Slashdot Mirror


FBI Investigates Liberator of Court Records

eldavojohn writes "Federal court documents aren't free to the public, they cost $0.08/page through a system called PACER. During a period when the US Government Printing Office was trying out free access at a number of courthouses around the US, a 22-year-old programmer named Aaron Swartz installed a small PERL script at the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals library in Chicago — a script that uploaded a public document every three seconds to Amazon's EC2 cloud computing service. Swartz then donated over 19 million documents to public.resource.org. That's when the FBI took interest in the programmer responsible for this effort and ran his name through government databases. How did he discover this? His FOIA was approved, of course, and he received the FBI's partially redacted report on himself. The public.resource.org database was later merged with that of the RECAP Firefox extension, which we discussed a couple of months back." Update: 10/06 18:22 GMT by KD: Timothy Lee pointed out that the summary as originally posted garbled the Swartz / RECAP connection. Improved now.

445 comments

  1. Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The GOVERNMENT wants to be able to ingest money on this. Huge, creamy, swaths of glorious money.

    1. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I love the american government, where even public information is available at anytime -- for a modest fee. Flamebait aside, but where the hell does your tax dollars go? You have almost no public health care, barely any public schooling, your elderly are crammed inside tuna cans, yet you're one of the wealthiest nations in the world. And if you say "Obama" I will smack you over the face with the European continent.

    2. Re:Money by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Proof that lean living nets profits.

      Our tax dollars primarily fund a welfare system known as civil service. We don't know what they do, but it requires a lot of them and a whole lot of time to do it.

    3. Re:Money by Trails · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Big pew-pew and boom-boom, make ruskies go bye-bye, cost lots of bling-bling.

    4. Re:Money by gnick · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...even public information is available at anytime -- for a modest fee.

      Just as an aside on that point, this guy found out about this investigation because he issued a FOIA on himself. If you have any inkling that you might have been looked at, file one. It takes a while, but it's easy. In my case, I've filed two. In one case (FBI), they told me that they didn't (yet) have anything that involved me. In the second case, they sent me a document that totaled 88 pages and was terribly interesting to read and included interviews with people I went to high-school with, known aliases (common nick-names), and information dating back to when I was 9.

      Unlike the story at hand, all of this was done at no cost to me (surprisingly - the administrative work and postage must have cost something). They did ask on the FOIA form how much I'd be willing to pay to get my information, but I was never charged a penny.

      Aside from the aside: I do not currently commit nor do I plan on committing criminal acts in the near future. I also have no criminal record.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    5. Re:Money by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      Just as an aside on that point, this guy found out about this investigation because he issued a FOIA on himself. If you have any inkling that you might have been looked at, file one. It takes a while, but it's easy.

      Actually that's probably incorrect. If you look at the file you see at the bottom the FBI contacts him and he let's them know to speak to his lawyer. Which is a pretty big tip off they're investigating you.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    6. Re:Money by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      "all of this was done at no cost to me"

      You don't pay taxes? Now we know why "they" were looking at you. :) /pedant...

    7. Re:Money by LanMan04 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So they had 88 pages on you for no reason? What the heck could warrant that?

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    8. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lol. You have no choice in who your military kicks the shit out of. You just get to see the aftermath on Fox. One day their gonna kick your Lilly ass you dumbass.

    9. Re:Money by gnick · · Score: 2, Informative

      OK... No additional direct cost to me. Thanks for chipping in for postage =)

      Sadly, in your (accurate) context, I helped pay for them to investigate me...

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    10. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After he filed his original FOIA request the FBI wanted to know why he wanted to know what they had on him. Duh!

    11. Re:Money by Code+Master · · Score: 1

      Making the first request?

      --
      The Code Master
    12. Re:Money by buswolley · · Score: 1
      Mr. A Coward come on out.

      their!= they're

      Tired of trolls dissing my country.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    13. Re:Money by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I love the american government, where even public information is available at anytime -- for a modest fee.

      This sort of thing isn't just limited to the US. I don't know if they still do it, but some years ago, the Dutch state publisher claimed copyright on public government documents, including laws.

    14. Re:Money by gnick · · Score: 3, Informative

      So they had 88 pages on you for no reason?

      Not for no reason - I was told by the investigating agency that they were looking at me and I was interviewed twice, thus my interest in acquiring whatever they found. I knew pretty definitively that "they" had something on me. The point is, once they decide to look at you, they really try hard to look at you. So, if you know or suspect that you've got a file, read it - It's interesting.

      Part of the fun for me was looking at the various 'Red Flags' that turned up (They turned up the facts that I used to home-brew explosives, make improvised explosives (some multiple pounds)*, and get high all the time** - Those, for some reason, were lesser red-flags than the fact that I've had a common nick-name since Junior High and therefore use an 'alias'). Another fun area was looking at their interview list. For the interview list, my reaction was mostly, "How in the heck did you find him?" or "Man, if you wanted dirt on me you really talked to the wrong people..."

      * Stopped within a year after high-school
      ** Stopped after college

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    15. Re:Money by tazanator · · Score: 1

      actually once you request your own file they will start an investigation into you to see why you think you should have a file...

      --
      I'm told you are what you eat, does that mean I can be you by tomorrow with some A1?
    16. Re:Money by clintp · · Score: 5, Informative

      Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy also applies:

      "In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely."

      --
      Get off my lawn.
    17. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Common tell me it ain't true.

    18. Re:Money by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Hi. I see you're unfamiliar with recent developments in the government since 9/11, where everyone could be a terrorist, and law enforcement is no longer accountable to the judicial system. Can I help you with researching the PATRIOT Act, Fathe^WHomeland Security, or "terrists"?

    19. Re:Money by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      The military is one of the biggest budget wasters ever, although from talking to friends that work government it runs pretty close. I had relatives in the military that were all the time bringing home really nice like new stuff, one even got real theater seats for his home theater. Why? Because "OMG the budget has got to be blowed or they won't give us more moneies!" that's why. So really nice new stuff got tossed all the damned time so they could blow their budget.

      I'm sure those working in government can tell us all about more stupidities like this, where money just gets pissed down the drain, but talking to my relatives the Army and Air Force are really bad when it comes to blowing budgets. Just think about how much lower the deficit would be if we didn't have stupidity like this. The right wingers love to talk about welfare queens, but I bet all the welfare queens put together on their best day don't blow as much cash as the "OMG we got to blow our budget!" crowd.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    20. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few outspoken posts on Slashdot could be a reasonable explanation.

    21. Re:Money by ender- · · Score: 1

      actually once you request your own file they will start an investigation into you to see why you think you should have a file...

      I briefly considered filing an FOIA request on myself, but then was worried that if they didn't have any info on me, they'd then be prompted to start looking. I haven't committed any crimes and don't think I've done anything that might trigger their interest but I figured I won't bother for now...

    22. Re:Money by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      The FBI phones Swartz, Swartz tells them to contact his (Swartz') lawyer. That's how it's in the report.

      "SA [REACTED] spoke to SWARTZ, at telephone number [...], and explained that the FBI is looking for information on how SWARTZ was able to compromise the PACER system so that the US COURTS could implement repairs to the system and get PACER running again. SWARTZ stated that he would have to talk to his attorney first and would call SA [REDACTED] back at a later time."

      Just more of the atrocious English from people who are quite likely native English speakers that I've come to expect, combined with the failure to recognize this as a problem that you should be doing something about that I have also come to expect. Try reading a book or two. Really, just give it a try, it won't hurt, and it's so obvious that you don't.

      I'm not a native English speaker, DO read books but am just as unintelligible in my mother tongue. Sorry about that :-)

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    23. Re:Money by Artifakt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Aliases seem to be widely misunderstood by all to many people, and I would not be surprised if even the pros (such as the FBI), have people who aren't clear on the concept. This may have been a case where the agent assigned just thinks there's something vaguely tainted about all aliases.

      My Ex had a tendency to sign things using either the middle initial of her maiden name or the one that was originally for her last name interchangably. (Still does, as she never reverted to using her maiden name after the divorce). She also has a fairly sloppy signature, so when a bank first noticed the multiple initials they went back and found what looked like a possible second variant. She also has a first name that is common in spelling, but is pronounced in an uncommon way, and once somebody else at the bank made a note about this in some file. So, eventually, the bank made her sign a form stipulating she had a number of legal aliases and she had to provide no less than 12 variations on her signature to cover all the bases. She wasn't actually using anything like 12 aliases - the bank wanted her to give them a signature for each case where somebody thought a letter was sloppy enough to be misread - "Now write it like you would if that "B" looked more like a "P".

      I had a fairly high security clearance for a time, and the FBI checked on why my wife used so many aliases. While the bank record only showed one, actual alias of record, getting all those signatures on the card meant, to the investigator, that every one implied a different alias, so discussing just this one area took about 15 minutes. It was all cordial enough, but somewhere in my file or hers there's probably multiple pages of blather about how she spells and pronounces her first name the way her grandmother did, and so on.

      There's a quote from Cardinal Richlieu: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him". That's what's vaguely spooky about all this - I can just see her getting into legal trouble and the FBI painting her as a brilliant, if twisted mastermind who had set up a huge batch of aliases many years in advance of her cunning scheme. If they knew about her secret lair under the volcano, it would probably be even worse...

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    24. Re:Money by tygt · · Score: 1
      Probably the fact that he filed a FOIA request on himself :))

      Remember, it's not paranoia if they're really out to get you.

    25. Re:Money by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      K, now that leaves over 2/3 of the government's annual budget to account for, without which third we're still the wealthiest govt. in the world.

    26. Re:Money by buswolley · · Score: 1
      Sure. Good points. I bet the same shit happens in corporate. But I bet it happens at managerial levels and at the very top. The few collect the waste. Government CAN do things efficiently. They tend to be very good at creating efficient bureaucracies. Note that the real definition of bureaucracy is not negative. Bureaucracies can be efficient. They can be good. However, as you point out..the use it or lose it apportioning method is silly without checks for wasteful spending, and also the understanding that budgetary needs are in flux, and thus a buffer IS necessary.

      If you want to see wasteful though, you should see what happens when government contracts out to the private industry.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    27. Re:Money by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      The over 280 million guns in private hands along with a volunteer military says if it happens it will fail pretty damned quickly.

    28. Re:Money by Khyber · · Score: 1

      280 million guns, only about 60 million people legally allowed to use them.

      Thank our justice system for that - giving aid to the enemy by disarming the populace one method at a time.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    29. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have a military that will kick your lilly-ass any day we choose. My public education was fine. Tuna cans?

      Pathetic

    30. Re:Money by Jawn98685 · · Score: 1

      So they had 88 pages on you for no reason? What the heck could warrant that?

      Having a common name that just happens to also belong to at least one "person of interest" springs immediately to mind.
      Or maybe being a Quaker - you know, those radical peace activists who are known to sympathize with terrorists.

    31. Re:Money by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      I was thinking exactly the same thing. It's kind of sad that we can't find out whether we've been investigated without risking causing an investigation just for finding out...

    32. Re:Money by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      280 million guns, only about 60 million people legally allowed to use them.

      Citation needed. If you are going to make a statement such as that I think you should back it up with hard numbers. I find it hard to believe that 240 million Americans (300 million - the 60 million you claim are legally allowed to use firearms) are convicted felons/domestic abusers/mental cases/dishonorably discharged from the military.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    33. Re:Money by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      I have seen the enemy and it is us.

      Even basic human decency is for sale. Why would any nation bother fighting when bribing/lobbying is so much cheaper, and the system is so very corrupt?

      --
      It's been a long time.
    34. Re:Money by Khyber · · Score: 1

      60 million are children, there's 1/5 of the populace
      https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#People

      Last count of felons actually IN prison was about 8 million, the number that are not in prison brings that number potentially up to 15 million, as many never did time, instead receiving probation.

      Hundreds of thousands of clinincally insane people.

      I wonder how many people are disabled to the point of not being able to bear a weapon? That's probably another easy million. The list goes on and on and on. All it takes is some critical thinking.

      Elderly people that can't bear a gun because they're too weak physically? 30 million or so, likely.

      I'll bet autistic people probably wouldn't be able to bear a gun.

      Nor the people currently laid up in a hospital.

      You think 280 million guns is going to be useful when there aren't that many hands to hold them and use them?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    35. Re:Money by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      60 million are children, there's 1/5 of the populace

      Because I've never seen anyone under the age of 18 using a firearm. Just doesn't happen. My state gives out hunting licenses at 12 but makes the kiddies use rocks and spears until they turn 18.....

      Elderly people that can't bear a gun because they're too weak physically? 30 million or so, likely.

      At least have the decency to admit that you are just pulling numbers out of your ass.

      You think 280 million guns is going to be useful when there aren't that many hands to hold them and use them?

      Yes, actually I do. Having a large number of firearms in the country makes it that much harder for any Government opposed to liberty to seize enough of them to disarm the population. This premise remains valid even if I bought your bullshit argument that only 20% of the American population (60 million / 300 million) is physically and/or legally capable of wielding a firearm.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    36. Re:Money by TheCarp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course, which is worst, the fed or the state? It seems to me like they each compete to see who can reach deepest into people's pockets. Take the payment I had to make today.... but lets step back a minute. I have a "fastlane pass" (speed pass in most states). They keep a credit card on file, and use that to refill my account, as I zip through tolls, which I do rather infrequently.

      I hadn't used it ina few months, and took a recent trip out to western MA to visit some friends. As I go, the yellow light comes up... which it always does when the account gets low, right before automated recharge. No big deal right?

      Then I get two pictures of the back of my car in the mail. They list my license plate, in text, they obviously had to look up my registration info to send this to me. With this, two $50 fines, one for each way.

      So I call up, I pay the balance on the account, I find out my credit card had expired, and rather than tell me, they just waited for me to use the system again, and fined me. A fine which I could appeal by sending in my account statement (which they stopped sending me two years ago), and turn it into a smaller administrative fine.

      WHat struck me is... they can look in the external registry database to get my address, but can't be bothered to check their own database and see that I am a registered user of the system! Seriously, I am expected to believe that this whole process of violations, sending in statements, and making appeals is supposed to make sense, when all it seems to really do is.... give them an excuse to charge people outrageous fees.

      As much of a detractor of big business as I can be, I have never come across a company that acts with such wanton incompetence, and expects their customers to pay for their own laziness and screw ups. This should have been dealt with on my first phone call, not 3 calls (on hold for an hour each) and a written appeal later (to which they don't even send a response, they require that you call them to get the response to the appeal).

      It seems to me that this sort of blatant money grabbing is endemic in the system.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    37. Re:Money by gnick · · Score: 1

      I may have to re-submit my FBI request. The first one I filed (when they told me I'd never been investigated) was about 6 years ago. It would be interesting to see if there's a file there now.

      My guess is that they've got a very short file that lists nothing except the date of my FOIA request.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    38. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think 280 million guns is going to be useful when there aren't that many hands to hold them and use them?

      It sure beats rocks and sticks, which is the only thing available to people in other countries.

    39. Re:Money by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Sure, you have a massive army, question is, do you really need it to be that massive? Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if there are countries with less inhabitants than your army has soldiers, not to mention bullets. There are a lot of things about your nation that i find puzzling though, you have rampant spending on the military, yet I've heard some horror stories (here on slashdot even!) about your healthcare, public education and wellfare that could be solved with diverting a part of that budget towards these things. Oh well, blame it on cultural differences

    40. Re:Money by Toonol · · Score: 1

      280 million guns, only about 60 million people legally allowed to use them.

      I didn't realize that 80% of our population were felons. "Legally allowed to use guns" is the default state of an American citizen.

    41. Re:Money by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Who's disarming who? I've been thinking about this, and I don't know a single fellow lefty who is in favor of banning guns, outside of some whackjobs in the bay area who haven't figured out how to wash their hair yet (contrast this with the lunatic fringe of the gun crowd, who thinks everyone has a right to a nuclear weapon since it is technically an "arm"). Almost everyone I know owns a gun, and no one I know has been barred from owning one. Hell, my clinically diagnosed, mentally ill, mother owns a gun.

      If I wanted to, I could walk into the nearest gun shop and pick one us, as could around 90% of the population, and no one would stop me.

      I have no problem with felons not being able to own guns, since they already proved that they are incapable of operating within the rules of society. As for the mentally ill, this is a hard label to actually define, and I don't know anyone who has actually been barred from getting one. Who else is barred from owning guns? Children under the age of... what 16? I don't care, since its up to their parents. My dad took me shooting when I was 8, sure I didn't own it, but at that age what DID I own? Who else... unnaturalized residents, and illegal aliens?

      Please cite who these privileged 60 million are.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    42. Re:Money by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are bad people in the world. Really. They'll come and take your stuff, even if you ask them very nicely not to. Any standard of living you have above being a slave exists only because some military protects your society from these bad people. For many decades, America's military protected a lot of other countries from these bad people. Post-cold war we've scaled back military speding significantly, but there's a minimum amount you need to remain a superpower.

      Meanwhile, our social programs are more than half our spending, and some huge majority of future spending promises, thanks to the demographic time bomb in Medicare and to some extent Social Security.

      US Budget in billions (Wikipedia numbers):

      • Social Programs: 1644
      • Militaty: 660
      • NASA: 18
      • Everything else: 778

      It's not like we're ignoring social programs here!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    43. Re:Money by MadnessASAP · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For the past decade your government has been opposed to liberty, the problem is that your entire country had your head SO far up you asses with thoughts like "We're the best country in the world." or "We have so many guns and the knowledge to use them that the government wouldn't dare take away our liberties." That you have completely missed that huge portions of your population live in 3rd world conditions and that your own government has taken your liberties from under your very nose.

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
    44. Re:Money by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh the system is perfectly tuned to screw you, no doubt. If you think that's unique to government, you weren't banking in the bad old days, when banks would hold both deposits and checks for days, programatically looking for some order of processing checks and deposits that would cause a check to bounce. But we expect banks and used car salesmen and other such slimeballs to screw us. We should expect politicians and bureaucrats to screw us just as hard but youthful idealism alway seems to turn a blind eye to this for some reason. "The government is evil and corrupt, but we'll fix it with more government" is the eternal rallying cry of the student. Go figure.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    45. Re:Money by Shakrai · · Score: 0, Troll

      Oh, go fuck yourself and your knee-jerk off-topic anti-Americanism.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    46. Re:Money by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a quote from Cardinal Richlieu: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him". That's what's vaguely spooky about all this - I can just see her getting into legal trouble and the FBI painting her as a brilliant, if twisted mastermind who had set up a huge batch of aliases many years in advance of her cunning scheme. If they knew about her secret lair under the volcano, it would probably be even worse...

      In that vein, there are two youtube videos about talking to the cops. Basically, if someone wants you bad enough, they can find something.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    47. Re:Money by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      You know, even as I wrote that, banks did come to mind.

      I love how electronic check processing has been the standard for nearly a decade now, checks from any bank in the US clear to any bank in the US instantly. However, they still put a 3 day hold on checks, and a 10 day hold on "out of state" checks! Or how some banks, just a few years back, used to process the days queued deposits first, then debits.... suddenly switched to debits before deposits.... all because the bounce fees made for essentially free profits.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    48. Re:Money by AlamedaStone · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh well, blame it on cultural differences

      President Eisenhower explained the dangers of an entire industry built on creating the machines of war nearly 50 years ago. His warnings went unheeded, and the result is our out-of-control military spending. See his comments in his own words here:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

      or google "military industrial complex" for more information. Many US citizens are opposed to our militarism, but we seem unable to alter the course of so much short-sighted self-interest, money, and influence.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    49. Re:Money by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      While I agree that the system is clearly in place in order to abuse its users, I can't help but think you brought it on yourself, to a degree. (edit: I don't mean to offend, just making an observation!)

      The rise of the fastlane/easypass phenomenon struck me as a huge scam as soon as I heard about it. I would never subscribe to a service like this, just as I would never buy movie tickets from Fandango. (oblig,:"Fandango. Why Not Pay An Extra Dollar For Movie Tickets?")

      I'm not saying what they do is right, but admitting you're willing to pay for convenience is like writing "sucker" on your forehead. Your chances of being taken advantage of skyrockets.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    50. Re:Money by rel4x · · Score: 1

      We're living la vida bureaucracy. Oh yeah, it also costs a lot to tap all our phones.

      --

      Before you mod me funny, think, perhaps I was insightfully funny?
    51. Re:Money by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      Oh the horror! You have the biggest army in the world, and yet - gasp - without guns for citizens you might be invaded! Oh noes!

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    52. Re:Money by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Lol. You have no choice in who your military kicks the shit out of."

      There is plenty of POTENTIAL choice, but it involves icky political activism and a lot of work.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    53. Re:Money by NonSequor · · Score: 1

      The "we can't show a budget surplus or they'll cut our budget for next year" problem turns up everywhere to some extent.

      I'd imagine that you could reduce that problem if you allowed some portion of the surplus to be converted to pay for the employees. In order to make these problems go away, you have to create some sort of system where everyone has a vested interest in the well-being of the organization as a whole.

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
    54. Re:Money by micheas · · Score: 1

      Much of that is under the department of defense so that they can black it out in the name of national security.

      Not that the military is bad, just that the shysters have discovered more cover for their scams there.

      Multi billion dollar engines. (an clean energy scam, but being run on fighter jets because no one will let them build billion dollar engines for buses.)

      It should be noted that the Federal Reserve has plowed a not insignificant amount into Goldman Sachs and other friends of the Fed.

    55. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our tax dollars primarily fund a welfare system.

      FTFY

    56. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huge portions of our population DO NOT live in "3rd world conditions". Good grief, back down the hyperbole.

    57. Re:Money by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy also applies:

      "In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely."

      I see this all the time where I work, at one of the nation's largest and arguably most dysfunctional school districts. The infuriating trend I've seen is not so much the elimination of those people whose jobs are to provide actual service to the "customer", but rather the weighting down of those people with mandatory and ever-expanding internal procedure. My employer has spent millions on computer systems intended to streamline the bureaucratic processes, but in reality all they've done is saddle us with an enormous amount of largely pointless data entry. We could just skip most of the most pointless parts of the data entry and, y'know, just do our actual jobs (we tried that initially) but that would MESS UP THE GRAPHS that the mid-level bigwigs in cheap suits use to assess our performance.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    58. Re:Money by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      I'd imagine that you could reduce that problem if you allowed some portion of the surplus to be converted to pay for the employees.

      Wouldn't work. Then you'd end up with exactly what you get in private industry: corporate suits who "cut costs" by variously eliminating the quality from their core business, either in the form of "cheapifying" or one of the many variations of "shirking", and then pocket the multi-million dollar bonuses for "saving" money by making the company essentially not do its job anymore. About the only good part of the boatloads of money the government spends (at least on tangible goods) is that much of the cost is due to outlandish quality requirements.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    59. Re:Money by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      Less than 22% of the federal budget is defense spending ($660 billion out of just under $3.1 trillion)

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    60. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the past decade your government has been opposed to liberty, the problem is that your entire country had your head SO far up you asses with thoughts like "We're the best country in the world." or "We have so many guns and the knowledge to use them that the government wouldn't dare take away our liberties." That you have completely missed that huge portions of your population live in 3rd world conditions and that your own government has taken your liberties from under your very nose.

      If you think it's only been happening in the past decade, you're a fool.

    61. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny.
      You really think that because you have guns the government is scared shitless? Are you on crack?
      You have one of the most pro-corporate governments in the developed world, and let all the corporations screw you royally (on behalf of the government, since you seem to think that government provided services somehow reflect a reduction in liberty).

      I think in general the American populace needs to wake up from the 17th century attitude of the "founding fathers" and realise that they're long dead and that any ideals that they might have had in mind when drafting your oft quoted declaration of independence have long since been trampled over.

      You've been spoon fed paranoia and imagined threats for so many years (from the japs in WW2, hippies, communists, terrorists, environmentalists, socialists) that they just keep on taking away your freedoms and you don;t even bat an eyelid. The "Ptriot Act" in all its liberty smashing glory was passed without a batting of a collective eyelid, yet there's a huge uproar when you try and fix public healthcare.

      You know what? It's your call, keep on believing in the delusion that having a gun will somehow make you free and that your government/corporations won't continue in shafting you royally.

      Americans complain that the deficit is huge and that government intervention is bad. Well, it seems from the events of the past couple of years, that government intervention in the preservation of corporations and executive bonuses in the face of gross incompetence is ok, but government intervention for "Joe the plumber" to provide him with healthcare is a stripping of his civil liberties.

      Me, I'm just glad I don't live in the good ol' US of A, because right now... it looks like a real shithole.

    62. Re:Money by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      The other two thirds are mostly Social Security, Medicare, and paying interest on the national debt.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    63. Re:Money by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      22% is a lot!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    64. Re:Money by BlackBloq · · Score: 0

      How much is one fighter jet...? How big is the fleet...? How much money is burned in pointless wars shooting peasant dirt farmers with Billions and STILL FAILING. Mission accomplished America is broke.

    65. Re:Money by NonSequor · · Score: 1

      Well there are ways to deal with that as well. Tomorrow, my office is being, "peer reviewed". Or rather, it's being audited by people from another office. And if the audit finds bad things, people in my office get a smaller portion of the profit sharing funds.

      Needless to say, we've made sure we have our shit together.

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
    66. Re:Money by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Because when The Man came around with the intention of rounding up Japanese-American citizens in WW2, gun owners everywhere stopped it happening. Just like today they are preventing over-reaching border search, the rampant illegal search and seizure in the "war on drugs" and a host of other civil rights violations which might otherwise go on every day.

      Be glad you have a right to bear arms. If you didn't, you might end up with a government that doesn't respect civil rights.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    67. Re:Money by hesiod · · Score: 1

      Hey, don't forget "bailing out incompetently-run companies".

    68. Re:Money by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      I agree, up to a point. Yes, I knew they would be abusive. However, if everyone who knows they will be abusive just ignores them, then that gives them free reign to abuse. I would rather suffer a little abuse and sound the alarm and at least make an effort to let people know and bring about reform.

      FAST LANE is a great idea... something like it should exist. The problem is the disconnect between the customers and the people who run it and are free to fee with impunity. People need to stand up to this abuse, not shrink away and allow others to be abused too.

      Its like finding out someone molsted your child... do you report it to the police and try to have action taken? Or do you quietly remove your child from where the abuser can reach, and let him abuse other children?

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    69. Re:Money by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You really think that because you have guns the government is scared shitless? Are you on crack?

      Where did I say that the government was "scared shitless"?

      on behalf of the government, since you seem to think that government provided services somehow reflect a reduction in liberty

      The do reflect a reduction in liberty when they come with a "you MUST use this government service or ELSE" mandate.

      You've been spoon fed paranoia and imagined threats for so many years (from the japs in WW2, hippies, communists, terrorists, environmentalists, socialists)

      The Japanese were an "imagined threat"? Really? I guess we imagined them blowing up our ships and killing our servicemen?

      You know what? It's your call, keep on believing in the delusion that having a gun will somehow make you free and that your government/corporations won't continue in shafting you royally.

      I don't believe and never said that having an armed society "makes" us free. It "keeps" us free. Bit of a difference there.

      that government intervention in the preservation of corporations and executive bonuses in the face of gross incompetence is ok

      Executive bonuses in the face of gross incompetence is an issue for the shareholders, not for Uncle Sam.

      but government intervention for "Joe the plumber" to provide him with healthcare is a stripping of his civil liberties.

      Government offered healthcare does strip you of your civil liberties when it comes with a mandate that you must buy coverage or else you'll forfeit the fruits of your labor to the Government.

      Me, I'm just glad I don't live in the good ol' US of A, because right now... it looks like a real shithole.

      Go fuck yourself :)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    70. Re:Money by alexo · · Score: 1

      Ouch.

    71. Re:Money by Trails · · Score: 1

      I'll manage. In left 4 dead, I pwn with the dual pistols. Real life can't be too far removed from that...

  2. What's wrong with this picture? by PunditGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Man makes public documents available, for free, to the public. Obviously, this sort of thing cannot be allowed to continue.

    1. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      'Cept they (gummint) closed the case, meaning they couldn't make anything stick.

      The good thing here is that the gummint realized that this guy did nothing wrong, and their 27, 8x10, color glossy photographs with the circles and arrows, and a paragraph on the back of each one, weren't going to be of any use.

    2. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Did you miss the part about installing (presumably non-permitted) software on a court computer?

    3. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by cmiller173 · · Score: 1

      A case of American Blind Justice.

    4. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea but that's not what the article came to tell you about, the 2nd half actually talks about the draft.

    5. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I didn't. That could certainly be construed as a criminal activity, but was totally outside the scope of the FBI investigation.

      How ironic that the only thing he did that could potentially be illegal (according to my understanding of events and the law) was totally igored by the FBI.

    6. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Did you miss the part about installing (presumably non-permitted) software on a court computer?

      Did you miss the part where the software was installed on a library computer?

    7. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Please tell me I'm not the only one who read your comment and had an 18.5 minute long Arlo Guthrie song pop into my head.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    8. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Chyeld · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      +1 for appropriate use of Alice's Restaurant.

    9. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Suzuran · · Score: 1

      They'll fine him $20 and make him delete all the documents while out in the snow, but that's not what we came to read about...

    10. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      I did. Since that didn't happen. Read the article again.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    11. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      Please tell me I'm not the only one who read your comment and had an 18.5 minute long Arlo Guthrie song pop into my head.....

      Are your kidding? Of course not!

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    12. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It did happen. I suggest you be the one to re-read the article, friend.

      "He visited ... the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals library in Chicago ... and installed a small PERL script he'd written."

      FYI, the computers in the court's library belong to the court that, you know, owns the library.

    13. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From the file :

      "PACER normally carries an eight cents per page fee, however, by accessing from one of the seventeen libraries, users may search and download data for free.

      Between September 4, 2008 and September 22, 2008, PACER was accessed by computers from outside the library utilizing login information from two libraries participating in the pilot project. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts reported that the PACER system was being inundated with requests. One request was being made every three seconds.

      [â¦] The two accounts were responsible for downloading more than eighteen million pages with an approximate value of $1.5 million."

      So he used a login (which wasn't registered in his name according to the report) to access files from a location not supposed to be used by those logins to download so many documents it began to look like a DOS attack. I'd say the FBI are correct to at least investigate.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    14. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by corbettw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Then explain this part: A 22-year-old programmer named Aaron Swartz decided to capture 19,856,160 records by simply installing a small PERL script at the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals library in Chicago.

      Sounds like he installed an unauthorized program on the court's computer system to me.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    15. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by monkeySauce · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Well, such communistic activities are clearly un-american...

    16. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that his actions were not mandated from the top of the power pyramid down. They came from the bottom up, and in the business of government, that is a big no-no.

    17. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      As mentioned, that wasn't the issue -- it was the sharing of the data itself that was, presumably regardless of how he got it.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    18. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Hythlodaeus · · Score: 1

      "Man installs data sniffer on government computer" is probably closer to the story that concerned the FBI.

      --
      For great justice.
    19. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like Bush think to me. Obviously if someone wants to know something they must be a menace to society.

    20. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by BlueKitties · · Score: 1

      More like he made a text file and clicked "Open with Perl." Saying he "installed an unauthorized program" sounds too romantic. You have some mouse-pumping action to signal subroutines tied to a widget socket, he typed well formed syntax into a text file. The only thing he is guilty of is uploading public files.

      --
      "Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
    21. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't use a login, the library computer had a cookie from PACER saying that it was authorized and didn't require a login. Bad security on their part.

    22. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why it said PERL program right? Oh wait, no, it said script because a script is not a program.

    23. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by PitaBred · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The main problem I have with that is the "approximate value of $1.5 million".

      That is not their value. That is their price. Very different concepts. In a free society, they have much value, but shouldn't have a price. It's information every citizen should have access to.

    24. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 5, Informative

      He created an executable file containing computer instructions written in a programmming language. How is that not a program? He received no authorization to install it, and therefore it was "unauthorized". The description "installed an unauthorized program" sounds right on to me.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    25. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      NO. RTFA.
      He installed a Perl script on a LIBRARY computer.

    26. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by profplump · · Score: 1

      If one hit every 3 seconds looks like a DOS attack you need to stop using Altair hardware for your web servers.

    27. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      ..with with full orchestration and five part harmony!!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    28. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Slashdot+Suxxors · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly certain that the FBI has bigger things to worry about than someone uploading public docs with an unauthorized tool.

    29. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, he's lucky he got away with it. Not that I'm objecting it is a public service and a very useful thing to do along with the whole cloud document aggregation with the plugin, however this script is crossing a line I think.

    30. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Iron+Condor · · Score: 1

      Between September 4, 2008 and September 22, 2008, PACER was accessed by computers from outside the library

      So the total period of the unauthorized access is 18 days.

      The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts reported that the PACER system was being inundated with requests. One request was being made every three seconds.

      OK, so one request every 3 seconds counts as "inundated" - just as a quick rough-n-ready yardstick concerning the overall performance metrics of the system. Obviously this was not some vast DB running on a huge server farm - this was (is? I don't know anything about this) running on some old P3-500 at the sad end of a DSL line.

      There are less than 90,000 seconds in a day; thus with one request every 3 seconds you cannot get more than 30,000 documents per day. In 18 days this comes to ~500k requests ballpark.

      The two accounts were responsible for downloading more than eighteen million pages with an approximate value of $1.5 million."

      This means that each request must have averaged some 35--40 page each. A million pages served per day. In plain ASCII I'd guess 2500 bytes for a page of text, which would get us to several GB/day served from a system clearly not set up for this kind of thing. But I suspect this is more like a PDF of scanned documents - which can easily run into the MB/page. Suddenly we're flirting with hundreds of GB (maybe even TB) of data per day.

      it began to look like a DOS attack

      At this point I would revert the logic: this IS a DOS attack, unless proven otherwise. If I were anywhere in charge I'd investigate this. And if my investigation shows it's just a careless use of the resource I'd see whether I can politely convince the user to tone it down a little. And then I'd let it drop.

      Which appears to be exactly what happened.

      --
      We're all born with nothing.
      If you die in debt, you're ahead.
    31. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      He received no authorization to install it, and therefore it was "unauthorized". The description "installed an unauthorized program" sounds right on to me.

      Unless there was a policy forbidding the installation and use of any and all software by users at that site, then it sounds like it was authorized to me.

      Having been around such sites before, I think that it is more than likely that there was no such policy, or if there was, it wasn't enforced with any sort of regularity or uniformity thus rendering it moot.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    32. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      Wow!

      Bonus points for 60's protest song reference. If he read Slashdot (and who knows, maybe he does) Arlo Guthrie would probably dig it...I used up my mod points yesterday darnit!

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    33. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      If one hit every 3 seconds looks like a DOS attack you need to stop using Altair hardware for your web servers.

      It depends on the file type they're serving up. 3 seconds is probably OK for HTML, it becomes at lot less OK if you're sending large PDF's or hulking DOC's

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    34. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by chrylis · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you "installed an unauthorized program" when you loaded Slashdot from a public computer. After all, you were downloading and running all sorts of programs in a scary language called ECMAScript...

    35. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah Darn it - making public documents on laws - why thats socialism if not down right communism and ANTI american,

    36. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhh.... why was a PERL interpreter available?

      Or... was there a disclaimer at login saying that installing an executable script was not allowed?

      Also, they describe the "value" of the downloaded pages at $1.5 million. This would depend on whether there is a cost being charged. If the cost is zero then the value is zero. Pretty self serving.

      A better way to determine the cost of this act would be to determine what the loss was to the users of PACER. However, you would then have to also examine the benefit provided. Seems pretty much a wash.

      At worst, this is a bit of mischief. The interesting thing to me is the persistent characterization of the work as a "compromise" of the PACER system. Looks to me like they opened the door, invited strangers in, and then walked away. What he did was rude, and mischievous but I would not want my police force wasting valuable time on the act.

    37. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Jawn98685 · · Score: 1

      You're not.
      Now get off my lawn. :)

    38. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't "install" perl programs. You run them. Perl is just text, interpreted by a machine.

      Now if he went and installed Perl on the machines, that's a different matter.

    39. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Imagine I go to a public library that happens to be running some variant of *nix.

      I open a new text file, and enter the following, then make it executable and run it:

      #!/bin/bash
      echo "Hello!"

      (That was my impression of what he did, though mine is far simpler than his. I could be wrong, of course.) Is what I just did considered "installing" software? Why or why not? Is mere complexity a distinguishing factor?

    40. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by corbettw · · Score: 1

      The default policy is that you may not install programs on a public computer. You need specific permission to install software on a computer you don't own.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    41. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by corbettw · · Score: 1

      A Perl script is a program.

      The "library" was the court's library, owned and operated by the court.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    42. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      Unless there was a policy forbidding the installation and use of any and all software by users at that site, then it sounds like it was authorized to me.

      Really? So, unless you are specifically forbidden from installing software on other people's (or government) computers, then it is implied you can install whatever you want?

      I suppose if you don't have a sign on your front door saying "Trespassers will be prosecuted", I can infer that I have implicit permission to enter your home at any time.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    43. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Am I the only one noticing a discrepancy between the slashdot summary and the FBI document?

      Specifically, the summary claims Swartz ran the scripts from a library computer. The FBI document claims this (I'm quoting the rest of the sentence you quoted first):

      Between September 4, 2008 and September 22, 2008, PACER was accessed by computers from outside the library utilizing login information from two libraries participating in the pilot project.

      If he merely wrote a script on a library computer, as the article summary claims, then the FBI document must be wrong. I can't say my confidence in Slashdot's summaries is high enough to outweigh the FBI's investigation...

    44. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I suppose if you don't have a sign on your front door saying "Trespassers will be prosecuted", I can infer that I have implicit permission to enter your home at any time.

      Don't be silly. There is no mention of unauthorized access - clearly it was a machine intended for common use.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    45. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      The default policy is that you may not install programs on a public computer.
      You need specific permission to install software on a computer you don't own.

      That's ridiculous. There is no such "default policy" - and common usage is to the contrary.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    46. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      just because the library is in a court doesn't make a public terminal in the library a court computer. you are attempting to be inflammatory about this because you have a raging hard-on for authority. take your daddy issues elsewhere

    47. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "NO. RTFA.

      He installed a Perl script on a LIBRARY computer."

      Hmm..I wonder if this action is specifically prohibited by the terms of use on said public library computer?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    48. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by maxume · · Score: 1

      I think lots of people probably noticed it; I attributed it to the person at the FBI not making the distinction between the computer at the library pushing the data to the EC2 computers (which is how I would describe what happened) and the EC2 computers 'accessing' the computers at the libraries.

      The summary matches the Wired article, which is at least written in a tone that suggests that they actually talked to Swartz.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    49. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Fieryphoenix · · Score: 1

      No, he went into the library and used a passwordless computer that participated in the experimental free access and ran a script on it. That computer, which had valid access, received the pages. Then it forwarded each received page to the amazon IP computer(s), which is what the report refers to as the computers outside the library.

      In other words, he didn't falsify any requests for the information or forge their credentials from other computers. He used the genuine, authorized computer and obtained information that that computer was permitted to receive.

    50. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Ah, but the FBI document doesn't say anything at all about scripts running on library computers; in fact, the FBI document's only mention of the library is of the credentials used by Swartz to access PACER.

      Remember, they traced the PACER access back to two non-library IP addresses. Given the detail with which they reported the investigation, you'd think they'd mention if they first traced the connections to the library and then to EC2.

      If EC2 were simply the receiving end, it wouldn't make sense for there to be two EC2 instances running and traceable from PACER's computers.

    51. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by maxume · · Score: 1

      To me, the question is about what is more likely: did he use the login information (or perhaps just a pilfered cookie) on some exterior computers without actually breaking a law, or is the FBI report garbled? I would go with the FBI report being garbled, confusing access with receiving the data.

      Also, it isn't clear where the EC2 instances were traced from, it could have been from the PACER servers, or it could have been from the 'compromised' library workstations (it sounded to me like the FBI received that information from someone else); again, to me, it sounds like they were traced from the workstations.

      (So, to explain further, by garbled, I mean that they wrote "PACER was accessed by computers from outside the library utilizing login information from two libraries participating in the pilot project", when in reality, what happened was "a script running on the PACER workstations at the library was downloading reports from the system and uploading them to Amazon EC2 instances". The second instance could have simply been to simplify the server side of the code, one server for each 'compromised' workstation.)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    52. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be simpler to have just one server handling both "compromised" clients, since it doesn't need to care which client the data is coming from? It would also make the client-side configuration simpler, since he doesn't have to remember to change the server IP address when he "compromises" the second client.

      I'm not saying you're wrong about the situation, really. I'm just speculating at this point.

    53. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Thiez · · Score: 1

      > At this point I would revert the logic: this IS a DOS attack, unless proven otherwise.

      Well that's easy. If it was not his intention to bring down the servers (and it appears that is the case, he was merely trying to obtain the documents) then it was NOT a DOS attack. Much like if I accidentally bump into you that is not an attack (even if you fall and break your neck).

      Obviously the server wasn't DOS'ed because it took them 18 days to find out something was going on.

    54. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      And, in fact, I think it would be public record in the US. As in, free. The "cost" would be merely to pay for the retrieval system, I would expect. Or so they say. They got caught trying to make a profit, and complained about it.

    55. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by corbettw · · Score: 1

      OK then, you go on ahead and go to your local library and install some software. See what happens.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    56. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > He received no authorization to install it, and therefore it was "unauthorized".

      I would take issue with the term "installed." Executing a file from other media is not what I would consider an "installation."

    57. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      You tit, the court doesn't "own" anything. He was in a public library, using a public machine to download public documents. Just because a library doesn't have a children's section doesn't mean it's super top secret.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    58. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      No, he went into the library and used a passwordless computer that participated in the experimental free access and ran a script on it. That computer, which had valid access, received the pages. Then it forwarded each received page to the amazon IP computer(s), which is what the report refers to as the computers outside the library.

        In other words, he didn't falsify any requests for the information or forge their credentials from other computers. He used the genuine, authorized computer and obtained information that that computer was permitted to receive.

      You know I could do the same on the computers at work and that would land me in jail rather quickly.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    59. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      Jah is correct and you are wrong here.

      If they have something on the computer that prohibits installation it is their job to set it up. If not, you're not prevented from anything.

      I've done exactly what you said tons of times. nothing happens. In fact, I even asked the librarian first as a matter of politeness and they didn't care.

    60. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      I can't *install* anything on the lab machines in my university.
      I can however create a bash script and leave it running so long as it only uses commands which my account has permission to use.
      I don't have admin rights on those machines but I'm fairly sure I could write and run a script to do something like TFA described and leave it running in the background.
      That doesn't mean I've hacked the machines.

      I doubt he had to elevate his privileges in order to do this.

    61. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soon you will be investigated for your free thinking on issues already clearly defined by Government policy.

      Swallow a truth pill and double-think like the rest of us, will you?

    62. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Really? So you think it's OK to put whatever you want on a computer you don't own? Note that I never said it was not feasible to do so, I said it was wrong to do so. Other than your anecdote about a uncaring librarian, you haven't done anything to prove it's acceptable to install software on someone else's machine.

      Don't complain next time malware gets installed on your PC by some black hat. That would be hypocritical.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    63. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      OK, the problem is that we're arguing in a gray area here. If you have legitimate shell access to the machine, then by definition you have some degree of permission to "install" programs, if only in the form of a bash script in a separate process. That being the case, there's a valid argument that what was obviously a simple perl script would likewise be reasonably permissible.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    64. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1

      You know I could do the same on the computers at work and that would land me in jail rather quickly.

      So the fuck what? When I was working with classified information, I would be in the same boat. Information from the PACER system, however, is public information. Your bullshit vague assertion is bullshit.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    65. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if he is properly paying the initial 8 cents per page then it's definitely not a DOS it is just that the request load is heavier than they are use to or their system can handle. If he actually brought down the system I think he would be in a lot of trouble right now.

    66. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by ImNotAtWork · · Score: 1

      Work and the library are too entirely different institutions.. thank $deity.

      --
      open source sub sim. I might start coding again for this. http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net/contribute/
    67. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Cept they (gummint) closed the case, meaning they couldn't make anything stick.

      The problem with this, which chills me to the bone, is that they "investigated" in the first place. I know that if the government dug into my past deeply enough, they'd probably be able to pin *something* on me. I suspect that's also true of almost everyone in life.

      To say nothing of the fact that this guy had to hire a lawyer (which I'm sure he won't get paid back for), and it has the effect that even investigations that go nowhere have the effect of discouraging this type of behavior.

      Like PunditGuy said, we can't have members of the public releasing public documents to the public, and by "investigating" people who do, the government is able to discourage this kind of behavior.

      It's not all that different from the days when the FBI was used to spy on and "investigate" folks who had political affiliations Hoover didn't like.

    68. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He isn't paying the 8 cents per page, but the computer he's using to request the pages could get them for free. RTFSummary :p

    69. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Where do you draw the line? Is it okay for me to run a JavaScript program on a library computer in a web browser that they have installed? What about a Word Macro (which can access the entire system via ActiveX) in their MS Word install? Run a batch file in their cmd.exe? A perl script with their Perl install? Are some of these things allowed but not others, in your view?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    70. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by corbettw · · Score: 1

      "Ability" != "permission". If I invite you into my home for dinner, that does not mean you're free to go into my bedroom and poke around my wife's underwear drawer.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    71. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 1

      First, none of the information we've been presented with suggests any complaints about unauthorized installation of a program. Second, "installation" is a fuzzy area. If I visit a web site with a Flash or Java applet and it ends up in the cache, have I installed an unauthorized program? What about some JavaScript in a web page? How about embedded in a PDF, as some PDF forms are implemented that way? You download and arguably install programs simply by browsing the web! Excel is Turing complete, even without Visual Basic; is my complex spreadsheet an installation of a program? What if I move up to actually using Visual Basic? Visual Basic in Microsoft Office has enough capability to implement a program that screen scrapes a web page and either saves the results locally or submits them to another site; would that be okay?

    72. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by emilper · · Score: 1

      "rude, and mischievous"

      I think he was quite polite: a request every third second ; I wish some common web-crawlers would do the same (no, it's not google).

  3. retaliation by yincrash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    if you look too closely at the gov't, they'll look too closely at you.

    1. Re:retaliation by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      +6 Insightful.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:retaliation by Abstrackt · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Nice paraphrase of Nietzsche.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    3. Re:retaliation by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      if you look too closely at the gov't, they'll look too closely at you.

      Oh please. Put the tinfoil hat away. If this was 'retaliation' I suspect that it would have gone a lot further than an investigation that was closed after concluding that no laws were broken. Did he really expect the FBI not to take an interest in him after he installed his own code on a Government computer? Frankly I'd be worried if they didn't take an interest when some IT person notices a script running on a Government computer that's uploading hundreds of thousands of documents.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:retaliation by ignavus · · Score: 1

      if you look too closely at the gov't, they'll look too closely at you.

      It is not fair. They have more eyes.

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    5. Re:retaliation by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      if you look too closely at the gov't, they'll look too closely at you.

      It's okay, I'm mooning each and every one of the cameras they have around my house.

    6. Re:retaliation by pluther · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is not fair. They have more eyes.

      No they don't. We have far, far more eyes than they can ever hope for.

      It just seems like they have more because they're more willing to use them.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    7. Re:retaliation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quit drama queening. It was a government computer in the same way any computer in a library is a government computer. It was a PERL SCRIPT. Language jokes aside, it's not like it was obfuscated--what it did would have been obvious to anyone with basic computer literacy.

      I don't care how many documents it uploads--if it's in a public library, they're not sensitive by definition, even if they might not be public documents. The investigation should have ended with a re-imaging of the system after the forensic copy was made (which you know happened immediately anyway), and a *possible* complaint to local police--which would have been pretty much irrelevant as the crime by definition didn't fit most laws.

      No--this was a clear cut case of an antiterrorism witchhunt that failed. The agent and their case officer should be terminated--I expect more competence than that from people paid with my taxes.

    8. Re:retaliation by y86 · · Score: 1

      You should really wake up. The government protects it's own. I remember when anyone spoke out against Clinton they got audited http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/irs.htm I'm sure that information could be used against many people currently in office. The FBI is simply protecting the people who give it funding, and if you believe the FBI would side with whats RIGHT vs. what serves their best interests then you are a fool.

    9. Re:retaliation by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The FBI is simply protecting the people who give it funding

      The FBI doesn't get it's funding from the Federal Courts. It gets it's funding from Congress. The money that PACER charges is used to offset the administrative overhead of running the system. If that concept bothers you then write your Congressman and tell him to give the Judiciary more money so they can offer it for free instead. The Judiciary is regularly short-changed by Congress in the funding department anyway and could probably use the support.

      and if you believe the FBI would side with whats RIGHT vs. what serves their best interests then you are a fool.

      Your a fool if you think the FBI has nothing better to do than pursue someone over something this trivial. They looked into the matter and dropped it after they concluded that no crimes were committed. What exactly bothers you so much about this? Frankly I'd be more worried if they didn't investigate unauthorized software on a Federal computer system that's busy uploading hundreds of thousands of documents.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    10. Re:retaliation by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Did he really expect the FBI not to take an interest in him after he installed his own code on a Government computer? Frankly I'd be worried if they didn't take an interest when some IT person notices a script running on a Government computer that's uploading hundreds of thousands of documents.

      According to the FBI document, the scripts were not running on a library computer, they were merely using library login credentials to PACER.

      My gut feeling is that while Swartz may have broken some rule or other, he didn't technically break any federal laws, so the FBI wouldn't have anything to charge him with. They were probably just making sure he wasn't trying to take down PACER by doing eighteen straight days of downloading.

    11. Re:retaliation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More to the point, I'm pretty sure the FBI wants to investigate to make sure he didn't install any other scripts. It would be pretty easy to hide some other not-so-public documents in the 19 million documents he transferred. I'd say the FBI is just practicing due diligence investigating the matter.

    12. Re:retaliation by tgeller · · Score: 1

      Great quote! But irrelevant. Courtroom proceedings aren't exactly "the government" in the sense you mean -- that is, there's no relation between district courts and the FBI. FWIW (very little) I agree with the consensus here: The docs should be free, he did break the law, FBI is right to intervene, I hope he ultimately goes free and gets a medal.

      --
      Tom Geller
    13. Re:retaliation by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      If PACER can't handle 18 days of traffic, it's not ready for prime time.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  4. Doesn't the FBI have better things to do? by langelgjm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, as far as I know, all this material is a matter of public record anyway. It should already be freely available. I've used bulk.resource.org primarily to read opinions of appeals court cases, and it's fantastic to have all that information freely available online. The FBI should be investigating the turrurists instead.

    Moral of the story is that if you don't pay 8 cent duplication fees and you know how to use PERL the FBI could come a knockin'?

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    1. Re:Doesn't the FBI have better things to do? by Pulse_Instance · · Score: 0

      The FBI should be investigating the turrurists instead.

      I read that as, "The FBI should be investigating the tourists instead."

    2. Re:Doesn't the FBI have better things to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      An alternate explanation is this:

      • Government agency says, "Hey! It looks like we've got an automated breach of our system."
      • Investigative body looks at the problem. Developer won't talk, so techies look at the "program".
      • Techies say it's not a virus, not an unauthorized breach (coming from authorized computer), and doesn't even violate any possible "terms of service" equivalent.
      • Investigative body closes case. No harm, no foul, no worries.

      The only indication of pissiness would be if they continued the investigation, trying to bring up other strange charges to justify shutting him down.

      As a matter of fact, nothing says one way or another if the plugin was wiped from the accepted computer.

    3. Re:Doesn't the FBI have better things to do? by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1, Redundant

      You mean like investigating the installation of unauthorized software on a federal government computer?

      Oh wait....

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    4. Re:Doesn't the FBI have better things to do? by unwastaken · · Score: 1

      I took that as the point of the post...

    5. Re:Doesn't the FBI have better things to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know how much the government cares about the money aspect (probably somewhat), but I would take a potential breach of security (especially on a government computer) very seriously. Or would you rather the government just completely ignore potential security breaches?

    6. Re:Doesn't the FBI have better things to do? by digitalunity · · Score: 1

      They do. That's one reason Chicago won't be hosting the olympics. One cited reason was the trouble with getting people into our country without much trouble.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    7. Re:Doesn't the FBI have better things to do? by darkvizier · · Score: 1

      Freeloaders are pretty common. Perl programming? Now that's suspicious.

    8. Re:Doesn't the FBI have better things to do? by natehoy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, it all depends. The information is "freely" available as in "free as in speech". You can go on PACER any time you want and download anything you want.

      However, PACER itself is not (or at least not fully) tax-funded, so it's not "free as in beer". There is a user fee involved if you want to download the originals off the PACER system, which funds the system and makes the documents accessible. Once you have a copy of a document, you are free to do anything you want with it including share the document with anyone you want, which is why groups like RECAP can re-share any documents they've paid for or had donated to them.

      This one is an interesting case, because the library access was initially set up so people could do free searches for small numbers of records, expecting a small number of hits. When the number of hits started skyrocketing, the government got suspicious as to who was collecting all of the documents and why. The FBI started an investigation, and it sounds like they discovered that nothing illegal was going on after all and dropped it. I'd say the number of hits on the system was enough to raise suspicion and justify a further look into what was going on, but that's one man's opinion.

      While I applaud Aaron's efforts on behalf of RECAP, the net result was the publication of a few million files (good) and the shutting down of the free access to PACER at libraries due to what PACER obviously thought of as abuse (not so good).

      If everyone expects/gets access to all PACER documents for free, then there won't be any money going into PACER to pay to scan the documents, organize them, and make them available. Then PACER will either cease to exist, or require additional taxpayer funding to continue since they won't be making any funds from user fees.

      I'm not saying that complete taxpayer funding is a BAD idea, only that it is not how PACER is funded at this time. RECAP's initial approach was to collect donations to get "first copies" of a bunch of records from PACER then make them freely available to all (or to ask people to donate "first copies" they'd already purchased). So PACER was making revenue, and everyone was happy.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    9. Re:Doesn't the FBI have better things to do? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      It was disguised as Frozen-Bubble.

    10. Re:Doesn't the FBI have better things to do? by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 0

      +1 Insightful

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    11. Re:Doesn't the FBI have better things to do? by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Considering this is the sort of shit that .gov money should be used for and not ACORN funding, I fail to see the problem.

    12. Re:Doesn't the FBI have better things to do? by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      There was no security breach. He made a system to automate requesting publicly available information. It is little different than hiring a bunch of people to call the government every three seconds on average, making a FOIA request. (This happens to be legal)

      Except it is a lot cheaper to make a computer do it.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    13. Re:Doesn't the FBI have better things to do? by celle · · Score: 1

      "the government got suspicious"

      About what? Someone collecting a pile of publicly available government records. What could they be used for that's nefarious? It's good the FBI was on the stick this time, but it was a non-issue and a waste of taxpayer money to investigate. Somehow paying a fee to get something that I've already paid for and legally required to have access to seems little more than bullshit. Besides the valuation is more bullshit as it's point of view, just an excuse to have an investigation. Unfortunately the fee system is too ingrained to ever get rid of.

    14. Re:Doesn't the FBI have better things to do? by andy1307 · · Score: 1

      How would they know what he did was harmless unless they investigated him? He DID install a perl script, didn't he? The FBI DID drop the case, didn't they?

    15. Re:Doesn't the FBI have better things to do? by natehoy · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine they could be used for anything nefarious, but then again pulling a record every three seconds could be a trial run for a Denial of Service attack, or any one of a number of scenarios.

      The account was set up with an anticipated load to be shared amongst multiple actual users, and the actual load turned out to be orders of magnitude higher than anticipated and all going to a cloud server account instead of being saved off for individual use. That is, at least, odd enough to justify some investigation as to who wants all that data and why. Once the FBI determined it was RECAP-related, there was no longer anything to investigate.

      I don't know if the fee system is ingrained that deeply. If enough people decide they want it completely free (as in "funded directly by tax revenues instead of user fees") I'm sure Congress would be more than happy to oblige and raise your taxes to pay for it.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    16. Re:Doesn't the FBI have better things to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait a minuet. You claim it was enough to raise suspicion but of what? I completely disagree with that assessment. You can't claim it was a DDoS attack cause the script waited three seconds. In computer terms that is an eternity. It would never take down a computer system. And you can't claim it was theft of documents since they were being given away. Theft of resources isn't true either. They gave them away. Unless it explicitly said somewhere that the systems couldn't be used the way he used them he's in the right. The installing a program thing is non-sense too. You would have significantly stretch reality even if it said you can't install software. The reason is because anybody who visits a web site (assuming web sites were accessible through these computers) is probably "installing" a program. Any java script "program" that runs could be interpreted as an installation (being downloaded, copied to memory, and executed). You would have to demonstrate real steps were taken to make patrons of the service aware that such actions were unauthorized. It doesn't sound like that happened and is likely why this case was dropped. The password thing doesn't really make it unauthorized either since it was provided to the user and if it was not the user may not have known it was a restricted resources for limited use.

      It sounds to me like what needs to be done is a cooperation between both parties to ensure the money exists to scan the documents. I would bet a voluntary donation system would work better or maybe restricting access to newer documents and charging for those documents for instance.

  5. The System Works by FlyingBishop · · Score: 1

    Looks like the system is working a lot better than I could've expected... though the bit in the FBI report valuing the data downloaded at $1.5 million is a little vexing. Government data has value, sure, but it should be shared widely so it can't be lost.

    1. Re:The System Works by pluther · · Score: 1

      ...the bit in the FBI report valuing the data downloaded at $1.5 million is a little vexing...

      Yeah, me, too.

      19,856,160 records * $.08/record = $1,588,492.80

      So, it should have been "an approximate value of 1.6 million."

      Disturbing that nobody seems to know how to round anymore.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
  6. A great power by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Schwartz makes anything possible!

  7. Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by Viol8 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ... this kid has really given power to the people!

    Not.

    Why does the current generation of kids seem to think just about everything should be free no matter how little it costs? Are government bodies not entitled to charge a nominal fee for services rendered?

    Now get off my lawn!

    1. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by teknopurge · · Score: 3, Insightful

      100% agree. He installed a script on a 3rd-party system that funneled info off-site? Is he seriously thinking that's ok? Can anyone here imagine what would happen if they did that where they worked?

      And spare me the "it's a public library and the docs are public" - the fact you can only access them from the library means there are controls in place(pricing, etc) for a REASON. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO CIRCUMVENT THEM. Why not drive around toll-booths on turnpikes then? Hell, there is some grass over there, next to the row of toll booths, I should write a plugin to drive around these damn $1 shacks!!

    2. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by InsertWittyNameHere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This makes it easier for everyone to access information. It's faster (search and download) and cheaper (don't have to pay them to print and mail).

      This is a good thing for everyone.

    3. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by Utini420 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Are government bodies not entitled to charge a nominal fee for services rendered?"

      No.
      Especially in this instance, as the service wasn't rendered. If you pay for Document X, the money doesn't go to the people who did whatever work went into that document, it goes to the reproduction office. All he's really done is take out the middle man. There's also that whole taxation thing...

      --
      A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanation.
    4. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by Oidhche · · Score: 3, Insightful

      8 cents per PAGE doesn't sound like a nominal fee to me.

    5. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Government services charge a nominal fee that the majority of people pay for services rendered already.

      They call this fee, "tax"

      Most people don't want to pay again for what they've already paid for.

    6. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by langelgjm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why does the current generation of kids seem to think just about everything should be free no matter how little it costs? Are government bodies not entitled to charge a nominal fee for services rendered?

      In the first place, this stuff is public information, so the goal of the government should be to make it as widely available as possible at the smallest cost.

      Second, the guy took advantage of a free trial period to download as many documents as he could. When the government found out, they shut down the free service.

      Third, it's fine to charge a "nominal fee for services rendered," and it makes sense to do so when there is a real cost involved. However, the fee needs to reflect the real costs of retrieving the information. In this case, 18 million pages of documents are not "worth" $1.5 million dollars. They were giving away access to the material at libraries, the search and retrieval mechanism was obviously automatic, so it wasn't wasting people's time or costing more to get the documents.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    7. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do charge a fee... called taxes. We pay taxes so we can have services provided for us. If they are taxing and charging a nominal fee then they are double dipping. I can understand though. If I had a couple trillion in debt I would do the same.

    8. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by teknopurge · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No. Especially in this instance, as the service wasn't rendered. If you pay for Document X, the money doesn't go to the people who did whatever work went into that document, it goes to the reproduction office.

      Can you cite this or did you just make it up? All the infrastructure that makes the documents available, scanned them in, store them, bandwidth, power, man-hours, backups, etc. COSTS MONEY. And you know what? They are entitled to it. You don't get to ask people to work for free.

    9. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by datapharmer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are government bodies not entitled to charge a nominal fee for services rendered?

      No. First they didn't "render" and service - these records are available electronically anyway. Second these public records were already paid for by public taxes - the "nominal fee" has already been paid by Joe public (this is clear from having 17 free locations).

      The problem is that the poor defendant might not be able to go to one of these 17 locations (because of terms of release, physical ability, cost etc) and might not be able to afford hundreds or thousands of dollars to do the necessary research to defend himself. This gives the government and the wealthy an advantage over the poor and thus impedes democracy.

      --
      Get a web developer
    10. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      the fact you can only access them from the library means there are controls in place(pricing, etc) for a REASON. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO CIRCUMVENT THEM.

      What law is being broken here? In the US, government works can't be copyrighted. They're automatically public domain. They could be classified, so you need security clearance to legally view them, but the PACER docs aren't.

      This isn't any more illegal than Project Gutenberg.

    11. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      The point here is that the works were public domain; Walking in and reproducing them only incurs the cost (to the customer) of paying for the reproduction, i.e. toner, electricity, copier maintenance, paper. That's it.

      What this script did was bypass the arbitrary $0.08 "reproduction fee" for accessing these public domain works, and make them available free of charge (as they are by signing up to the library service, as I understand it).

      AFAIK, he used a script to automate the procedure of accessing each page, and uploaded it elsewhere. Doing it on a computer which wasn't his was dumb, but hardly a big issue in the context.

      $1.5m "value" is just idiotic. On the internet, reproduction costs decrease to zero in an insignificant amount of time.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    12. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by dwillden · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes it all costs money, and we the TAX payers have paid that money. Thus the works are public domain.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    13. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please explain what the reason for the 'controls in place' could be.

      The documents are, by law, available to the public. I can see the government charnging eight cents to cover the costs of them retreiving the document for him if they wish, but by law, there's no penalty for reproducing or distributing public information. If he distributes the information on his own, the government has no right to reimbursement. (Standard IANAL disclaimer here.)

    14. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      To use your tollbooth analogy, if there's a free on-ramp and a free off-ramp, why not use them?

          There's a particular stretch of highway that I drive, where I can get on at two different places. Both places are free (no toll on the on-ramp). Both have a in-highway toll. #1 is $1.75. #2 is $1.50. I take #2.

          Towards where I get off the highway, there are several choices. #3 is free. #4 is $0.25. #5 is free after a $1.00 in-highway toll.

          I *could* get on at #1 and off at #5, which would cost me $2.75.
          I *choose* to get on at #2 and off at #3, which only costs me $1.50.

          The difference in distance is negligible.

          Just because there is a more expensive route, we are under no obligation to take that route.

          Since he had access to acquire the information for free, he did no wrong there. They also provided him the ability to upload the same information. The fees that they were charging were presumably for the hard-copy versions. So, he didn't make the hard-copy versions. He uploaded them. Big deal.

         

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    15. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      I imagine that PACER fees also pay for archiving of the physical documents, digitisation, etc. It's not just digital storage and retreival (which for the sake of argument we'll say could be done essentially for free; it's not obvious whether that's the case). Either people using those documents get to pay for their upkeep through a retreival fee, or everyone gets to pay it through taxes.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    16. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by langelgjm · · Score: 1

      All the infrastructure that makes the documents available, scanned them in, store them, bandwidth, power, man-hours, backups, etc. COSTS MONEY. And you know what? They are entitled to it. You don't get to ask people to work for free.

      PACER fees are not designed to recover those costs, which are probably just normal operating costs of the court system. After all, it's not like they run the service solely for public benefit - it's a necessity for a functioning justice system. According to the New York Times article from the summary,

      But even the seemingly cheap cost of Pacer adds up, when court records can run to thousands of pages. Fees get plowed back to the courts to finance technology, but the system runs a budget surplus of some $150 million, according to recent court reports.

      Secondly, the documents are not copyrighted, and were being offered for free at a library. The fact that this guy mass downloaded them and put them up on a separate server is actually probably SAVING the government money, since they will no longer have to field PACER requests from people who want what is freely available elsewhere.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    17. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by BigRedFed · · Score: 4, Informative

      When something is in the public domain, you can still charge for reproducing or hosting it. You just can not prevent someone from copying and distributing it in the manner that they want as well. Public domain does not preclude paid access. Also, since people pay money to file court documents, IE filing fees, etc. There are instance where you paid NOTHING for court documents to be produced at all. Courts do not run wholly on tax dollars alone.

    18. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up!

    19. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by richlv · · Score: 1

      courts are private business entities in usa now ?

      --
      Rich
    20. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      I imagine the public domain nature of the works is why the FBI investigated him but he's never been charged with anything, non?

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    21. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by richlv · · Score: 1

      you truly are trolling :)
      if not, advocate for taking away tax money from government.

      --
      Rich
    22. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by prgrmr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Read the article. PACER was specifically giving the documents out for free via the library. He didn't circumvent anything, just made very efficient use of a perfectly legal process using perfectly legal means.

    23. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thats probably because you're 12 andyour pocket money isn't much more. Now go do your homework.

    24. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      That is what makes sales and property taxes unconstitutional.

      You work and earn wages or a salary. That is taxed very heavily. Then you make a purchase; that money is taxed again. Then, you are charged property taxes. That same money is in effect taxed yet again.

      Never mind the fact that people do not legally earn income per the legal definition: you exchange x amount of time for an equivalent value of debt (fiat currency). There is no increase in value and therefore no profit, and legally, no income as it is defined by both law and the tax code. The 1040 instructions even state this and that the tax system is voluntary, but just try to not volunteer and see what happens. Many people have filed suit against the government and won and don't pay taxes, but far many more fail and get screwed by the private corporation known as the IRS.

      Also, if you pay property taxes, you actually do not own your property. Try not paying your property taxes and see what happens.

      This country has been on the slippery slope to communism for a very long time, and like the proverbial frog in the pot of water (I know, it's not true and the frog would jump out, but the metaphor does hold true in this situation) people are so infused with their entitlement attitudes and suckling Uncle Sam's teet that they are completely uninterested in stopping this slide - and won't be interested until it's too late and the government is dictacting which doctor you can see, that you cannot get your own health insurance, how many children you can have, and what your salary will be - oh and by the way you can give up your guns "for the children." By the time people wake up and start voting sensibly we will have a choice of Stalin or Stalin running for office, and if you question it, the new KGB (homeland security) will come and make you disappear.

    25. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by kimvette · · Score: 1

      If you had a private corporation and you charged $FOO amount for $BAR services, and then charged a fee so customers can use $BAR after they have already been paid, you would be charged with crimes for overbilling and/or fraud.

      However, since this is the government, it's okay.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    26. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, courts do not run wholly on tax dollars alone. Kickbacks from the private prisons and correction centers are a major source of funds.

    27. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. Maybe those plush federal court offices with all of the grandiose furnishings might be paying for public access to documents which we OWN anyway. Taxes, filing fees, judgments to the government, these all produce revenue.

      And by the way: pay judges more money so they're less incented towards feeling other financial influences that skew judments. /highhorse

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    28. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by Savior_on_a_Stick · · Score: 1

      sigh -and me with no mod points

    29. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Instead of spouting bullshit, you could get some facts first. From the PACER FAQs:

      Why are there user fees for PACER?

      In 1988, the Judiciary sought funding through the appropriation process to establish the capability to provide electronic public access services. Rather than appropriating additional funds for this purpose, Congress specifically directed the Judiciary to fund that initiative through the collection of user fees. As a result, the program relies exclusively on fee revenue.

      So, in fact, PACER is NOT supported by taxes.

      Furthermore, just because some service receives some tax money does not mean it is completely funded by taxes. There are many services that receive some tax money, but not enough to pay for the entire service. The rest is made up in user fees. This is not double dipping.

    30. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by Oidhche · · Score: 1

      You can get photocopies cheaper than that, and that's 'for profit'.

    31. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Because the current generation understands economics. In a perfectly competitive system, price approaches marginal cost. When marginal costs go to zero, prices can and MUST go to zero.

      That is, unless you're some sort of communo-fascist, as is the case with our mighty overlords, both of the D and R varieties.

    32. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by CubeRootOf · · Score: 1

      If the state or country doesn't have enough money to pay for people to work, people stop showing up to work. Just like a private enterprise.

      This is why cutting federal taxes has crippled state and local governments which used to depend on that money getting back to them.

      That is why you are seeing increasing fees, tuitions at state colleges get jacked up, and taxes state and local going through the roof wherever they can be pushed through. You also don't see people being replaced when they retire, or leave for the private sector.

      Now, this in this case, I have no problem with what this kid has done, as he has actually helped the government do their job better, cheaper, and for free. he probably saved us all a lot of money, because I bet it costs a heck of a lot more than the fee that is charged to serve up those pieces of paper.

      In general I think folks need to stop thinking that the ... gubmint... has an infinite supply of money, and therefore it is ok to steal from them. It is not. If you don't like what they are doing, get together with some like minded folks and take over your congressional district. Run for office and try to fix the problems instead of complaining about them.

    33. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by jdoverholt · · Score: 1

      Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    34. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by Razalhague · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You just can not prevent someone from copying and distributing it in the manner that they want as well.

      My memory is a little hazy. Could you remind me what the guy did here?

    35. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Oh PLEASE cut the melodrama.

      Was it legal for one person to look at one document from the library computer?

      Was it legal for one person to sit there for hours and hours or days and look at many documents?

      Was it legal for many people to log into many library computers and print the documents?

      Then, it's legal for a Perl script to automate it.

      JUST LIKE it's legal for all the other data aggregation that happens on the behalf of government and private business. Just because it's "easy" now, doesn't make it illegal, and relying on a lot of work being required to find data is not a good substitute for security.

      Likewise, if the library computer had no business getting software on it, it should be LOCKED DOWN, or put on the DMZ.

      Last time I checked, "running a Perl script" required either administrative access to install Perl, or that Perl was pre-installed. Just dumping a Perl script on an otherwise unprepared computer will get you staring at a code snippet in Notepad. In other words, it was deliberately set up to be capable of doing what it did, and bitching when someone uses it to it's designed capability is stupid.

      In short, don't bitch because someone made something easy that used to be hard. The perceived difficulty doing the thing should not be thought of as a restriction because technology and cleverness will always find a way around. Learn it, live it, it will keep your data from getting ripped off some day.

      If there were monetary restrictions on the documents, they are there because the repeated access of where they are takes a bit of effort. If someone does something like make those efforts not needed, that also eliminates the right for charging for those efforts.

      All this public record shit should be up on torrents all over and seeded by everybody that can it should be extremely easy to find and view. Be wary of someone who seeks to limit your knowledge for they view themselves as your master.

      It looks like you, "teknopurge" just don't like having someone else having this knowledge, who the fuck do you think you are anyway? Huh?

    36. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      No. You completely misunderstand. Access was FREE, like it is in the courthouse. The big difference is that you can't install a Perl script on a federal court's computer, but you can install a Perl script on your local library's computer if they don't mind.

    37. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by Panaflex · · Score: 1

      Huh???

      They want to have as much control as legally allowed - otherwise why are they charging Lexus-Nexus big fees and everyone else 8 cents a *page*? No, they don't want you to save them money. They realize their target audience is lawyers and big corporations - and they pay.

      The "free" library access was ostensibly an attempt at providing access for the poor people, but most likely it was made to justify their ethical position to charge in case some still believe in public records which should actually be public and unencumbered.

      See it yet? When you think "save the government money" they think "legally allowed theft."

      --
      I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
    38. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting anon because I used some mod points here.

      Courts do not run wholly on tax dollars alone.

      I find this disturbing. Yeah, I'm probably tardy to the party by decades here but I still wanted to reply on it.

      It's disturbing in the same way cops can seize property and set up speed traps and use traffic citations for funding the department. For courts to do it though, lawyers cost far more than tickets.

      My question is WHY should police departments and courts be run like businesses?

      I guess it could be argued that if they aren't needed, they'll scale back. A good theory but with so many laws and how incomprehensible they are, just about anyone can be charged with breaking some law. The full cost of fair justice should be the burden on the people in whole, IMHO. If it's deemed too much, then... I guess I'm falling back on the theory above that they'd scale back....

      Hrm.

    39. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by richlv · · Score: 1

      i think here two issues are confused. it's not stealing - as you said, he has actually done the job for them, for free, and better.
      stealing would be like robbing govt office because that's "ok", or like everybody in soviet union had shiny and nice buckets except the collective ones - state was a thing you didn't mess with, but you took as much as you could from it.

      --
      Rich
    40. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by Jay+L · · Score: 1

      8 cents per PAGE doesn't sound like a nominal fee to me.

      PACER has only one government employee, and the printer is about 0.177 miles from his office. He has to make a separate trip for each page (back problems).

      So really, we're just paying the standard 52 cents/mile. Obviously.

    41. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many people have filed suit against the government and won and don't pay taxes [citation needed]

      Fixed that for ya.

    42. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      " . . .cutting federal taxes has crippled state and local governments which used to depend on that money getting back to them."

      That's a naive way of looking at it. We send money to Washington, the Feds then take their cut to construct air conditioned offices and over-pay a bunch of bureaucrats to populate them. When it comes to "giving" back to the states, they use the funds to blackmail the states into complying with their stupid mandates (e.g. Pass a Seatbelt Law, or you don't get any of YOUR money back to build roads!!!). It's a negative sum game. We'd be better off if the wealth never left the states to begin with!

      "If the state or country doesn't have enough money to pay for people to work, people stop showing up to work."

      Federal government employees not showing up for work sounds like a good thing. Let's give Congress, the President, SEC, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Commerce, Dept. of Health and Human Services, Dept. of Treasury, BATF, DHS, HUD, FEMA, OTS, FHA and NSA a nice unpaid furlough like millions of people in the real world have had to deal with.

    43. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      Yes, but when the cost of digitally storing it is SIGNIFICANTLY less than storing paper copies of it (facilities, insurance, duplication, manpower, transporting it to and from the warehouse, etc, its kinda being a Dick to charge for reproducing the document.

      They store them to meet federal archiving rules, in a way that is most effective for them. After that, the cost of reproduction is essentially zero. Especially when others are offering to host the files for free, and pay the costs of infrastructure and bandwidth for you..

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    44. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you mod the parent up? There is so much misinformation in one place, it is hard to know where to begin.

      First, of course they 'render' service - electronic access to records. And no, they don't magically exist 'anyway', they exist because of PACER.

      Second, PACER receives no tax funding, it is entirely supported by the user fees. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

      Third, there are no 'free' PACER locations (*). You can access the documents for free (on paper) if you go to the courthouse where they are filed. Making copies of the documents will, of course, cost you.

      Lastly, 'hundreds of thousands of dollars'? Each document (regardless of size) is capped at a max of $2.40. And, you can petition the court for free access if you can't afford it.

      Try to get at least one thing right in a post.

      (*) - There was a pilot program to offer free PACER access at 17 libraries, but due to some idiot abusing the system and attempting to download everything, they have suspended that pilot.

    45. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Just because you can afford to pay a certain fee, to access information that already belongs to you as a citizen, doesn't mean all your fellow citizens can afford the same. If we want to uphold the basic American ideal of equal access to the law, then essential public records like this need to be free.

      Yes, if that means more taxes, count me in. Whatever increase in my (already high) taxes this would require, is miniscule in comparison to that part which is now squandered on the police state at home and wars of aggression abroad.

    46. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... you're saying free public records... such as those in the article... should only be accessible at certain times, from certain places, for a price?

      Hell, you sound like politician material. Start running for office.

    47. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by Iron+Condor · · Score: 2, Informative

      Are government bodies not entitled to charge a nominal fee for services rendered?

      No. First they didn't "render" and service - these records are available electronically anyway.

      No, they are not. You are simply and plainly wrong. That's the whole POINT of PACER: to send people into the vaults with tens of millions of pages of paper records and scan them, and check them and collate them and file them so they can be found by the people who need them. When was the last time you scanned tens of millions of pieces of paper? What makes you think this is not a service rendered?

      Second these public records were already paid for by public taxes - the "nominal fee" has already been paid by Joe public

      No, they haven't. PACER is not receiving tax money. You and your ilk would be frothing at the mouth about the waste of your tax dollars if it were.

      --
      We're all born with nothing.
      If you die in debt, you're ahead.
    48. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by teknopurge · · Score: 1

      The PACER docs are only available at certain locations for a reason, not the least of which the infrastructure on the backend, which costs money, can only handle so much load. By "making more efficient use" this guy broke those flow controls - namely amount of users the system had to serve. And no, the last time I checked installing programs on someone else's system without authorization is no legal. Just because I leave my front door open does NOT give you the right to walk through it.(Police are another matter)

    49. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by BigRedFed · · Score: 1

      But that begs the question, are these costs codified into law, or are they set by someone and reviewed on an annual basis? Everyone who rails against these costs always says how horrible they are, but never takes into consideration how they are set or how they can affect the process. All they do is whine and complain and find a way to circumvent them, without finding out how they were implemented in the first place and see if there is a way to reduce the costs or have it written into the law that when being scanned digitally they be submitted into a open and freely available database. Citizens are part of the legal system. To sit back and just cry about the unjustness of the way that the system is implemented is to remove yourself from being responsible for the way that they are and continue to be. Whether we actively participate or attempt to sit out of the game, we are part of it.

    50. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by teknopurge · · Score: 1

      Yes it all costs money, and we the TAX payers have paid that money. Thus the works are public domain.

      No, you haven't. Taxes don't account for every cent of money that is required to provide every government service. That's what things like fees are for.

    51. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by teknopurge · · Score: 1

      please MOD PARENT UP. Too many uneducated individuals on this thread to use common sense... THINGS COST MONEY!!!

    52. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by teknopurge · · Score: 1

      No, but 100% of all those services aren't paid for with tax money. That's why you pay for things with fees.

    53. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      He is not doing their job for them, he is doing the trivially easy part of their job for them. The expensive part (collecting all that data) is still being done by the courts, it is just more difficult for them to get paid for it now (and no, they are not funded by taxes).

    54. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by 3dr · · Score: 1
      Last time I checked, "running a Perl script" required either administrative access to install Perl, or that Perl was pre-installed.

      False dichotomy. One can run Perl quite easily as it does not need to be installed. Just put a trimmed (or not) perl distro onto a USB drive, then run "e:/myperl/perl.exe downloadPacer.pl" and you're golden. Neither Perl or the script need to be copied to the machine.

    55. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      That's a good one! It's more like the current generation is extremely poor at analyzing the actual cost of anything. They look at just the cost of downloading a copy of the data and say 'the cost is zero'. But guess what: the server that is hosting the data costs money, the storage costs money, proper backups cost money, electricity and cooling cost money, admins cost money. And, most importantly, the collecting of all that data costs a LOT of money. And remember, this data is the minutiae of court proceedings - the average download rate of each document if probably 1 time or less, which means that that single download must pay for the entire cost of inputting and storing that document forever.

      So, how can this guy provide the service for 'free'? Easy - he has no collection costs (he is freeloading off PACER for that), and someone else is footing the hosting bill. If Amazon is providing 'free' hosting, they are making up for it somewhere else (charging for ads, counting it as a marketing cost, etc). In that case, everyone who purchases from Amazon, or one of it's advertisers, is paying that cost. It isn't 'free'.

      In a perfectly competitive system, this guy would have his own people and system to collect the data, and he would pay the true cost of hosting. When that happens, compare the prices, and see if they are zero.

    56. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by datapharmer · · Score: 1

      1. Courts keep electronic records.
      2. From the PACER website: "PACER is a service of the United States Judiciary. The PACER Service Center is operated by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts." - therefore it receives tax payer money.
      3. The PACER locations did exist until the situation outlined in the article and have been suspended until they can fix the 'problem'... not sure how this invalidates my point.
      4. I didn't say 'hundreds of thousands of dollars'. I said hundreds or thousands. The ability to petition the court is besides the point that it is already paid for and should be free to any U.S. citizen so that everyone is on an equal footing before the law without having to hop through petitions etc.
      5. I feel like I did a pretty good job getting things right in my post, thank you!*

      (*)parent is clearly illiterate

      --
      Get a web developer
    57. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by datapharmer · · Score: 1

      1. court records are scanned as part of the filing process, at least in my district.
      2. "PACER is a service of the United States Judiciary. The PACER Service Center is operated by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts." Pacer therefore receives tax money because the Judiciary receives tax money.

      Thi only argument that you might have is with archived records, but they are probably saving money on storage and record keeping by digitizing the records anyhow, so I am not sure why the U.S. citizens should pay twice for this.

      --
      Get a web developer
    58. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      No, but 100% of all those services aren't paid for with tax money. That's why you pay for things with fees.

      Which in my mind is the real crime here. I wonder what fraction of a percentage of the US military budget would allow us to publish these documents on gold leaf?

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    59. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1.Federal courts keep electronic records in PACER - no PACER, no electronic records (citation if claiming otherwise)

      2.From the PACER FAQ: In 1988, the Judiciary sought funding through the appropriation process to establish the capability to provide electronic public access services. Rather than appropriating additional funds for this purpose, Congress specifically directed the Judiciary to fund that initiative through the collection of user fees. As a result, the program relies exclusively on fee revenue. - therefore, it does NOT receive tax payer money

      3.As stated above, the fee has NOT been paid by Joe Public

      4.My mistake

    60. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by tmosley · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand what competition is, or what its purpose is.

      If Amazon can do it more efficiently and make a profit while charging nothing to the end user, they will, and they do. There is no reason to expend capital to compete with them, unless you think you can do it for less (ie charging the advertisers less, and thus grabbing a bigger share of the pie), which you obviously don't. Servers, storage, and backups are all one time capital costs and are not included in the marginal cost calculations. Electricity (cooling falls under electricity) and admin time do fall under marginal cost, but they have become so efficient that the marginal cost for one document approximates zero.

      Understand that in this case, the marginal cost is so low that it is covered by advertising fees. It is a case where the few pay for the many. This will happen in a free market that has become highly competitive. Competition doesn't mean that every person has to reinvent the wheel. It means that what you have is good enough until someone else comes along and thinks they can do it better, cheaper, or both. That person enters the market and drives the costs down. This isn't a big mystery.

      The result of all of this is that the cost to the end user is zero. This is not without precedent, as you have been getting free transmissions to your radio and television for decades. This is just (a lot) better and more interactive.

    61. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Read the article. PACER was specifically giving the documents out for free via the library. He didn't circumvent anything, just made very efficient use of a perfectly legal process using perfectly legal means.

      Oh, come on. Just because there's free candy on the drugstore counter doesn't mean you can take all of it with you. It might be *legal*, but it's still wrong.

      Honestly, if he wanted to help redistribute the whole thing, why not get in touch with them and ask for a DVD with the lot on it instead?

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    62. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by prgrmr · · Score: 1

      That's not an equivalent comparison. The documents in PACER are presumptively open and a available to the public. All of them. All of the time. What he did was certainly unanticipated, and perhaps rude, but hardly wrong.

    63. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by datapharmer · · Score: 1

      It comes from the judiciary tech fund. The revenue exceeds the needs of the fund therefore it is for profit and could have even been paid for directly from the fund instead of from a specific line item.... it is essentially trying to repay the fund, which I will give you, but it is more than doing that. See graph: http://pacer.resource.org/recycling.html Besides, that fee is being charged for access, not for digitization efforts. The records are already and available through other databases (many are internal or paid). I don't have time to find quotes, but I have used them. All pacer does is pull them all together into one place.

      --
      Get a web developer
  8. Not at all surprised by FrozenGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Install unauthorized software on a government, or business, computer anywhere and see what sort of response you get. This fellow installed an unauthorized perl script on a computer in a federal court (okay, the library thereof). I'm not surprised that the government decided to take a look at things. I'd be disappointed if they had not done so. DUH.

    --
    linquendum tondere
    1. Re:Not at all surprised by dwillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree. And I have a hard time seeing what the big deal about this is anyway. So they investigated. No charges were filed.

      End story: The FBI was doing it's job to ensure a crime wasn't being committed, when something unexpected was occuring on a government computer system.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    2. Re:Not at all surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I agree. And I have a hard time seeing what the big deal about this is anyway. So they investigated. No charges were filed.

      End story: The FBI was doing it's job to ensure a crime wasn't being committed, when something unexpected was occuring on a government computer system.

      Sorry, this is Slashdot, after all. We're all a bunch of pseudo-anarcho-libertarians. If the FBI is actually doing its job, that's an example of too much government interference, so it should be disbanded so we can get back to work. And we're really really smart nerds, which makes us right.

      Of course, all this changes if some company is screwing us over or we otherwise need the government. Then we'll take all the government we can get.

    3. Re:Not at all surprised by chrb · · Score: 3, Informative

      Install unauthorized software on a government

      Didn't RTFA eh? What he actually did was access the PACER database using the username/password of the library from his Amazon IP address. One request every 3 seconds (which apparently counts as "inundated"), worth an imaginary $1.5 million. So they investigate the IP address, Amazon helpfully coughs up all the accounts details, with the name they find his web page and from Accurint get his social security number and other details, then gain access to his LinkedIn and Facebook accounts, drivers license, drive by his house and get photos (they suggest surveillance will be difficult), then he gets interviewed by the New York Times. After all that, they drop the case.

      Possibly the best quote from the FBI: AARON SWARTZ would have known his access was unauthorized because it was with a password that did not belonged to him.

    4. Re:Not at all surprised by chrb · · Score: 1

      Ok, there is conflicting information here. Swartz says he ran the script only on the library computer. The FBI report states PACER was accessed by computers from outside the library utilizing login information from two libraries participating in the pilot project.

    5. Re:Not at all surprised by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Install unauthorized software on a government, or business, computer anywhere and see what sort of response you get. This fellow installed an unauthorized perl script on a computer in a federal court (okay, the library thereof). I'm not surprised that the government decided to take a look at things. I'd be disappointed if they had not done so. DUH.

      Two points, how in Hades is there a government computer accessible to the public that a random person can install software on?
      The second point is that I agree that I would expect the government to investigate someone who did someone like this even if it wasn't done from a government computer. However, this investigation was a bit of overkill, not a lot, but a bit. Run his name through the various federal databases to see what turns up, sure. Check for outstanding warrants and prior convictions, sure. Check if his mobile number had come up in a federal wiretap or pen register, sure. Check against a private data broker's database, overkill. Consider staking out his home when the other stuff came up empty (or before it was completed), overkill. The reason for the things I am "ok, sure" about is to see if there is reason to suspect that he has any motive other than making the data publicly available and if the motive might involve illegal activity, if that came up negative the investigation should have been closed at that point (which it apparently was).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    6. Re:Not at all surprised by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points, I'd mod this up as +1 Funny, just because it made me laugh.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    7. Re:Not at all surprised by jmerlin · · Score: 1

      It would appear that instead of running the perl script on the library machine (did they have PERL installed, would the user session remain open for weeks at a time as indicated with no shutdown etc, did he have permissions to install a task to start it on system startup, etc), he simply grabbed the cookie from the browser and hardcoded that into his script from home which allowed him to have access to PACER without credentials. This is hardly "unauthorized" access, it's just abuse of cookies.

      What the cookies ever did to him to warrant such abuse, we will never know.

    8. Re:Not at all surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to be blunt.

      "Install unauthorized software"

      It's a computer you stupid MOFO. I tire of people getting blamed and fresh laws passed to prohibit use of devices that were designed to be used as such.

      The government chose to use general purpose software and hardware at the libraries. They chose not to lock down neither. They chose not to lock new processes. They chose not to have unwrittable storage devices (gee, flash card with a rewrite switch in a locked case; a burned CD; memory boot with process halt).

      And then people are surprised someone used a COMPUTER to run a PROGRAM? And the parent thinks this is unauthorized? Was he not at the computer? Was he not using a general purpose computer device? Was he committing a crime beyond computer use?

      This is basic shit. I know about this stuff 14 years ago and I'm not in the computer profession or a hacker. Probably overlooked is that the FBI couldn't press charges, because entrapment would probably be a pretty damn straightforward defense: a government run computer at a government run facility was accessed by a legit user to glean public information and compile it.

      Gov admins laziness is not an excuse to try to figure out some way to criminalize a person. If you believe otherwise, you are simply an ass.

    9. Re:Not at all surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if I don't lock the door on my car, I should EXPECT it to be gone when I return, and it is 100% my fault? Wow, sound logic.

    10. Re:Not at all surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't RTFA eh?

      From 7th paragraph of the Wired article, bolding mine:
      "He visited one of the libraries - the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals library in Chicago - and installed a small PERL script he'd written. The code cycled sequentially through case numbers, requesting a new document from PACER every three seconds. In this manner, Swartz got nearly 20 million pages of court documents, which his script uploaded to Amazonâ(TM)s EC2 cloud computing service."

      Might want to have a try at Reading TFA yourself. :-P
      http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/10/swartz-fbi

    11. Re:Not at all surprised by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the FBI has a track record of sticking it's nose into matters that shouldn't concern it. Even more so with the PATRIOT act. National Security Letters, anyone? The initial reaction to distrust anything the FBI does is entirely of their own making. If someone kicks random people in the balls, would you just stand there next time you saw them? Or would you cover your junk?

    12. Re:Not at all surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somebody says something like that in nearly every last YRO discussion, and it generally sums up to "I don't like the prevailing political views of this site, yet for some reason I come here and read the posts anyway, so I will distort those political views and then I will call you nerds for having them." Because it's so predictable and because I have seen it so many times before, like the playbook or cookie-cutter pattern it really is, it was quite cliche to me. For just that reason I modded it Redundant and encourage other mods to do the same.

    13. Re:Not at all surprised by OrugTor · · Score: 1

      Agreed the owning authority should investigate. But why the FBI? The IT people on the pilot could have figured out was happening and handed off to their legal dept for review. BTW, does the FBI really do a stakeout by having a goon park outside the house? So sixties/Hoover.

    14. Re:Not at all surprised by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "BTW, does the FBI really do a stakeout by having a goon park outside the house? So sixties/Hoover."

      No, they use a fleet of tiny remote helicopters, each one with a small low resolution camera and with a 10 minute flight time. A team of technicians and pilots sits in a van a block away and positions the helicopters far enough away so that the subject won't hear them, but close enough to get a good ID. They use at least 4 at a time - one observing, one in transit, one refueling, and a hot spare.

      So, in order to replace 1 guy in a car, they use a team of people and equipment to get less data on a subject.

      Your tax dollars at work.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    15. Re:Not at all surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " [...] and it generally sums up to "I don't like the prevailing political views of this site, yet for some reason I come here and read the posts anyway, so I will distort those political views and then I will call you nerds for having them."

      Except that for people not already in the club, they'd replace "prevailing" with "knee-jerk". Do that, and you'll not only see what everyone else sees in this site, but also why it's hilarious to poke fun at it.

      More often than not, it ultimately looks like "I believe in this, I'm smart in other areas, and other people just like me agree with me, therefore we are so obviously more right than people who disagree with us and we don't need to consider any of their points". Simply replace "smart in other areas" with "old, white, and rich", and presto, you get the other side's opinion. And yet the two sides claim they're so different. *sigh* Hilarity itself!

    16. Re:Not at all surprised by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Or you could just look at the facts first instead of shooting from the hip.

    17. Re:Not at all surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't RTFA, huh? Let me quote something from the article, something that was actually repeated in the summary:

      "He visited one of the libraries â" the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals library in Chicago â" and installed a small PERL script heâ(TM)d written."

      The parent probably did RTFA. Try to follow along.

    18. Re:Not at all surprised by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Completely invalid analogy. You're the one not using logic.
      If you let someone use your car, and you don't tell them not to use the cigarette lighter, they you have no right to complain if the cigarette lighter is used.

      This person didn't steal an unsecured computer. He was given access to it. He used it to do something computers normally do - run programs. The program he picked actually let him make more use of the machine for the very purpose it was being provided.

      So, by your analogy: You give a person the keys to your car and say have it back Monday morning. You find out he drove to where he told you he would, but he took the car on the interstate. You demand a policeman charge him with stealing, because you didn't specifically give him permission to use a high speed route to get where he was going.

      If you're going to use a stupid car analogy, at least think it through a bit.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    19. Re:Not at all surprised by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      THANK YOU. It's sad that I had to read 2/3 of the way through the comments before finding anyone else that noticed that discrepancy between Swartz's claim and the FBI's document.

      While I don't really thing Swartz should be charged with anything (i.e. I'm glad he wasn't), I think it's kind of ridiculous to claim one thing while providing FBI documents on his site that contradict his own claim, especially if he isn't going to challenge the contradiction.

    20. Re:Not at all surprised by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      The FBI documents specifically state that the scripts were running on computers outside of the library, using library credentials. Either Swartz is lying (and Wired is misled), or the FBI is wrong. If the FBI were wrong, why would Swartz post the FBI document without pointing out the inaccuracy?

      Come to think of it, why would Swartz lie in the first place?

    21. Re:Not at all surprised by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      No, but if you leave the keys in the ignition, and post a sign saying "feel free to use the radio", you shouldn't be surprised when someone drives off with your vehicle.

    22. Re:Not at all surprised by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      but it would still be illegal to steal the car, keys, radio, or anything else.

      He shouldn't be charged, by GOD, these analogies are terrible. :-)

    23. Re:Not at all surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not! He ran a script on the Court Library computer that retrieved documents from PACER using the already existing authentication cookie on that computer and then the script PUSHED the documents to his Amazon IP's. Unfortunately, the FBI didn't get it when they wrote it up.

      He did not know the username/password, nor did he transfer any PACER credential to any other location.

      Finally, everyone assumes its illegal to run a perl script on a library computer. Really? Did the terms of use for the public access computer say that that type of access was a violation?

    24. Re:Not at all surprised by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      I agree :)

      I think the FBI was right to close the investigation, but I also think it was incredibly rude of him to peg the PACER system at what could have easily been MBps speeds for eighteen days straight.

    25. Re:Not at all surprised by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Just like with Microsoft, where the Government comes in, I will assume the worst until the facts prove otherwise. The facts may well be on the FBI's side in this case, but that doesn't mean that I will trust that they're right just because they're the FBI.

    26. Re:Not at all surprised by GryMor · · Score: 1

      Where are you getting the idea that he accsessed the library from an Amazon IP?

      That may be where the information was sent, but nothing in the FOIA response indicates that the requests were coming from his EC2 account.

      It is likely that the script was running on library computers, making requests using credentials provided to those computers and forwarding the responses to a server running on EC2. A trivial PERL 1 liner (though likely actually longer, since it survived for multiple weeks).

      --
      Realities just a bunch of bits.
    27. Re:Not at all surprised by GryMor · · Score: 1

      Difference in perspectives

      If I'm running a script on Computer A, that pulls from PACER and pushes to Computer B, am I accessing PACER from A or from B?

      From an action initiation perspective, A. Same goes for credentials.

      From an information flow perspective, B is the end point.

      --
      Realities just a bunch of bits.
    28. Re:Not at all surprised by chrb · · Score: 1

      From the FBI report:

      PACER was accessed by computers from outside the library utilizing login information from two libraries participating in the pilot project. ... Investigation has determined that the Amazon IP address used to access the PACER system belongs to Aaron Swartz.

  9. You know what pisses me off about stuff like this? by MikeRT · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Congress could easily allocate enough money to make PACER a free service, maybe even get some contractors to write a solid web service API so government agencies and the public could easily access the service.

    But they don't... because in so many cases they want the public to pay for services like this out of pocket so that they have revenue to spend on others.

    It disgusts me that on the local level, there's money for welfare programs and all sorts of other crap, but no money to actually pay for a full-time fire fighting service in most communities.

    The public really needs to demand that core services (defense, police, fire fighters, courts, transportation) be funded first and funded generously, and that the social services be funded with the scraps that are left over from the core budget and user fees.

  10. Bad English by AlterRNow · · Score: 3, Informative

    AARON SWARTZ would have known his access was unauthorized because it was with a password that did not belonged to him.

    Proof-reading. A valuable tool.

    --
    The disappearing pencil trick. Let me show you it.
    1. Re:Bad English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proof-reading. A valuable tool.

      "Poor English," actually. "Bad English" indicates that the English (either the English people or the English language) is misbehaving. Just for the record, of course.

    2. Re:Bad English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Poor English" of course refers to English as used by people with incomes less than the poverty limit.

    3. Re:Bad English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hey man, this are internet lands. You're kind of crap isnt belonged hear, so just make like a tree and hit the road.

    4. Re:Bad English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the only mistake you found? Our education system needs work...

  11. 19,856,160 records at 3 seconds per record by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Informative

    ((((19,856,160 x 3 sec)/60 sec)/60 min)/24 hours)/365 days = 1.9 years

    entirely doable

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:19,856,160 records at 3 seconds per record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not quite.

      Document != page

      19,856,160 pages at 3 seconds per court document.

      I expect many (most?) of those court documents are multi-page documents.

    2. Re:19,856,160 records at 3 seconds per record by Nyall · · Score: 1

      The article isn't clear, but I would assume that there are multiple terminals he could have installed this script on.

      --
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
    3. Re:19,856,160 records at 3 seconds per record by demonbug · · Score: 2, Informative

      Tough to tell from the article, but it sounds like he didn't actually install a script on the terminals. Sounds like he copied the information (cookie?) from a couple of terminals that had access to the retrieval system, then used that login/cookie information to run a script on Amazon's cloud service that sent a request every 3 seconds using the authorization from the terminal(s). Hence the comment in the FBI file that he should have known it was illegal because he didn't own the account he used to access the retrieval system - he was using the information from the terminal(s).

    4. Re:19,856,160 records at 3 seconds per record by cellurl · · Score: 1

      would someone post the perl script.

    5. Re:19,856,160 records at 3 seconds per record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a script that uploaded a public document every three seconds

      Check your math... should be 3 seconds per record.

      Should be ((((19,856,160 / 3 sec)/60 sec)/60 min)/24 hours) = 76.6 days / 365 days = ~.21 years

  12. And where did he get the password? by Kagato · · Score: 1, Redundant

    What the /. summary doesn't say is that Aaron used a user name and password of the library to run his script from an outside location. I would guess the FBI closed the case because 1) he got a lawyer and and refused the interview. 2) most likely the librarian had lax password handling that didn't specifically say he shouldn't have use it at home.

    On the other hand if he did something like grab the password from a config file or unencode a URL with the credentials embedded I wouldn't feel bad if he landed in court.

    1. Re:And where did he get the password? by rehtonAesoohC · · Score: 3, Informative

      RTFA... He ran the script on the library computer, and the computer had a cookie set that allowed access to the PACER system without inputting a password.

    2. Re:And where did he get the password? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The summary doesn't say he used a username and password because he didn't use a username and password.

    3. Re:And where did he get the password? by PhilHibbs · · Score: 4, Informative

      RTFFBI report, they say that he ran the script from a location outside of the library using the library password. Either the FBI are wrong, or the article summary is.

    4. Re:And where did he get the password? by chrb · · Score: 1

      The FBI report states PACER was accessed by computers from outside the library utilizing login information from two libraries participating in the pilot project.

    5. Re:And where did he get the password? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The FBI were essentially wrong. That's why the case was dropped.

      But thanks for playing.

    6. Re:And where did he get the password? by bmckeever · · Score: 2, Funny

      Either the FBI are wrong, or the article summary is.

      The summary is wrong? That's unpossible!

      --
      Your favorite .sig sucks
    7. Re:And where did he get the password? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cookie, password, same thing

    8. Re:And where did he get the password? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      May be he just copied the cookie?

      CAPTCHA: Submit O.O

      Is /. becoming sentient?

    9. Re:And where did he get the password? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Not having read the article but reading the three parent posts to this, I would assume that he grabbed the cookie (with a unique username and session id in it) and used that on an external computer. If the system wasn't set up to compare ip address, it would have accepted the cookie session id without requiring a password, despite him not being at the library.

    10. Re:And where did he get the password? by Kagato · · Score: 1

      You should really RTFA before throwing out an RTFA... Just say'n.

    11. Re:And where did he get the password? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they're using the same code that online news servers use to place advertisements of shops with the widest selection of garden lamps into articles about how a man got himself killed in a garden pool when a garden lamp fell into the pool?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  13. So, it took 1.9 years? by s-whs · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Wired article:

    > Swartz decided to use the trial to grab as many of the public court records as he could and, perversely, release them to the public.

    How is that perverse? 'Ironically' would perhaps fit, but using the word perverse seems, eh, perverse :)

    And 20 million documents, one every 3 seconds should take 1.9 years. However, the wired article says it was done in a few weeks. What am I missing?

    1. Re:So, it took 1.9 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What am I missing?

      not your virginity thats for sure!

    2. Re:So, it took 1.9 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The script requested a new document every three seconds. Many of the documents had multiple pages, the sum total of which was ~20 million.

    3. Re:So, it took 1.9 years? by kent_eh · · Score: 4, Informative

      > What am I missing?

      Document != page

      19,856,160 pages at 3 seconds per court document.
      I expect many (most?) of those court documents are multi-page documents.

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
    4. Re:So, it took 1.9 years? by soulsteal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      His Perl script pulled almost 20 million PAGES. It doesn't say exactly how many RECORDS were pulled. I'm assuming most records are multiple pages. Basic math says the script rain for 18 days, so (18*24*60*60)/3 = 518400 possible records to be pulled in that time at an average of 39 pages per record to reach the 20 million pages.

  14. Fix the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love how they wanted his help to "fix" problem.... mainly how to get him in jail (incriminate himself).

  15. Incompetence Malice by Gudeldar · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The most likely explanation for this is that some FBI employees who were ignorant to the fact that this was legal decided to run his name through their database and probably figured out he wasn't some evil-doer stealing court records. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

  16. Context please by oldhack · · Score: 1

    I want to go on state red full-on black helicopter paranoia rant, but before that, can someone tell how probable/unusual for FBI to look into your record, say, in comparison to a no-name newspaper reporter, for example.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    1. Re:Context please by Dravik · · Score: 1

      It's pretty common for the FBI to look into you if your sending a request every 3 seconds to a government computer. Unless, of course, you have coordinated with that computers admin such that he will know it isn't a DOS attack. This guy didn't coordinate, the admin didn't know, the FBI investigated.

      --
      The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
  17. So did he upload the FOIA? by noidentity · · Score: 3, Funny

    His FOIA was approved, of course, and he received the FBI's partially redacted report on himself.

    So, did he have a script that automatically uploaded this FOIA on himself to a public server?

    1. Re:So did he upload the FOIA? by omega_dk · · Score: 1

      Maybe not a script, but the information received minus a few redactions the government made are available in the last link, and being information created by the government is not bound by copyright and you may feel free to do with it what you will.

      --
      Just because you don't like the truth, does not make it false.
    2. Re:So did he upload the FOIA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe not a script, but the information received minus a few redactions the government made are available in the last link

      Ahhh, I'll have a look... hey, you're trying to get me to RTFA, aren't you? Nice try.

    3. Re:So did he upload the FOIA? by celle · · Score: 1

      "His FOIA was approved, of course, and he received the FBI's partially redacted report on himself."

      It's on him for him. Exactly what's in there to redact that he shouldn't know about himself or what the government knows about him?

    4. Re:So did he upload the FOIA? by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      1. Techniques 2. Names and telephone numbers of FBI agents 3. Names and telephone numbers of other people

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
  18. What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what the FBI is for? They see something strange, investigate, and find that it's nothing. I didn't RTFA, but nowhere in the summary above did it mention any charges being pressed. AFAIC, this is exactly what the FBI is there for.

    I'm for once happy with the actions of the government here.

  19. Inquire Within by MelloHippo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder if the mere act of requesting your FBI file will cause them to open one. I'm sure it must be of interest to the Bureau that somebody is curious what the FBI has on them.

    1. Re:Inquire Within by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously just guessing at this, but when making a Privacy Act request, you probably get a line in your file that says something like
       
      "October 6, 2009 - made Privacy Act request"

      "February 3, 2010 - Privacy Act request fulfilled"

    2. Re:Inquire Within by glassware · · Score: 1

      Please, don't crash the FBI with a stack fault. Recursion isn't nice in a bureaucracy, and our government has enough problems as it is.

    3. Re:Inquire Within by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a slashdot user there's no need. Your says:

      subject is male/obese, lives in mother's basement
      subject's telephone records indicate no sex life and little social involvement
      subject's political involvement does not extend past donation to RonPaul08
      subject's ISP history indicates proclivity for graphic caprine pornography (a.k.a. "goatse")

    4. Re:Inquire Within by MelloHippo · · Score: 1

      This is a great use of the "Anonymous Coward" pseudonym.

    5. Re:Inquire Within by VoltageX · · Score: 1

      I think Slashdot just found a new hobby!

      --
      "Anonymous could not immediately be reached for further comment." - International Business Times
  20. So much... by kenp2002 · · Score: 0, Troll

    So much for "unreasonable search and seizure" protection. Amerika Da Free! Next stop "your travel papers and ID card"!

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
  21. In Gulag U.S.A. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Court records investigate F.B.I. !

    Yours in Desnogorsk,
    Kilgore T.

  22. Pacer charges even more than it says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Pacer is worse than presented. Itâ(TM)s not just 8 cents a page for downloaded, itâ(TM)s 8 cents a page for any page you pull into your browser. They consider any Web page you surf on their site in search of the legal document to be a âoedownloadedâ document.
    I work at a newspaper and one of my reporters ran up a $250 bill with Pacer checking many times a day to see if an important local opinion were issued. When it was, it was just 4 pages long; I expected to pay 32 cents. Instead they said we owed over $250. We never paid it and consequently no longer use Pacer.

  23. Re:Incompetence Malice by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Revenu stream under threat?
    Favor from Washington...

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  24. Fixed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man makes free public documents available, for free, to the public. Obviously, this sort of thing cannot be allowed to continue.

    Fixed that for you.

  25. PERL! by spottedkangaroo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Perl is only an acronym in certain contexts and PERL is a shibboleth! Fortunately, you can load PERL with this module: http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?Inline::PERL

    --
    Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
  26. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I disagree: "defense" as is implemented in the USA is NOT a core service. It is a tool for some (not you, a simple citizen) to gain power on others inside and outside of the USA.

  27. Sure by Zygamorph · · Score: 1

    I would guess that some sort of file is created, how else do they keep track of and coordinate the progress and work done to satisfy the request? Said file would have to be associated with the original requester since they have to know who to send the results to. - duh

    1. Re:Sure by MelloHippo · · Score: 1

      I should have said "I would expect" rather than "I would guess" that some sort of file is created. I was responding to how foolish it would be for one to be curious about what was in the file, if one expects that there should not be anything in there in the first place. Then again, for all we know, the FBI is simply the official investigative arm of the government. I am much more concerned about the conclusions government (aka corporate interests) might draw by analyzing the digital trail we leave, especially since all medical records are increasingly being digitized, even if only as a scanned image.

    2. Re:Sure by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      Why is everyone so concerned about keeping health records private? I understand keeping financials private, but health records? If you're sick it helps everyone to know it, it helps you get funds to pay for your ailment and if it is contagious keeps diseases from spreading. Clue me in please.

    3. Re:Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "Better not (hire/give a loan to/let the apartment to/insure) this guy; he's been (in rehab/psych treatment/in hospital 17 times).

    4. Re:Sure by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      I can think of a few examples off the top of my head. Imagine health records are public:

      - Resourceful Apple fanboys find new reports on Steve Jobs' cancer - it's getting worse. Apple stocks plummet.
      - Someone finds a prominent community leader was treated for an STD - and his wife was not. Bad Things Happen. (I'm not condoning adultery, but it's none of our business.)
      - Angry teenagers look up the health records of $HATED_PERSON and find that $HATED_PERSON is deathly allergic to some relatively uncommon, but easily obtainable (and legal), substance. Deaths follow.

      I'm not trying to fear-monger. I believe we need a national health record repository - I'm tired of doctors in one hospital requiring me to bring them my own copies of results from tests done at the clinic down the street. But I don't think those health records should be publicly accessible.

      If you want help, just tell people you're sick. It works all the time. Communities rally. People set up AIDS walks. Michael J Fox pushes Parkinson's research. We don't need health records to be public to get that benefit.

  28. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

    I would put things in a different order - education being first. Others would have their own order. I know something needs to be changed, but who decides?

  29. Close the thread... by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

    ...the parent and grandparent post have said everything that needs to be said.

  30. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by hitnrunrambler · · Score: 1

    The public really needs to demand that core services (defense, police, fire fighters, courts, transportation) be funded first and funded generously, that the social services be funded next, and that corporate interests & pork barrel kickbacks & empire building be funded with the scraps that are left over from the core budget and user fees.

    clarified that a bit for you

  31. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by kimvette · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "social services" really ought to be handled by private organizations like they used to. The government ought to stick to protecting the borders, punishing evildoers (you know, like rapists and murderers and burglars, not "criminals" like stoners and crack heads), and maybe building roads. That's it. Then, the budget problems would go away, and there would be no need for oppressive taxes. Everything can then be funded through import tariffs.

    Hey, why didn't our founding fathers consider that? Oh right, that's what they intended in the first place. The problem is bleeding hearts had the though "wouldn't it be nice if government could provide __________ - for the children" and after having done that like eleventy trillion times we have a national debt that isn't $11.x trillion, which is horrifying enough, but really more like $60 TRILLION dollars when every liability (social security, bonds, etc.) are all accounted for. That doesn't include states' debts either.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  32. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by jbeach · · Score: 1

    I think the public understands core services just fine. They just consider "social services" which feed kids and families and support the disadvantaged to be a core service.

    --
    The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
  33. Unauthorized Automated Clicking and Saving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is unauthorized about using a program to do what the user could do manually?

    Select - File - Save As (repeat 1 million times)

    -or-

    mput list_of_files remote_storage

    And how can you call something unauthorized when there is obviously a perl interpreter installed on the computer and the user is given permission to run it. Now if the user rooted the box to install perl and/or given himself permission to run perl scripts, then he did something nefarious.

    Nothing to see here. Move along.

  34. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's also the (rapidly eroding) question of "accessibility of free information" - when "freely available information" required a trip to the county courthouse, a human to human request for the book, a delay of some minutes while the book was retrieved, a $1 per page copying fee, etc. the freely available information was still relatively safe from broad-scale data-trawling, and many in this great country have come to expect those de-facto protections to continue.

    If you are a judge who is thoroughly documented in those 18M records, it is possible that you might not like any Tom, Dick, or Harry to be able to run correlations on your case files - not that an honest, above board judge would have anything to hide.... but even the innocent can look suspicious if you gather enough data on them.

  35. Get used to it, bottom up its this way by Shivetya · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I love to use my local city, Atlanta, as an example of what is so wrong with government.

    When faced with a budget shortfall what got cut? Firefighters and policemen. In fact they went after the stations in areas of most resistance to new taxation.

    What was kept? The over loaded with cronies corrupt city hall. Oh, they went after teachers too and kept the huge administrative sections of the school system; again stuffed with friends.

    The larger system is just the same.

    Instead now its all about how much of someone Else's money can you give me.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Get used to it, bottom up its this way by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Atlanta is uniquely corrupt -- you can't really say that just because this one government is corrupt that they all are.

      If your government is stealing from you, the solution is not smaller government. It's to put your current government behind bars and get a different one.

    2. Re:Get used to it, bottom up its this way by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      UNIQUELY? UNIQUELY? Pfffft. Yeah fucking right. The entire state of New Jersey, and much of the northern half of Illinois are easily more corrupt than Atlanta. Let's not even go into various bits of L.A. or New Orleans.

    3. Re:Get used to it, bottom up its this way by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the middle-school I attended. The administration decided that rather than buy, say, new textbooks, or new computers for the already outdated computer lab, they'd upgrade the air conditioning in the office. (Mind you, they weren't adding A/C, they were upgrading it.)

  36. typical demagoguery by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    false dichotomies, misrepresented reality, etc.

    nobody in their right mind is thinking of shortchanging something like defense spending for the sake of welfare recipients. this never enters into any governmental spending calculus as it is blindingly obvious something like police are more important to absolutely everyone involved in decision making. if spending is not at the level you think it should be, it has to do with someone thinking less is needed for that particular spending allotment, in a vacuum of any other consideration, not because someone needs a battered women's shelter instead. you present a false choice in your comment that never exists in the real world

    furthermore social services are a bargain: every dollar spent on welfare and healthcare and other social services is one less guy breaking into your house or mugging you on the street, because they can't feed their kids, or because they can't keep their job with a broken arm (that they can't afford to fix). it's cheaper to fix their arm. you will pay for social services one way or another. the idea of not spending on healthcare for the poor means the problem just goes away is ignorance: every untreated case of diabetes winding up in the emergency room, every case of tuberculosis untreated resulting in your children catching it, every untreated case of hypertension resulting in a heart attack for the family breadwinner who now leaves a familty to fend on their own: you pay for that in the form of a sick society, and that affects your bottom line and the balance in your checking account, whether you are blind to how you are not an island in this world or not

    when you live in a rich society, you in turn are rich. when you live a poor society you in turn are poor. the money that exists in your pocket is not something devoid of any relationship to everything around you, the money in your pocket is abstract expression of the wealth around you. you pay for basic simple social services, or the money in your pocket is worth less and is less in quantity. that you can't see that is a defect in your perception. unfortunately, so many people take this defect in perception as the basis for an entire philosophy of life that assumes they exist apart from their society

    it isn't about individual responsibility and self-initiative, and those who don't have that having less socioeconomic status then you, it isn't about rewarding the undeserving. it is about giving the genuinely undeserving the bottom of the basement standard of living, so they don't wind up a cancer in your society that rots your entire society, which in turn impoverishes you. think of social services as an investment that pays dividends that are indirect. apparently beyond your ability to understand. and not making that investment resulting in the loss of far more of your money than you spend on basic social services

    the idea is freedom right? freedom from poverty deciding issues of basic human dignity right? oh yeah... durrr...

    but you shouldn't respond to me, you should get into politics. listen to any senator arguing out of ignorant resistance to change, and we see exactly the same sort of false choices and red herrings. you have a bright future in ignorant ideological grandstanding and fearmongering: go for it dude

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:typical demagoguery by adamchou · · Score: 1

      i wish i had mod points to mod you up

    2. Re:typical demagoguery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      furthermore social services are a bargain: every dollar spent on welfare and healthcare and other social services is one less guy breaking into your house or mugging you on the street

      So, in other words, I should have to pay people off (through threat of force) to keep them from breaking into my house and stealing my property?

      Has the crime rate gone down since the inception of welfare?

      Yeah, sounds like a bargain to me...

    3. Re:typical demagoguery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has the crime rate gone down since the inception of welfare?

      I haven't looked at the numbers, but I suspect he would direct you to look at crime rate as a function wealth distribution. And then he would direct you to look at wealth distribution as a function of welfare.

      My guess is that if you had graphs showing this, crime rate would start to pop up when you go too far in either direction for wealth being overly concentrated in small areas and too spread out.

      If you find any real numbers, please post em.

    4. Re:typical demagoguery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you shouldn't respond to me, you should get into politics.

      That is much easier said than done. You're going to have to do a lot of work to get to any kind of position where you can make real change, such as a state rep. By "work" I mean kissing babies, sitting on bullshit zoning committees, and other resume-building nonsense that, for a logically-minded geek intent on writing good legislation, is going to be nothing but torture.

      Oh, yes, while you're at it, you'll have to raise enormous amounts of funds to get your name recognized and make people feel comfortable with you. You had also better fit the clean-cut all-American apple pie image, because that's more likely to get you elected, so the beard has to go, along with all those t-shirts from ThinkGeek.

      I love the idea of being a legislator. I think I'd be pretty well-suited for it. But all the stuff that comes before actually sitting in session is too onerous. It makes me hearken back to the simpler days when legislators were respected members of their communities because they were friends with their constituents instead of friendly-looking faces on television.

    5. Re:typical demagoguery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > furthermore social services are a bargain: every dollar spent on welfare and healthcare and other social services is one less guy breaking into your house or mugging you on the street,

      So you're saying that without welfare, the average US house would be broken into 375 billion times a year?

      Tough country, money well spent IMO.

    6. Re:typical demagoguery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nobody in their right mind is thinking of shortchanging something like defense spending for the sake of welfare recipients. this never enters into any governmental spending calculus as it is blindingly obvious something like police are more important to absolutely everyone involved in decision making. if spending is not at the level you think it should be, it has to do with someone thinking less is needed for that particular spending allotment, in a vacuum of any other consideration, not because someone needs a battered women's shelter instead. you present a false choice in your comment that never exists in the real world

      You sound as if you've never been involved in any sort of budgeting process, at any level. If all spending decisions were made completely independently of all others, why wouldn't every service be allocated all of the available resources? If you have X dollars to spend and only want to provide service A, you can spend all X dollars. But if you want to provide service B along with A, the amount you spend on one is obviously directly dependent on how much you spend on the other. Budgets, like most decisions in life, are about trade-offs and no amount of wishful thinking can change that.

    7. Re:typical demagoguery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bullshit! The wider introduction of social services in the US via LBJ's "War on Poverty" have a had a direct effect on making the urban decay worse in addition to the importation of poverty from 3rd world countries for workers to "do the jobs that Americans won't": ie jobs that would normally be done by people who are instead sitting on their asses receiving welfare. This has also lead to the subsidization of hordes of single mothers spitting out bastard children since they get paid to not marry the 'baby daddy' and try to have a normal stable family. The 'welfare reform' of 1996 didn't really fix this because it opted out major metropolitan areas from many of the reforms, which is why the numbers of rural poor welfare recipients has declined, but the urban areas really hasn't. In a nutshell, as of 2001 we had spent over $7 trillion with the result of having an even sicker society than when it started in the late 60s. That has not been a good investment any way that you slice it.

    8. Re:typical demagoguery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear sir,

      the one who is presenting false dichotomies is you. The contest isn't between providing services to the poor and unfortunate (option one) and not providing it to them (option two). The question is whether they should be compulsory financed and provided by bureaucrats with monopoly power (option one) or whether they should be provided by the market and financed by individuals' decisions.

    9. Re:typical demagoguery by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      While marginally chronologically correlated, LBJ's "War on Poverty" had absolutely no direct effect on urban decay.

      Evidenced by the fact that other countries, such as Canada and France were moving in the opposite direction at the exact same time (more conservative) and were experiencing the exact same increase in urban crime and poverty.

      This must, therefore, be the result of something else, such as the growth of suburbs and decline of neighborhood-based employment, to only scratch the surface.

      But I must say, nice try. :-)

    10. Re:typical demagoguery by butchersong · · Score: 1

      People in the USA are not starving. They are not making a choice between feeding their families or obeying the law -excluding tax law. Do you really think that most crime is a result of people stealing a loaf of bread? Here's a question: What do you get when you have an entire community of poorly educated and bored men with nothing to do all day and no sense of self worth tied to anything healthy or meaningful? Welfare is not a kindness. Welfare strips a person of their reliance on themselves. It's condescending. It nurtures poverty, a reliance on the state and... crime.

  37. Nothing to Hide by End+Program · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The feds also checked Swartz’s Facebook page, ran his name against the Department of Labor to figure out his work history, looked for outstanding warrants and prior convictions, checked to see if his mobile phone number had ever come up in a federal wiretap or pen register, and checked him against the records in a private data broker’s database.

    I found this to be some nice insight to what initial procedure the FBI takes towards one of its citizens.

    Or, as the FBI report put it, the public records were "exfiltrated."

    The Government Printing Office abruptly shut down the free trial and reported to the FBI that PACER was "compromised," the FBI file reveals.

    "AARON SWARTZ would have known his access was unauthorized because it was with a password that did not belonged [sic] to him," reads the FBI report summarizing the judiciary’s position.

    Swartz says his script only ran on the library computer. It didnt use a password at all, but used the PACER authentication cookie set in the PC’s browser.

    Also, for all of you "I have nothing to hide crowd" look how hard the FBI tried to imply this kid was a threat for sharing records that were not private or sealed. You think they will be any less forgiving on you? Granted the way he went about it was not the best approach, but it shows the FBI’s overzealous mentality to make an example out of you.

  38. God he looks smug. by argent · · Score: 1

    A dashing rogue, and I don't even swing that way.

  39. Re:Incompetence Malice by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

    Incompetent malice by Swartz maybe. You don't go downloading those amounts of data from someone at that pace without at least a heads up to the admins. It's rude, it's expensive for the host and it endangers service to others and you shouldn't do it. I know netiquette is dead, but this should just be common sense.

    --
    If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
  40. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    "flamebait" isn't supposed to be used as "I disagree"

  41. Let us give them our medical records by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let us give them our medical records

    I am sure nothing bad will happen.
    I mean they only want government healthcare for the best of reasons.

    1. Re:Let us give them our medical records by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      Let us give them our medical records

      I am sure nothing bad will happen.
      I mean they only want government healthcare for the best of reasons.

      I assume this is a troll? Public-run insurance isn't exactly the same thing as giving your medical records to the federal government. They aren't deploying IRS agents to administer your colonoscopy (it just feels that way sometimes).

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
  42. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by jmerlin · · Score: 1

    More money into education? How about some legislation that makes publisher deals illegal, put some standards on what can appear in texts (no more of this 45% of each page is "related notes" and "bubbles" which aren't actually course material, more just ADHD compliant crap to occupy kids minds with web links and tidbits of information which they are likely to never find useful). Why don't they make this "edition" madness illegal, so new editions each year with less than a 0.5% change in content (generally adding a few pages and maybe changing a few problems) does not warrant charging the same excessive price for a new book, when the edition 1 costs ~20/book while edition 9 costs ~150/book, while overall the information is the same (ok look, Algebra material for students in highschool has not changed in many years, why should we need new "editions" ?).

    No, the public education system is too corrupt, both on a grade school and even in colleges. State mandated "standardized tests" should be banned federally because they inhibit learning by setting a bar where students "ought to be" and stifling the learning of students who are exceptional while punishing those who just aren't quite "average" (albeit the bar falls each year to match the 70% mark, or so they hope). They also promote the teaching style known as "teach the test" which benefits no one, even if the scores for the school on these standardized tests goes up marginally.

    Before we hand cash over to public schools to waste on overpriced books, study materials for standardized tests, and propaganda, we need to actually REFORM public education. The money would be better spent elsewhere until it can be shown that it will actually benefit students and not administration.

  43. It's all about the revenue by cdrguru · · Score: 1

    Destruction of revenue, that is.

    If I have something of value and Person Q can take it, "liberate it" and make it available for free to the world, many people view it as Person Q's moral obligation to do so.

    Notwithstanding that in doing so deprives me of revenue. Income. Livelihood. Food, clothing and shelter.

    There might be some people that still pay for access even though it is available for free. Most people would term these do-gooders as "suckers" because they are wasting their own hard-earned money. Money that could be put to use buying something that isn't available for free.

    Of course, when the owner of the material of value is the government with nearly unlimited investigative and enforcement powers that they are going to be significantly interested in this "liberation". So interested as to likely make life hell for the liberator. The owner of the liberated material is likely to consider this plain and simple theft, not much different than a hand reaching into their pocket for their wallet. The effect is about the same.

    Clearly, what we have seen is there are three levels of owners of liberated materials. The first level is you and me - nobody. Our ability to deal with this is zero. The anonymous nature of the Internet makes it nearly impossible to really track down someone unless you already know their identity or can connect them with a serious crime. The crime in this case is too trivial for anyone to bother with. Try to make sure that you either have nothing of value to liberate or that what you have is physical goods that cannot be liberated through the Internet.

    The second level is the RIAA. You might get lucky and get sued by them, but probably not. If you aren't sharing outbound they have virtually no way to track you down without the cooperation of your ISP, which they are loath to do. But if you do get caught in their net you will have nothing but trouble. Fortunately, getting caught in their net is very, very rare. The reward is so much higher than the risk that nearly everyone takes advantage of the materials liberated from the RIAA's grasp.

    Obviously, the third level is the government. Do not liberate from the government. You will eventually be found and made to pay in some fashion.

    Sure, it would be nice if there were rules and people followed them. The rule seems to be to take what you can get away with. Grab all you can, while you can. Of course, this rule turns the world on its ear and results in eventual anarchy. But that will be our children's problem, not ours.

    1. Re:It's all about the revenue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, if your "revenue. Income. Livelihood. Food, clothing and shelter." are derived from charging J. Q. Public for access to public records, paid for with tax money, and your business model relies on being able to deny those who won't pay you for access, you're a leech.

  44. Re:Incompetence Malice by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    ...probably figured out he wasn't some evil-doer stealing court records. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

    No less than public court records, from a location where it was free to access them at that time. They just couldn't comprehend so many downloads, so quickly. If the free "trial" period had lasted years and everything had been downloaded over that time, no one would have given it a second thought. Government stupidity indeed.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  45. He placed a script on a public computer... by GigG · · Score: 1

    He placed an unauthorized PERL script on a government owned computer. And the government doesn't like that. What a surprise.

    --
    Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
  46. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are police, school, transportation, and fire services 'core' and say...health care isn't.

    I say let people deal with their own damn fires! Private fire departments can do the job better than government run ones! I sick and tired of subsidizing other peoples police and fire needs.

    And dont even get me started on schools!! /end sarcasm

  47. FBI investigates unusual behaviour shocker by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No, the guy didn't do anything wrong. He did something a little strange though. Why is he downloading files at a rate so much faster than he could possibly read them? Is there some secret government information that he's noticed that shouldn't be available to him? Might as well check the guy out, If I was the Fed who noticed this, I'd feel pretty stupid if the guy did turn out to be doing something illegal that an basic background investigation could have uncovered.

    As it turns out, he was harmless, and the FBI dropped it. How was the FBI to determine this without at least doing a cursory check?

    1. Re:FBI investigates unusual behaviour shocker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahmen!! Exactly. Isn't this one of the things we pay them to do? Find strange behaviors and check them out. If they turn out to be legit drop it, and if they turn out to warrant further investigation continue along the usual channels.

      The same thing happened to me. I when I was enlisting into the military someone mis-keyed in my ssn and it didn't match my name/dob/etc.. so the FBI ran a background on me to ensure it wasn't an attempt to enlist under a false name. I never saw the report, but considering I was still let into the military I'm sure they ended up finding the mistake and dropped it.

      I never would have known had I not asked the guy at processing why my folder was 3x as thick as the others. He explained the mis-key and the obligatory FBI background check.

    2. Re:FBI investigates unusual behaviour shocker by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      Ahmen!! Exactly. Isn't this one of the things we pay them to do? Find strange behaviors and check them out.

      I thought we paid them to investigate crimes, not "strange behaviors". Investigating strange behaviors is one thing psychologists are good for.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
  48. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Education first?

    After all this looking overseas for help to improve our healthcare, no one else noticed that we are also wildly overspending on education?

    For me, it's all about efficiency. I think you fund the programs that are proven to be working first. Currently, our system does the exact opposite. Oh, transportation is working great. Let's shift some money away from that, and pour it down a drain. The end result is that nothing works.

    You don't fix problems with money. You fix problems with solutions, and then you fund those solutions.

  49. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am sure the eleventy trillion dollars spent on an unnecessary war didn't have anything to do with our debt. Yeah, it was all the "bleeding hearts" that drive it up to massive levels with social services. *Rolls eyes*

  50. Sounds like you love authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unauthorized by whom? The librarian? So he broke a rule, maybe. So what? Just because your step-dad abused you doesn't mean the world actually works that way.

  51. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congress could easily allocate enough money to make PACER a free service, maybe even get some contractors to write a solid web service API so government agencies and the public could easily access the service.

    Except this would remove all barriers to abuse. I agree that a private citizen should be allowed free access to public records, but even as I say that, I have in mind an individual looking at physical records somehow relevant to an issue in his life. That's a pretty small set of documents.

    Then I think about the scenes of investigators carting box after box of documents out of some office. Or about lawyers sorting through hundreds of thousands of pages. It's really easy to write a query that returns an ungodly amount of irrelevant information, and a page fee has the effect of forcing the requester to craft a good search. Removing that fee makes the government pay, in bandwidth and server time, for boneheaded, uninformative requests. It wouldn't be too hard to write a query that would return the entire library of congress, and then some.

  52. An ounce of prevention? by xednieht · · Score: 1

    Perhaps the FBI should send all their subjects annual reports the way the Social Security Administration sends out annual status reports.

    Perhaps if perps knew just how much "they" knew it may dissuade further action that would land them in the "big house"?

    --

    Hope is the currency of fools
  53. Re:What's wrong with this picture? PERL is! by jerryasher · · Score: 0, Troll

    Aaron Swartz is a brilliant developer who knows just about any language worth knowing.

    I want to know why the fuckface chose PERL. That's what really annoys me about this.

  54. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by Sun.Jedi · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it was all the "bleeding hearts" that drive it up to massive levels with social services. *Rolls eyes*

    But they sure aren't doing anything to STOP it now, are they?

  55. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most communities do not need a full time firefighting service, because most communities are not on fire full time. In large cities, even medium sized cities, absolutely necessary, sure. But smaller towns and villages simply don't need a full-time force to deal with the occasional fire.

  56. The federal courts are quite aware of RECAP. by MarkvW · · Score: 2, Insightful

    PACER has a little RECAP warning (at least as of last week). I forget most of it, but part of it warns users that it is open source and may contain bad software in it. I thought that was pretty funny.

    You get the sense that the judges don't like it one bit, but they are being very circumspect in their language.

    Maybe the judges are letting the FBI do their talking for them . . .

  57. notice on the site by Mister+Fright · · Score: 1

    There's a notice on the site - here or as a featured link on there home page - that says fee exempt customers are prohibited from releasing documents to the public. It didn't say anything about releasing them if you did pay for them.

    Aside from the silly idea of saying you can't make public documents public, are they saying you can only release these documents if you payed for them?

  58. Re:What's wrong with this picture? PERL is! by saiha · · Score: 1

    My guess is that was the language available on the system.

  59. are you OK with police-installed GPS on your car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because the movements of your car are a matter of public record anyway and should be freely available IN BULK SEARCHABLE FORM, right?

    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/09/30/1321214/Massachusetts-Police-Cant-Place-GPS-On-Autos-Without-Warrant

  60. Re:What's wrong with this picture? PERL is! by __aasqbs9791 · · Score: 1

    Probably because Perl was already installed on the system so he didn't have to install anything else? Perl would make something like this pretty easy, too. Of course, this being /., I didn't RTFA yet.

  61. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "social services" really ought to be handled by private organizations like they used to. The government ought to stick to protecting the borders, punishing evildoers (you know, like rapists and murderers and burglars, not "criminals" like stoners and crack heads), and maybe building roads. That's it. Then, the budget problems would go away, and there would be no need for oppressive taxes. Everything can then be funded through import tariffs.

    Hey, why didn't our founding fathers consider that? Oh right, that's what they intended in the first place.

    Many if yur founding fathers didn't have a problem with slavery, either, and in this "golden age of liberty" that you describe, being poor didn't mean having to eat in McDonalnds - it meant not having to eat at all, and dying from starvation or disease if you don't have the cash (and surprisingly many people didn't).

  62. I have an idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about an "auto-post" option for the RECAP Firefox plugin? Then, get the librarians to turn it on so that each free download is automatically posted to RECAP.

  63. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by Reziac · · Score: 1

    And no need for 9/10ths of this overgrown cancer of a gov't, either. And maybe it wouldn't be so busy hiding what it does if it didn't DO so much. Let gov't do basic infrastructure and let We The People manage the rest, we'd all be better off.

    BTW $60 trillion divided by 300M people comes out to $200,000 for every man, woman, and child. Why aren't all those poor people rich? Oh, maybe because public welfare doesn't work? D'oh!!

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  64. And by "eleventy trillion" by hax0r_this · · Score: 1

    You actually mean less than one trillion right? Less than two percent of our total national debt?

    I'm not saying it was a good use of our money, and I could spend all day naming things I would rather see it spent on (or, you know, I wouldn't mind keeping a little more of what I earn), but I'm tired of seeing people perpetuating this idea that the wars are directly responsible for a large portion of our debt.

    1. Re:And by "eleventy trillion" by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm tired of seeing people perpetuating this idea that the wars are directly responsible for a large portion of our debt.

      That counter doesn't track what was spent for those wars, but it tracks additional allocations above and beyond the standing military capable of invading any country and taking the capital (maybe not holding it, but certainly taking it). We could repel an invasion from any one country. Heck, we could probably do a pretty darned good job of repelling an invasion performed by the rest of the world combined. The costs for that massive standing army are a contributor to the debt. When those costs are being spent for time in Iraq, it's absurd to claim that they aren't costs attributed to that war. Yes, you pay the soldier whether he's in Bagdad or Oklahoma, but while he's there, he's a cost of the war. The site you linked is calculated to making the costs look as small as possible without outright lying. Swing the other way and you could make it be multi-trillion without lying either. You've just managed to form a border case. That's the minimum number one could attribute to the war. It may or may not be the actual number, but the actual is either equal to or higher.

      If we stopped invading, we could drop the large standing army and those costs would have eliminated the entirety of the debt. And you'll have a hard time convincing me that invading Iraq (or Somalia, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, etc.) makes someone in Nebraska safer.

  65. He got the Up side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got the Down side - you see there are two sides to every Schwartz.

  66. How about investigate... by CRiMSON · · Score: 1

    Why in the fuck the system can only serve a request every 3 seconds. And that having that much traffic hurts performance.

    What does it send off a fax to a room full of people who then find it, and type it up for you and send it back via vacuum tube? WTF....

    --
    oogly boogly!
    1. Re:How about investigate... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's that so much as the fact that it was constant for 18 days. 18 days of 1 record per 3 seconds works out to something like 500,000 records... If they're PDFs, that could easily amount a constant MBps transfer rate. I don't know about you, but that would eat through my transfer quota pretty fast.

  67. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by Entropius · · Score: 1

    The trouble is that defense is funded overgenerously and everybody else gets squeezed.

  68. yes, welfare brings crime down by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    according to any serious study that's ever been done

    "So, in other words, I should have to pay people off (through threat of force) to keep them from breaking into my house and stealing my property?"

    yes, this statement is 100% accurate. why don't you come to grips with reality?

    you have poor people who live near you. you can give them the bare essentials to live, or you can give them nothing, and they will take it from you, because they need to feed themselves. this is reality all over the globe. compare the societies that have welfare to those that don't. you tell me which is the poorer societies. if you lived in those societies who do nothing for the poor, you would be poorer, not richer. because the cash in your pocket is a reflection of the wealth around you. do you understand this simple fact?

    you pay, one way or another for those who are impoverished around you. welfare is just the cheaper way to do it. you don't want to pay welfare because you think the choice is between paying welfare and paying nothing. no, the choice is between paying welfare or paying for a new television set after your place is broken into

    what is it about your thinking that makes you unable to understand this simple choice that has always existed? in all of history, in every society in every culture: those societies that take care of their weaker members are further enriched, in greater amounts than what they pay

    you think poor people just disappear into the ether? you think their problems aren't yours? proactively do something to help those in need in your society, or your society experiences problems that begin to affect your bottom line. simple truth, simple choice. your entire way of thinking seems dependent on a sense of isolation from society, when in fact you are part of it. and the more you contribute to it, the more dividends you receive from it. ignore how the health of society affects your bottom line, and you get less money in your pocket

    the only real poverty going on here, in the end, is in your mind and your inability to perceive these simple facts

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:yes, welfare brings crime down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      according to any serious study that's ever been done

      Citations please?

      why don't you come to grips with reality?

      Taking something from another person by force is robbery. I am well aware of the reality of the situation.

      you have poor people who live near you. you can give them the bare essentials to live, or you can give them nothing, and they will take it from you, because they need to feed themselves.

      I was raised in a quite poor family. We made do. We had next to nothing, and barely scraped by. I came from nothing and made something of myself, without any special privileges.

      The fact of the matter is, anyone, I mean ANYONE in the United States can get food. The people who steal from others are not doing so out of hunger. I have received food from charity, there are many places to go for this.

      if you lived in those societies who do nothing for the poor, you would be poorer, not richer. because the cash in your pocket is a reflection of the wealth around you. do you understand this simple fact?

      First, I never said there was something wrong with helping those in need. We have charity for that. I help others through charity, and would be able to do even more if I were allowed to keep the property that I earn.

      you pay, one way or another for those who are impoverished around you. welfare is just the cheaper way to do it. you don't want to pay welfare because you think the choice is between paying welfare and paying nothing. no, the choice is between paying welfare or paying for a new television set after your place is broken into

      I have had cars and my home broken into on multiple occasions in my life. Would you suggest that I give such people more money? What lesson would that teach? I would rather have my television stolen by a fool on the street, than have my livelihood stolen by my government. I at least have some chance of defending myself against the common street thug.

      If people such as yourself would spend your energy helping through charity, instead of finding new ways to tax me and my family, then perhaps welfare would not be needed. Forced charity is only enabling those who would choose not to be responsible for themselves.

      Again, I do not take issue with the concept of helping your fellow man, and I do so willingly through charity. As do many millions of others. Please, go to the ghettos, and the slums, and show me how welfare is improving things there. The crime rate has increased since the inception of welfare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Property_Crime_Rate.jpg

      My point is not that it is the cause, just that it is certainly not the cure.

  69. Proof falsifying your premise. by doug141 · · Score: 1
    nobody in their right mind is thinking of shortchanging something like defense spending for the sake of welfare recipients.

    The Denver Mayor is cutting police funding (nearly 100 police will be laid off), and asking for 2.3 million to build 500 homes for the homeless. http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/21210487/detail.html http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/20659996/detail.html http://www.denverpost.com/election08/ci_13249592

    1. Re:Proof falsifying your premise. by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      Cool. I agree with his decision. The Denver Police Department is a poorly run organization and that extra 1% staffing contributes less to the greater good than a good one-time purchase put toward homeless shelters. There is a relative shortage of highly qualified security personnel in Denver right now (evidenced by job postings with very high pay), so it's unlikely these men will become unemployed, so as a result, I see a net positive to society.

      I think this is a great decision (even if I recognize that it wasn't a decision made quite as overtly as you seem to imply). Out of a 50,000 item budget, you seem to have cherry picked two items which are most likely to rile a conservative and focused on them as if they were made independently of the other 50,000 budget decisions. That, my friend, is demagoguery, whether you like the word or not.

      Given your particular wording, it's easy to cry foul, but I think on balance (and in the scope of hundreds of other budget decisions), this isn't a very persuasive line of reasoning, in my opinion.

    2. Re:Proof falsifying your premise. by doug141 · · Score: 1

      You inferred an attempt to persuade where there was none. Parent said people don't do such-and-such, and I knew Denver was doing such-and-such. It was front page news. I didn't have to read through "50,000 budget decisions" to "cherry pick" anything. A quick cut-and-paste and the leading sentence of his two-page post is falsified, without moral judgment on the subject matter.

  70. Re:What's wrong with this picture? PERL is! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, especially when he could have written it in Perl.

    It's not a bloody theorem prover, it's a spider. That's the sort of thing perl is made for.

  71. thank you, demagogue by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    and of course, those decisions are fused at the hip right?

    its impossible in your mind that the decision to pay less for police was made independently of the need for more for homeless shelters, right?

    nah, the mayor was of course thinking "i want drugs and crime to spread unchecked on the innocent hardworking citizens of denver while the homeless get free palatial suites at the hilton"

    see? that's some good demagoguery i wrote there

    maybe i should just stop trying to fight for truth and get into your game of ignorant fearmongering

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  72. it was suspicious because... by bugs2squash · · Score: 4, Funny

    it was a 1-line PERL script and the FBI and NSA are still trying to figure out everything it does.

    --
    Nullius in verba
  73. Re:What's wrong with this picture? PERL is! by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

    Do you actually understand what Perl is? Or did you just try to use it some time and didn't like it?

    Perl is a very old (it gets updated, obviously) server scripting language that has been pretty much standard on all unix based servers for 20 years now (guesstimate there). The court system's document database is almost certainly a Unix based system.

    Since he can obviously easily run a Perl script on the government machine by using the tools on the machine itself (thereby not illegally installing software on it) to automate the task. Seriously, I doubt this task was more than a line or two of Perl, what moron would use anything else?

    Seriously, it's using the right tool for the job. Just because you don't like a scripting language does not mean it is not the best language to use in a given situation. Obviously this guy has the programming know-how and the flexible skill-set to actually use the best tool for a job, rather than bitch about a language he may or may not like.

    --
    Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  74. Re:What's wrong with this picture? PERL is! by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

    Bah! I should have previewed.

    Damnit, I hate fragments.

    --
    Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  75. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your elementary knowledge of how markets function would be laughable if it wasn't so dangerous.

  76. How to access court documents by sampson7 · · Score: 1

    Just to be clear, the opinions issued by the Federal Courts of Appeal are all available free of charge from the various court web pages. You never have to pay to understand the law of the land or see the latest court opinion.

    However, docketing sheets, procedural orders, etc. are available (i) free of charge in hard copy format at the court house, or (ii) electronically through the PACER system at a nominal per-page cost (currently 8 cents).

    I just want people to be clear that court opinions are, and always have been, available free of charge.

    1. Re:How to access court documents by mi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      electronically through the PACER system at a nominal per-page cost (currently 8 cents).

      I'd understand, if they charged 5-10 cents per page for a copy on actual paper (whoever needs that). For an electronic download this is an insane amount of money. Unless, of course, they convert each scan to searchable text using really fancy text-recognition software (like Google do with their book-archive). And even then it sounds like huge price — good for them, if they can get it, but these guys need serious competition.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:How to access court documents by sampson7 · · Score: 1

      I don't necessarily agree -- the types of documents PACER provides are highly technical, and are really only of use to attorneys and other litigants. Given the very limited distribution of these documents, I don't think it makes sense that everyone (a.k.a. the taxpayers at large) should pay for something that is, at heart, a tool to save litigants and lawyers money. Instead, PACER is designed to allow the government to recoup the costs of digitizing these documents, and pass those costs on to users of the system. A beneficiary-pays model.

      Further, anyone who wants to compete with PACER is perfectly free to do so. These are government documents, with no copyright restrictions attached! I suspect that most companies are in no hurry to digitize millions of obscure documents that are generally only of use to a half-dozen people for less than 8 cents per page, but I could be wrong.

    3. Re:How to access court documents by mi · · Score: 1

      Instead, PACER is designed to allow the government to recoup the costs of digitizing these documents

      Well, the government is charged with keeping the documents in the first place already. You are free to come to the court-house and read them. You can also use the copy-machines to make copies. My point is, using those copy-machines costs about the same — no more than 25 cents per page. Allowing you to download the same pages ought to cost fractions of a penny per page...

      Unless, indeed, some intelligent thought has been put into digitizing the texts to not just scan them (as giant bitmaps), but to also make the text searchable (as, well, text). And even then it should, probably, be paid for from the same allocations currently used to pay for storage of these papers and the mousetraps.

      Further, anyone who wants to compete with PACER is perfectly free to do so.

      It would seem from the article, that PACER is some sort of a government/private organization. Competing with them would be quite difficult for a purely private enterprise, which would have to defend itself from mindless accusations of "profiteering off public records" or something, even if they end up offering the same service for less. Oh, and just when someone does prevail in those fights, PACER becomes free...

      I suspect that most companies are in no hurry to digitize millions of obscure documents that are generally only of use to a half-dozen people

      Half-dozen? There are certainly many more lawyers in this country than that :) I guess, you mean, each document may only be of interest to six people or so...

      Anyway, the real solution is to make these documents be in some textual electronic form to begin with. Obama's administration (like, the most high-tech administration ever) could begin by making the Federal Courts and the Federal Prosecutors use that in all their proceedings... Unlike with health-care (that does need to use standardized-format data too), the federal government has Constitutional right to control the Justice Department...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  77. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously? LOOK at the US Budget some time. Military spending is over twice what social services is, and more than the E.U, Russia, and China COMBINED. Provisions for that are just as Constitutional as social services spending: the elastic and the public welfare clause. Not only a math, fact, and civics fail, but also history and common sense fail.

    Good job. Jackass.

  78. you keep using that word demagoguery... by doug141 · · Score: 1
    I pointed to factual articles discussing the Denver mayor's budget choices, and you called it "ignorant fearmongering."

    maybe i should just stop trying to fight for truth

    yes, maybe you should... at least until you calm down and not take a few newspaper links as a personal attack.

  79. eastern europe is coming out of communism by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the idea of communism is that everyone should be as poor as its poorest member

    the ideal society is a meritocracy, right? that you receive from hard work the right to a good life. that to reward those who are lazy loitering useless souls as much as you reward those who work hard, ruins any reason to work hard, right?

    i'm not asking for communism, i'm asking for a meritocracy with social safety nets. you seem equate social safety nets with communism. this is classic demagoguery

    your false dichotomy is that social safety nets are anathema to the meritocracy. but you can have a meritocracy with social safety nets. i'm not asking for the homeless to live in palaces, i'm asking for them to have heat in the winter and food on the plate. those who work hard are rewarded with good life far beyond those bare bones of existence. so there is plenty of reason to work hard and take initiative. its just that in a society with social safety nets, if you don't work hard, you live a miserable life, rather than freezing to death in a society with no social safety nets. and social safety nets in turn represents less people desperate enough to turn to crime to support themselves since society won't give them the simplest of basics. in fact, the costs of crime in a society without social safety nets are more expensive than the safety nets. if you are lazy and without initiative and without personal responsibility, you don't deserve middle class perks. but you also don't deserve no health care and an early death, especially when preventative care for things like hypertension and diabetes is so cheap. treating these people with a heart attack or amputation in the emergency room is far more expensive. and then you have to deal with the poor family with the breadwinner dead

    furthermore, plenty of those who are rich are rich because they enjoy income from defects in the imperfect marketplace where they are rewarded for doing nothing. furthermore, plenty who are poor are poor for sins their fathers committed, and are in fact good people who would do well in the middle class if only that pesky broken arm wouldn't prevent them working (since they have no healthcare, they can't afford to fix it). free market fundamentalists and libertarians fail to see how life isn't really a meritocracy, that inevitable structural defects constantly reward the rich for doing nothing, and punish others for simply being born poor. in fact, if life is going to be a meritocracy, you need a strong governmental presence to enforce the rules of the game, and correct these inevitable spontaneous defects in the marketplace. in fact, left to its own devices, the market falls to pieces, it bubbles and pops, bubble and pops. a "free" market needs a strong governmental police presence to stay truly free

    and please, don't give me the bullshit about charities. its always those who are asking to contribute the least to society who refer to charities in the hypothetical as the safety net. charities of course they will never contribute to. as if those who are espousing a philosophy of "i got mine, sucks to be you" are bountiful cornucopias of giving. no, they are blind selfish assholes who can't understand how the money in their pocket comes from the health of the society they live in. we need social safety nets precisely because so many people like you who espouse a philosophy of selfishness and will never will donate to charity

    please, i await your response, where you insist you are bountiful giver to charity. and then i await your next sentence in which you espouse the meritocracy without social safety nets, where if you have nothing, you probably deserve it. pffffffft

    communism != social safety nets. social safety nets != destruction of meritocracy

    please make a fucking note of it, and adjust your blind ignorant ideology accordingly. thanks

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  80. are you going to honestly assert by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    that the mayor of denver wishes his citizens would experience more crime, while the homeless live in palaces?

    is that your honest assertion here about his motivations?

    if that is not what you are trying to say, then maybe you can begin to consider the possibility that the choices the mayor made is gee, i dunno, just MAYBE a little more independent from each other than the stark fearmongering dichotomy you present?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  81. yes, real budget processes by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    in which committees involved in different issues, independent of each other, make projections based on need, and in consideration of past returns for past investments, scale spending on particular issues up and down, at different times of the year, in different legislative and/ or administrative tracks

    but, nah, who am i to say such a levelheaded thing? you clearly know far more about real budgeting processes, where socialist fascists sit in a room and say "we are going to fire cops so we can build palatial homeless shelters" and then laugh demonically

    thanks for setting me straight on what its like to be involved in real budgeting processes

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  82. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by sjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Consider, for someone who is homeless and starving or in desperate need of medical care, if there are no social welfare programs their most logical course of action is to steal whatever they need. If they get away with it, fine. If not then you WILL be supporting them with your tax dollars to the tune of $60,000/year space in jail. Or you could have spent $20,000 and potentially ended up with a productive citizen or at least a 66% reduction in the cost of an unproductive citizen.

    Another portion of social welfare spending is managed rather inefficiently through higher medical costs (including insurance ) since hospitals have the unfunded mandate to treat anyone even if they can't pay. The alternative is to step over the dead in the parking lot on your way to your checkup. That or end up mugged because as a whole parents would rather risk jail than let their kids die of treatable illnesses (and arguably, they are behaving ethically to do so).

    Social welfare programs are a bargain. If we can refrain from trillion dollar military actions around the world and manage to stop making trillion dollar bailout payments (welfare checks for the rich) we'll have plenty of cash for social programs.

  83. Will I go to jail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    main() {
      print"lol";
      return
    }

    I just "installed an unauthorized program" in your system.

    1. Re:Will I go to jail? by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Absolutely you are going to jail. No lol'ing on my system. Ever.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  84. Better way to handle this case... by spencerg83 · · Score: 1

    The FBI should have just revoked his Group 7 Access and have him report to Dillinger immediately.

  85. Tomorrows headlines... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...will be reading 'Feds slashdotted'

  86. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And using a AC account to reply to your own retarded post isn't cool either kimvette.

  87. it's awesome to weave an alternative history by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    of the world by ignoring a myriad of other facts and instead only focusing on those facts which reinforce your prejudices

    there's a couple of hundred potshots i can take at your stilted broken reasoning, but i'll list only a bare few, since i'm not going to write a doctoral dissertation just to counteract the ignorance in your comments, and instead hope that you find the time to reexamine your misperceptions

    1. poverty went down and continued to go down from well before lbj and well after him. a lot of urban decay is due to the rise of the suburbs, due to the rise of the automobile. and its quite the awesome suspension of logic where you perceive people sitting on their asses as the cause of no jobs, rather the result of no jobs. and no jobs in a particular industry due to simple inevitable unavoidable changes in basic economic world realities, not because of some supposed demonic government policy

    2. single, poor women do have lots of kids. single, poor women have always had lots of kids, going back centuries before the existence of welfare, going back to the dawn of civilization. welfare has lifted them socioeconomically to the point where they don't have so many kids. again, an amazing creative effort of cause and effect on your part, bearing no resemblence whatsover to reality or historical fact, where you actually blame welfare for them having kids! and of course, no effort on your part to blame the men, rich and poor, who apply financial or emotional coercion or outright physical intimidation, screw them, and leave

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  88. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by Artifakt · · Score: 1

    So you're saying the liberals aren't trying to get us out of Iraq or Afghanistan?
     

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  89. Now you bring out a strawman? by doug141 · · Score: 1

    Strawmen don't fly well here. Backing off hyperbole and onto what was actually said, your insistence that "if spending is not at the level you think it should be, it has to do with someone thinking less is needed for that particular spending allotment, in a vacuum of any other consideration," is clearly made absurd by your use of the word "needed." Denver doesn't need less cops, the press coverage was pretty clear on that. Denver just has to pay less for something to balance the budget. Cops lost. The homeless might get 500 new homes, though, and some people think those priorities are wrong. Budget items can't be considered independently, as you claim they can, when they must all sum to equal the revenue. If you don't believe me, take your credit card out on the town and make a lot of decisions "in the vacuum of any other considerations" and let me know how that works out.

  90. Re:Incompetence Malice by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

    from a location where it was free to access them at that time.

    Nope. The FBI document indicates that the accesses were from two Amazon EC2 instances, which were apparently running scripts that represented themselves to PACER as if they were authorized (using cookies obtained from library computers).

    I don't think that this was strictly illegal (though IANAL), but it was definitely rude to the PACER system admins. One PDF every three seconds could easily get into the MB/sec range.

  91. the decisions aren't made by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    in a single room, at the same time

    they are made at separate times, according to different economic projections, according to different goals, according to different past results, and by separate committees

    absolutely you can make a case denver needs more cops. absolutely the homeless doesn't need the shelters. and people are making these cases. IN DIFFERENT ROOMS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE AT DIFFERENT TIMES

    to say that this is about priorities, to imply that some demonic mayor is sitting there taking money from cop funding and putting it into homeless shelters absolutely misrepresents the reality of how these decisions are made

    If you don't believe me, take your credit card out on the town and make a lot of decisions "in the vacuum of any other considerations" and let me know how that works out

    yes, classic demagoguery: you take the reality of a complicated sprawling funding process and reduce it to simplistic emotional scenario: a guy with a credit card choosing between buying food to feed his kids and buying a scratch off ticket. oh wait, you didn't say that. well, you can thank me for making your propaganda even more simplistic and emotional. pfffffffffft

    please educate yourself, life is slightly more complicated than you think:

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:the decisions aren't made by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone at some point has to look at all of the decisions that were previously made and then approve them. Someone has to say, "yes we will spend more on this and less on this". It's irrelevant if it's done at different times by different people. People at the top of the food chain are making the final decision. It essentially becomes an issue of choosing one thing over another at some level. There's no "demagoguery" about this.

  92. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by amplt1337 · · Score: 4, Informative

    bleeding hearts are responsible for the national debt

    Actually, you're wrong.

    "social services" really ought to be handled by private organizations like they used to.

    You might want to do some research on the 1880s, and how effectively social services were handled by private organizations back then. Protip: they weren't handled at all. People died in the streets in massive numbers.

    Most of the cries of "ooh big government! big government!" that people love to wave around come from an ignorance of how important government programs are to maintaining social order and a modicum of well-being for poor people. Well, that and a gross misconception of how much of the federal purse is spent on social programs, versus the things that the libertarians actually think are worthwhile. (We could just as easily cut almost all of our defense spending, since it's pretty much worthless).

    --
    Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
  93. Federal court documents aren't free to the public? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Excuse me but i paid for them ( and what ever court action was involved ) with my taxes. THey damned well better be free.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  94. Ownership by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    You cant compare a public access government computer to a business.

    Us taxpayers own that pc in this case.. So its ours.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  95. He's a fast typist?!? by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    One request every 3 seconds

    He didn't do that with his fingers. He installed a small Perl program which did both download and upload.

    Guess you're the one who didn't RTFA.

  96. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by WillDraven · · Score: 1

    If it wasn't for the police and the courts being overfunded and willing to spend 8 months and who knows how much money investigating me and my friend smoking pot when we were 16 I wouldn't have a criminal record and thus could get a decent job and wouldn't need food stamps and medicaid to support my family.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  97. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    Typical unthinking knee jerk response.

    Every president from WW II up to and including Carter decreased the national debtleft over from the Depression and WW II. Reagan and Bush II doubled it; Bush I increaed it but wasn't around long enough to double it. Reagan and Bush II cut taxes but not spending, which any 3rd grader could have told them was pretty braindead. Clinton balanced the budget, again, and began paying down the deficit, again. Once you assign this failed economy recovery costs to Bush II because it happened on his watch, he far more than doubled the deficit.

    The $60 trillion unfunded mandate is silly. All of those mandates are deliberately funded by ongoing taxes. You can't count future expenditures without counting future taxes, and since neither are known with any certainty, it's pretty pointless propaganda to count either one, let alone just one and not the other. Besides which, one of those bleeding hearts you denigrate for non-essential unfunded mandates is Bush II with his poorly conceived and executed prescription plan, the biggest increase in unfunded mandates since LBJ.

    As for the founding fathers ... you ought to look at the things they funded. read some history some time there's a lot of interesting things out there. They did not stick to just defense and crime and maybe roads. For one thing, crime was almost entirely a state or local problem, there being few federal crimes. Your conflation of federal and state funding right there labels you as an opportunistic cherry picker. Don't try to suddenly ignore state funding of all sorts of non-essential things now that you have based part of your argument on said non-essential funding. You can't use that cake while pretending you don't know about it.

    You must be a typical braindead so-called conservative to spout nonsense like that, whether you believe it yourself or not. Your ignorance and arrogance are appalling but typical.

  98. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should fix the 'o' on your keyboard.

  99. we alreasy have what you describe by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    battling healthcare companies who maximize their returns by... drum roll please... denying services. the free market philosophy is completely incompatible with quality healthcare. left to their own designs, healthcare companies would continue maximizing more and more profits by denying people more and more benefits. well, that is actually a win-win capitalist situation: kill everyone, no more healthcare costs. lol

    meanwhile you assert bureaucrats have "monopoly power" (cue dread music), conveniently forgetting to note that these bureaucrats work for you, and me, the people. if they do something we don't like, we replace them, duh. it's a democracy, isn't it?

    furthermore, when you allude to "monopoly power" you are referring to what? a market system. as if this is the appropriate paradigm to talk about when talking about healthcare. hint: the concept of "quality healthcare" and the concept of "market forces" are logically incompatible. guess what: the marketplace does not answer every question in the universe. there are some situations in society where you need a system besides the free marketplace to solve a problem coherently. applying the same mindless philosophy again and again, without looking at the problem's requirements is a kind megalomania, not intelligence

    there's another word for your mindless overdependence on the idea of the free market: fundamentalism. you are a free market fundamentalist, you think its the answer to everything. it isn't. the debacle of the stock market crash last year should have taught you something of the folly of completely free markets: they bubble and crash dummy, ednlessly. to be truly "free", a market need strong government regulation and intervention. the other kind of "free" market, the one you fetishize, bubbles and crashes itself out of existence

    the idea of the free market is a mirage, a joke, a simpleton's idea. it never existed, and it never will. a healthy marketplace is a strongly regulated one. if you don't believe this, you never heard of a bubble

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:we alreasy have what you describe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear sir,

      had you actually read my post, you would notice that I have not made claims which of those alternatives is better. You are the fundamentalist and the demagogue. How about spending your time doing something productive, like, maybe, actually helping the poor and unfortunate?

  100. Re:are you OK with police-installed GPS on your ca by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

    Because the movements of your car are a matter of public record anyway and should be freely available IN BULK SEARCHABLE FORM, right?

    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/09/30/1321214/Massachusetts-Police-Cant-Place-GPS-On-Autos-Without-Warrant

    Another troll, but I'm bored.

    If you installed GPS on your car, and then published your driving habits online, I'm not convinced you'd have a right to complain based on a reasonable expectation of privacy.

    Then again, agencies, departments, and branches of government are not private citizens, either. And yes, I think their actions should be both freely-available and in bulk-searchable form.

    I'm also in favor of a Corporate death penalty.

    --
    "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
  101. are you for real? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    yes, people in the usa are not starving

    BECAUSE OF WELFARE YOU MORON

    hello???

    as for the self-initiative destroying, self-esteem destroying aspect of welfare: this is 100% real

    so let's kick them off welfare so they can starve instead. because that's so much better for people than low self-esteem. pffffft

    and it will decrease crime too, because after they are done being shot by irate homeowners protecting their food or dying in the streets without food, crime will go down! see this is all bourne out by societies without welfare: no one is starving in the slums of india, crime is nonexistent in the slums of nigeria

    you're ignorant beyond belief

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  102. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by Sun.Jedi · · Score: 1

    So you're saying the liberals aren't trying to get us out of Iraq or Afghanistan?

    Nope, didn't say that. I commented on the social services aspect. Surely you'll agree that proposed legislation and social efforts, as written, aren't exactly projected to save anyone or anything, and specifically won't save any money.

  103. Perl: Free speech that Works! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To a programmer, a Perl script is speech that Gets Stuff Done. To a politician a script is for a speech that gets nothing done.

  104. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by ajlisows · · Score: 1

    Full Disclosure: I am a "Libertarian". I don't really like to be pigeonholed into one of a handful of names for political parties but "Libertarian" right now best describes most of my philosophies.

    That said, a lot of the other Libertarians I have met have views that really disturb me, particularily involving "social services". Most Libertarians are against social services because they don't feel they should be forced to pay for helping others and that it should be done through private donations and the like. It sounds reasonable, it really does.....but few of the Libertarians I have encountered have taken the step forward to donate time or money to any types of charitable causes or organizations. I myself get out and get a bit active. One of the things I do in my spare time is cobble together still useful PC's (Pentium IV or better) and install them for children with parents who don't have the means to provide them with one. I've done 17 of them in the past few years (I also continue to support them...at no cost of course). Doesn't sound like much but if everyone that complained about the government "stealing their money to give to worthless slugs" actually did pitch in to help the less fortunate in their communities perhaps we could get greatly reduce the need for Government sponsored programs. Giving alms directly to the poor is a much more cost effective (And rewarding, I may add from my own experience) option for distributing wealth. Until people step up and actually DO IT, it is not even remotely a viable option.

  105. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    agreed.

  106. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by JumperCable · · Score: 1

    And I bet there were fewer poor people back when they died in the streets.

  107. How do you know that? by ZmeiGorynych · · Score: 1

    Um, how do you know that? From the discussion above I can only see that 'it's kind of sad *we think* we can't find out etc'

    1. Re:How do you know that? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      That's what I was getting at.

      It's only a risk because we're not sure whether it would actually cause an investigation. If it were not going to happen, then there would be zero risk. Similarly, a known consequence can hardly be called a risk, can it? Dropping a match into a puddle of gasoline does not risk igniting the gasoline, it ignites the gasoline. See the difference?

    2. Re:How do you know that? by ZmeiGorynych · · Score: 1

      Erm, I was rather pointing out the difference between an objective risk and a subjective perception of one. Just my 'being not sure' or even strongly suspecting that God will turn me into a pillar of salt if I watch too much porn doesn't make it an actual 'risk' as I understand the word - only knowing that, say, 10% of those who request their file get one started.

      See the difference?

  108. Authorized Access by Wardish · · Score: 1

    A lot of posts have alleged unauthorized access. A few mentioned using the password from the amazon account. Here's the relevant quote from the article.

    "The code cycled sequentially through case numbers, requesting a new document from PACER every three seconds. In this manner, Swartz got nearly 20 million pages of court documents, which his script uploaded to Amazonâ(TM)s EC2 cloud computing service."

    Note the perl script ran on the libraries computer. As a member of the public, using a FREE service available to the public he was authorized to use the computer. So unless there were specific rules saying he could not install a script it was authorized access.

    Also note that the perl script SENT the documents to the amazon account, therefor he wasn't accessing the information from outside. The script, barring any probibitation from sending documents outside or baring Public use of the library computer when the specific user wasn't actually at the computer, was sending the documents outside.

    To recap, barring any specific prohibitions:

    Person authorized to use the computer. CHECK
    Person runs script to more efficiently use the public access. CHECK
    Script running on public access system in library sends results of searches to outside account. CHECK

    Those who authorized the free public access SHOCKED because they didn't stop or even warn people not to use the FREE access the way they imagined. CHECK

    Nothing to see folks, move along.

    --
    Ward

    . Silence! Be thankful thy species is unpalatable! .
  109. there's many ways to help the poor and unfortunate by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    one of them is to politically shield them from the braindead philosophies of free market fundamentalists and libertarians who wish the usa were like somalia, because they are afraid simple social safety nets somehow makes us equivalent to the ussr

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it