through their security, they called the feds.  [...] Was he getting life in prison because he penetrated the security of a top-tier National Technology research institution [...]

He didn't "penetrate the security" of anything.  There was no "backdoor".  He had legitimate institutional access to JSTOR through Harvard, and guest privileges on the MIT network.  All he did was make copies of what he had legitimate access to.  Yeah, he snuck into a closet to hook up his laptop, but he didn't even really need to do that.  I don't know why people are making this out to be "hacking".  It's more like going into a public library and making a ton of photocopies that violate fair use - a copyright issue, not a computer security matter.
 
2013-07-19 12:27:04 PM

rubi_con_man: Let's just make this clear :


A) Aaron was downloading journals through the on-campus JStor account through a robot system in a closet in MIT.

B) He was then saving those documents off-line for undetermined use

C) When MIT Learned about this backdoor through their security, they called the feds.

D) The Feds decided to Max out the prosecution of this Crime (and it was a crime)

E) Swartz killed himself, because he knew he was guilty and was about to basically get life in prison.

Here's the Question :

Was he getting life in prison for the theft of the intellectual 'property' acquired through jStor?

Or

Was he getting life in prison because he penetrated the security of a top-tier National Technology research institution which probably wins millions in federal research grants annually, as well as possible military contracts?
There is a great big farking problem when Public (NSF, et. al.) dollars go to fund research that is not thereafter made publicly available. On the other hand, it does cost real money to provide the peer-review that is necessary to validate these published results.

/Discuss


Wait, why is the Secret Service involved in some guy downloading journal articles?  Was he learning how to counterfeit US Dollars through some journal article?  And how the hell is this a crime that gets someone a long prison sentence?  It's journal articles, I don't care if they're public or not, these aren't state secrets
 
2013-07-19 12:57:06 PM

rubi_con_man: Let's just make this clear :

Was he getting life in prison because he penetrated the security of a top-tier National Technology research institution which probably wins millions in federal research grants annually, as well as possible military contracts?
/Discuss


He didn't "penetrate" security.  He was a MIT Fellow with access.  They limited that access, so he just went somewhere else closer to the switch and connected.  Instead of calling it a violation of the terms of service for the site (and copyright if he published them publicly) the Feds declared it a crime under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.  It's a case of prosecutor overreach and the CFAA needs to be scrapped and replaced with something a bit more sane.
 
2013-07-19 01:43:07 PM
Just ask the nsa for their copy.
 
2013-07-19 02:20:36 PM
Turns out the "I" in MIT stands for "Irony."
 
2013-07-19 03:29:35 PM

rubi_con_man: E) Swartz killed himself, because he knew he was guilty and was about to basically get life in prison.


He hadn't broken any laws.  He violated an end user license agreement at best.
 
2013-07-19 05:38:07 PM

syberpud: rubi_con_man: Let's just make this clear :

Was he getting life in prison because he penetrated the security of a top-tier National Technology research institution which probably wins millions in federal research grants annually, as well as possible military contracts?
/Discuss

He didn't "penetrate" security.  He was a MIT Fellow with access.  They limited that access, so he just went somewhere else closer to the switch and connected.  Instead of calling it a violation of the terms of service for the site (and copyright if he published them publicly) the Feds declared it a crime under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.  It's a case of prosecutor overreach and the CFAA needs to be scrapped and replaced with something a bit more sane.


This, sadly. Prosecutors saw the possibility of cementing precedent while manufacturing an object example. MIT helped.

I wonder what the conversation would be like had Swartz not committed suicide for what amounted to making photocopies of library books?
 
2013-07-19 05:52:12 PM

FormlessOne: I wonder what the conversation would be like had Swartz not committed suicide for what amounted to making photocopies of library books?


Not even that.  It was perfectly legal to redistribute the documents he had downloaded.
 
2013-07-19 06:49:00 PM

OgreMagi: FormlessOne: I wonder what the conversation would be like had Swartz not committed suicide for what amounted to making photocopies of library books?

Not even that.  It was perfectly legal to redistribute the documents he had downloaded.


Basically that... when authors put stuff on JSTOR, we have to make it... well, public... you can distribute and copy whatever writings of mine that you feel compelled to, you can also include full copies if you're citing them in some other work... the whole "idea" of JSTOR is accessibility, but to be honest, since the Swartz thing, I think I'd just as soon not put my stuff on jstor, I'll host it on my personal website (free, public, password free), and it can also be hosted in the appropriate journals if it gets published. JSTOR is supposed to be about free/fair access, the idea is just that it's a repository for people who do research... the idea that they would go after Swartz, in the name of protecting people who want nothing to do with prosecuting him, is absolutely reprehensible.
 
2013-07-20 10:42:41 AM

firefly212: rubi_con_man: Let's just make this clear :


A) Aaron was downloading journals through the on-campus JStor account through a robot system in a closet in MIT.

B) He was then saving those documents off-line for undetermined use

C) When MIT Learned about this backdoor through their security, they called the feds.

D) The Feds decided to Max out the prosecution of this Crime (and it was a crime)

E) Swartz killed himself, because he knew he was guilty and was about to basically get life in prison.

Here's the Question :

Was he getting life in prison for the theft of the intellectual 'property' acquired through jStor?

Or

Was he getting life in prison because he penetrated the security of a top-tier National Technology research institution which probably wins millions in federal research grants annually, as well as possible military contracts?
There is a great big farking problem when Public (NSF, et. al.) dollars go to fund research that is not thereafter made publicly available. On the other hand, it does cost real money to provide the peer-review that is necessary to validate these published results.

/Discuss

Sorry, maybe they *were* top-tier when I was a kid, but now... if you're a Top Tier National Technology Research Institution, you can't seriously let people install whatever backdoors they want. Either way, life in prison is insanely disproportionate... you can steal billions of dollars and throw the economy into a tailspin through fraud and not spend a day in jail... you can murder people (in the second degree) and get less time than the Federal government wanted for Schwartz for "illegal access" to free, publicly published academic articles (Including some that I've written)... the reality is that JSTOR wants to maintain a near monopoly on academia, and MIT got caught with its digital pants down, and this was about sending a young man to jail for the rest of his life for embarrassing politically-well-connected donors.


*snicker* near monopoly *guffaw*

Elsevier laughs at you while JSTOR charges a pittance for archival data.
 
Displayed 17 of 17 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report