Slashdot Mirror
Have Questions For MIT's Aaron Swartz Review?
theodp writes "Explaining that it believes 'the most important questions are the ones that will come from the MIT community,' MIT announced that it won't be accepting questions from outsiders for its President-ordered 'review' of the events that preceded the suicide of Aaron Swartz. But if you feel the 25 questions asked thus far don't cover all the bases, how about posting additional ones in the comments where MIT'ers can see them and perhaps repost to the MIT site some that they feel deserve answers? Do it soon — MIT President Rafael Reif will be returning any day now from Davos, where he sat on a panel with Bill Gates, who coincidentally once found himself in hot water over unauthorized computer access. 'They weren't sure how mad they should be about it,' Gates explained in a 2010 interview, 'because we hadn't really caused any damage, but it wasn't a good thing. Computer hacking was literally just being invented at the time, and so fortunately we got off with a bit of a warning.'"
Related: text has been published of public domain advocate Carl Malamud's remarks at Swartz's memorial. Quoting: "Aaron wasn't a lone wolf, he was part of an army, and I had the honor of serving with him for a decade. Aaron was part of an army of citizens that believes democracy only works when the citizenry are informed, when we know about our rights—and our obligations."
Shut up. He is a hero and we should not only insist he not face consequences, but we should reward him. If Aaron had hacked my PC to get my financial records, I would have thanked him and sent him a nice key lime pie. You sir are a communist or a capitalist and shouldn't be trusted.
What steps has MIT taken to assure that publically funded research is published to the taxpaying public?
When someone walks in off the street, enters a wiring closet, and plugs a computer into your network you call the cops. What is so hard to understand about that? Swartz wasn't a student, faculty, or a guest of MIT.
When someone repeatedly tries to get around the blocks you erect specifically for them and keeps screwing with your systems, you don't just suck it up and waste your time and money by continuing to play "whack a mole," you call the cops.
That's why we have laws on the books for dealing with people who pull stunts like Swartz. The penalties range from probation to years in jail to handle the spectrum of severity. Swartz's crime wasn't that severe and he had no record so he was facing the small end of potential sentence.
There was no issue with prosecuting the guy until victims found out that it was going to cause a lot of bad publicity. That's what this is all about. A bunch of folks with bully pulpits really liked the guy and are upset that he killed himself so they are looking for someone to blame.
Theres nobody to blame but Swartz. He is the one that pulled the stunt. He is the one that was very sick. Blaming the prosecutors, JSTOR, or MIT for Swartz's death is simply revolting.
Common sense! Where the fuck is it?!?
If MIT said they aren't interested from outsiders, then why are you still trying to barge in on their process?
It's like crashing a party you were not invited too. It's an MIT issue that and they should be ones who determines who is and isn't welcome in their review.
Slashdot, butt out.
Yes/No
What dividend should taxpayers expect when publically-funded funded MIT research is handed to private multinational companies?
"One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty," is what MLK said from a Birmingham jail. It's a sentiment I wish would enter the conversation more often when we talk about how to do civil disobedience the right way.
"He's using a quantum encryption scheme! That'll take hours to break!"
Yup. Basically you have a child who was socialized to believe that as long as he felt he was right, his actions are justified and would not carry consequences. Even if he is morally right with his belief that this information SHOULD be free (not saying he is), he either has to comply with the laws or be willing to suffer the consequences to sand up for his beliefs.
Aaron is not a hero. Faced with adversity, he took the coward's way out.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
JSTOR would not exist were it not for tax-funded public research. Neither would many of the other for-profit journals. Public (FBI...) resources are already used to defend the intellectual property of large private corporations. Should MIT also play the role of a tax-funded security force for private corporations? If so, does MIT also spend equivalent resources to protect the intellectual property of students and staff? How does MIT track public money used to support private ventures?
All access to computers is automated. I push a button or move a mouse it becomes that is interperted by the device interface which becomes a coded interaction moveing through layers of interface code to an application. The application then does something with the input given it. It is all automated. What happens depends on all the layers.
Browsers fetch all the data refered to on a "page" this can result in data fetches from 100's of places. I doubt any modern page is composed of data from a single fetch.
The "page" displayed by a browser is composed of data from many sources. Your browser does this automatically following a ruleset built into it. How is this structurally different from a automated fetcher which follows its own rule set and gets data from many sources? The difference is not the automation of multiple fetches, it is not the interaction with the human, the only different is the ruleset used to do the collecting of data.
My question is how do they describe how one automated rule set, say that used by a browser, is legal, while another ruleset, say that used by a sweeper is illegal? Both are fully automated fetch processes. They just have different rule-sets.
Why is it that you get to review yourself?
Shouldn't an external independent body be doing the reviewing (investigating)?
Isn't there a clear and obvious conflict of interest in you reviewing yourself?
McDonalds, Starbucks, the local GasNSip and Grandma all have their Wifi secured with a minimum of WPA/WPA2, often with some kind of MAC filtering, encrypted traffic and IP address management. Why did MIT, one of the most prestigious technology campuses in the world, lack even some of the simplest internet security models? Is MIT unable to find qualified technical staff as McDonalds and Starbucks have? Is it not likely that MIT's students could sue for damage to their computers caused by internal and external abuse of such a tin-can and string network infrastructure?
Have any government funding/grants been tied (spoken or implied) to MITs continued charges agains Aaron Swartz?
<> I'd say it takes more bravery than you imagine to commit suicide (especially when not in an emotional state -- and he chose the day, so it was more likely a conscious decision). You have to overcome all of your survival instincts to do it. So I would not call it the coward's way out. It is more like taking the suffering up front instead of deferring the suffering over a lifetime. A coward would simply go along with it and rot in jail and come out a bitter old man.
Hm. This seems to be modded insughtful. It's full of hyperbole.
Why should we feel sorry for a criminal who
Firstly he wasn't a criminal until ried in a court of law.
Secondly you say criminal like it's automatically a bad thing. Criminality is orthogonal from morality. They line up more than 50% of the time in a sane society, but there is nothing wrong with being a criminal. You've probably committed 5 felonies today unwittingly.
who chose to commit suicide rather than accept a a six month plea bargain for breaking and entering and accessing systems he shouldn't be accessing?
Plea bargaining is a fundementally broken system. So, basically, the prosecutor and police lie to load up as many false and inflated accusations as possible in order to bully someone into accepting something else. Basically, by accepting he would be tacitly admitting that the prosecutors were right. He chose to take the moral high ground, and you call *that* cowardly?
I mean our heroes are allowed to do whatever they want without consequence, right?
What's that even supposed to mean?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Six months in jail.
/sarc
Plus YEARS of probation.
Loss of the right to vote or carry a weapon.
Labeled as a felon for life.....
Yeah, it was just six months, what was his problem?
He committed no crime. He checked out too many library books. That should have stayed between him and the library (JSTOR) The library even asked the prosecutors to NOT pursue charges. So, yes, you are a troll. There was nothing insightful or intelligent about your rhetorical question. Here is a question for you.
Where were you when they were teaching concepts like compassion and fairness?
Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
If I ever end up in the same situation he was in, I hope I have the balls to kill myself.
How about this:
The "wiring closet" where Aaron's laptop was connected to the switch, was also used by a homeless man to store his property.
If MIT knowingly permitted the homeless man to use the closet, why would MIT or the DOJ prosecute/persecute Aaron for similarly storing his laptop there?
If Aaron reasonably concluded that the use of the wiring closet was NOT off-limits, how did this not factor into the decision(s) by all parties involved in indicting Aaron? Did MIT not participate in review of the prosecution, or were the MIT or DOJ representatives unaware of the (unlocked and occupied) closet factor?
If the closet was unlocked, and used by non-MIT individuals with MITs knowledge and permission, how does connecting a laptop to a switch IN THE SAME CLOSET rise to the level of "unauthorized"?
If I am somewhere that I am allowed to be, and there is a network port or network switch in front of me, it is reasonable to conclude that connecting a laptop to that port or switch is permitted.
Any "authorized" or "unauthorized" would, at that point, be strictly a logical, rather than physical, issue - exactly the same as accessing a server over wifi.
And, given that the wifi usage was open, and wired connections did not require authentication, again, how did that rise to "unauthorized"?
Whose decision was it, and how was that decision validated?
Did the person making that decision do so in a manner that exceeded his/her authority, or in a manner inconsistent with PUBLISHED policies?
A published policy may hold more legal weight, than the interpretation of an individual if the two are in any manner inconsistent.
Oh dear God, are you serious? Suicide is bravery? I will echo the AC's sentiment when I say that you and the mod who voted you up should seek professional help.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Question: If Swartz was the kind of character who would be likely to commit suicide if he got investigated for pushing the boundaries, then why was he pushing the boundaries? Why does Slashdot have this stream of stories implying that it was MIT's fault?
1) It was modded down to -1 at one point.
2) He stopped the trial by killing himself
3) The facts that are substantiated demonstrate quite clearly that the accusations are not made up. Even what Aaron proudly admitted to state that he is at least substantially guilty of what he was being accused of.
4) It meant exactly what it said - there is a group who thinks Aaron should have been allowed to do whatever the hell he wanted and it is the authorities who are the bad guys. And this group is quite vocal.
Wahhhhhh. He checked out too many books? He was breaking and entering a private library that he wasn't invited to.
If he believed in his case he should have fought it. Instead, he off'd himself and I am supposed to feel outrage at the system.
Internal hacks at MIT are a tradition. Good ones are celebrated. When an outsider physically entered a building and wiretapped a network to bypass a fire wall that was seen as an attack on property. In this case it got way overblown into a federal case. but there was still a crime here.
Oh dear God, are you serious? Suicide is bravery?
Clinging to a life with zero quality, no matter the cost is bravery?
Are you serious?
Protip: It isn't. Terror is not the prime motivator for bravery.
And before anyone starts with the, "selfish!" bullshit: Who's really selfish? The person who chooses the time, place and circumstances of their demise, or the whining bitches who are only concerned with how they themselves feel?
Oh christ, when I'm looking to kill myself, please don't come to my aid.
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
No, but sacrifice is.
If the term "bravery" gets your panties in a bunch, let's put it this way: it takes a lot more guts to kill yourself than it does to surrender to authority. If you have trouble accepting this, you're probably lacking in the imagination department.
I also found it odd how even Bill Gates calls cracking "hacking".
Riiiight, because this dude is suuuuuch a dangerous criminal. I mean he created "fake" credentials and plugged a laptop into a network jack so he could "hack" into a "protected computer" and download a whole bunch of bits and then "return" them. 6 Months definetly seems appropriate.
The DoJ should insist on prosecuting those teenage girls who drugged their parents to go on the internet too for Computer Fraud and Wire Fraud in addition to whatever charges are already in place... Because, you know, that routers are "protected computers" too by definition of the Computer Fraud And Abuse Act.
Also, prison sentences for every "Anonymous Coward" poster here! Unless you can prove that your name is Anonymous Coward, but I'd have a pretty hard time believing that.
Oh wait a sec...
Clinging to a life with zero quality? Aren't you being a bit dramatic about Aaron? Seriously? Or are you mistaking my argument for saying that suicide is NEVER good? If so, you need to learn about context.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Criminality is not the same thing as morality. I agree with you there.
But criminality is also not the same thing as court conviction. A person who commits crimes is a criminal even if he is never convicted or never caught. A court trial is just the best way we know to determine whether crimes have been committed.
"One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty," is what MLK said from a Birmingham jail. It's a sentiment I wish would enter the conversation more often when we talk about how to do civil disobedience the right way.
Some key differences: none of the laws that MLK broke are in existence today. In fact there are laws that try to undo the effects of those laws. Most of the laws that Swartz broke will continue to be in effect and probably should. Their maximum possible sentences might be discussed but I think a lot of the things he did were wrong and the ends did not fully justify the means. Completely unlike MLK's civil disobedience.
-For future reference: How many document downloads per minute are permitted before MIT refers it's own students to the DoJ for criminal prosecution.
-During MITs co-operation with the DoJ and/or other government departments, were you encouraged to pursue this case further than you had initially intended? If so, What were the reasons given to pursue this particular case so vigorously
-Did the mindset of "making an example" of Aaron come into play at any stage during MITs deliberations in this instance. If so, please carefully explain this thought process, and what was hoped to have been achieved by it.
And I'm sure his decision has absolutely nothing to do with Clinical Depression.
But hey, I guess it's pretty easy to pass judgement on people while sitting in a nice comfy chair behind a computer screen isn't it?
What steps has MIT taken to to ensure that the something like this will never happen again?
And, in case there is any confusion, I am not referring to steps to protect data, but instead to keep a student from being persecuted by federal authorities with the full support of the university.
While I perfectly know what Aaron has done for me (and I thank him for that!)... what have *you* done for me? Who are you, anyway?
Yup, it is. I wouldn't have said a word if folks weren't trying to turn him into a hero and if folks weren't crying about folks enforcing the law.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
I personally cannot survive without fresh air, natural surroundings and visiting mountains now and again. I feel a constant and increasing discomfort the longer I am away from that. If I was faced with 30 years away, then I'd be looking at 30 years of totally unbearable, 24-hours-a-day torture. There are more options for suicide before getting into the system ... The logic is undeniable. And if you've already made that decision, then you might as well make a statement with it and choose a symbolic day. That is how I personally can relate to Aaron's actions, although of course I have absolutely no idea what was actually going on in his head. (The other option of course is to compromise your morals and grovel and accept plea bargains and all the rest, but I don't think Aaron was up for that.)
And it takes more to fight. Killing yourself because the fight is hard and are sure you are going to loose is not an act of bravery. It is an act of spite or cowardice.
Civil disobedience often involves going to jail. If you cannot deal with the persecution involved with challenging authority, don't do it. Our actions have consequences. Some are just, some not. If you want to challenge injustice, you have to be willing to put yourself through it first.
I don't believe he was a hero. Not for this.
However, upon consideration, I don't think he was a coward either. What happened is that with his clinical depression he couldn't handle the stresses of civil disobedience (ie. jail time if caught). It was probably not a good idea to involve himself because of his condition, but I imagine he probably had little idea of exactly what sort of pain he would call down on himself.
It is sad that this happened, but he might have just as easily ended up committing suicide later anyway. Depression is a real condition, and cowardice really doesn't come into it, any more than PTSD is cowardice.
This should be a wake up call to those who believe that civil disobedience is some sort of get of of jail free card. It isn't. It is a statement and an exposition of the injustices of a situation. In that event, one must expect, at the very least, to have injustice visited upon them when fighting it.
He was originally faced with 6 months. The 30 years was not a realistic sentence.
If he couldn't handle being incarcerated, then perhaps he should have complied with the first request to stop accessing the network.
He is no hero. Sorry.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
How can you sleep at night, Pontius?
MLK was fortunate he lived in a country where and at a time when the rule of law was respected.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Would you be supporting the DoJ to prosecute students who unlock their phones without carrier consent starting tomorrow?
14 days prison sentence and a felony on their record for the plea bargain. Sounds about fair right?
>> Why should we feel sorry for a criminal who chose to commit suicide rather than accept a a six month plea bargain for breaking and entering and accessing systems he shouldn't be accessing?
>> Oh, and please mod me down. I am seriously trolling here, and it couldn't possibly be a legitimate question. I mean our heroes are allowed to do whatever they want without consequence, right?
Part of the reason he commited suicide is probably because... on this world, the likes of you.. exist. Sometimes it's really hard to deal with that fact.
If he's gonna be branded a coward, it's only because he couldn't or didn't want to it anymore. This what he did is seriously wrong, but not from your standard stupid moral ideas, it's because the society in which we all live provide environment in which people could become desperate enough to do suicides.
So you're the criminal, Mr. AC, and all the other people that shaped this reality to be ... this. What it is now.
Where people with good intentions, not selfish, with a vision passion and will, end up comitting suicide.
And eventually, history will remember people like you to be no more then traitors of life and justice. For now, enjoy your "5 minutes" and go f y' self.
+1.
The stress might be more than just the prospect of jail time. The stress of the trial(s) themselves, the constant pushing and pulling of the lawyers on either side, the continual judgmentalism of the press and blogosphere are added things that may have fed into the depression. It had all been playtime, easy success and adulation previously, and the stress of realizing that things were now serious may have been too much.
JSTOR suffered damages too and are not located in the same state as MIT. That's why it is a federal case.
He still was far more of a hero than you are (and than I am, for that). Have a problem with that?
Shut up. He is a hero and we should not only insist he not face consequences, but we should reward him. If Aaron had hacked my PC to get my financial records, I would have thanked him and sent him a nice key lime pie. You sir are a communist or a capitalist and shouldn't be trusted.
I hate it when people post funny and insightful shit like this as AC and I got mod points that I ain't gonna waste on AC
I like your post and think it is the best put synopsis of the situation, including my own.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
On another thread you told Americans to butt out of your politics. Yet you have no problem butting into ours. Quit being a hypocrite and stop posting on American political threads.
You are assuming that it really was suicide. Oh how the blind can freely walk among us believing that they can see...
My father blew his brains out, I think he took the cowards way out. Only non-victim in a suicide is the person who does it in my opinion...
It was your actions that lead trammeled his spirit and lead to his death.
Aaron knew what he was doing was a crime. That's why he bought a "ghost laptop" to use for his plan instead of his personal one. That's why he went to MIT and used their access to JSTOR instead of just using his regular access at Harvard. That's why he provided a false name when he registered on MITs wireless network instead of his own. That's why he covered his face with his bike helmet when he went to retrieve his laptop. That's why he ran when he saw the cops.
Every day, wife beaters are prosecuted despite the protests of their spouses. The vast majority of people don't want to live in a society where criminals can get off simply by making things even worse for the victims if prosecution continues. That is one of the reasons why prosecutors have immunity and the discretion to continue even if the victims back down.
It takes a significant lack of empathy to consider a man who chooses to kill himself a coward. The intense suffering, despair and fear that drives one to such an action should not be dismissed. Diminishing the gravity of all that into the gross understatement of 'adversity' demonstrates a significant inability to process other people's emotions, to put yourself in his shoes.
Why should we feel sorry for a criminal who chose to commit suicide rather than accept a a six month plea bargain for breaking and entering and accessing systems he shouldn't be accessing?
Your question has nothing to do with this discussion, as Aaron Swartz wasn't a criminal. A criminal is someone who's been convicted of a crime. He wasn't.
He was accused under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of "stealing" documents he had legal access to. Had this gone to court, I have no doubt that he would have been found not guilty.
Get your facts straight, turn in your geek card, and get off of slashdot, moron.
I have a "badge" for 2^9 +5 posts. A few more mod points won't help. But thanks for your appreciation!
Pretty sure those people saw him as a hero before he committed suicide. Commiting suicide only made him a martyr.
The whole spiel about the folks "doing their job" is utter BS. If these folks felt so strongly about the law, they should be prosecuting every person who unlocks a phone without carrier authorization and they most definetly should be going after those teenagers who drugged their parents for extended internet access. But going after those people wouldn't offer the same level of "prestige" as it would for going after someone as "dangerous" as Swartz.
Make sure everyone of these people get felonies on their record and 14 days prison sentence per charge because they all broke the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act under fair reading.
Really? You're going to compare this to physical abuse? Really desparate. No wonder you're hiding behind AC.
Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
Yea he was fortunate up until the time he got assassinated...
I think history pretty much invalidates you assertion.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
<<Faced with adversity, he took the coward's way out.>> A coward would simply go along with it and rot in jail and come out a bitter old man.
It seems to me Aaron is one of those very few who are very brilliant and has point of view not many of us are aware of. I've not followed this case in detail, it seems the prosecutor was out for blood and Aaron faced with onslaught of DOJ on a grand scale (can be extremely scary for a young person), and having nobody to go to for advice (who can you do refer to when you are the smartest person). Was he bipolar or on the edge? Many bipolars are phenomenally brilliant but can't cope in a world of idiots.
This Aaron Swartz case is an example of this "War on Piracy" jihad getting way too extreme. A recent article (NPR or PBS) about no high level bankers went to jail over financial debacle. Too big to prosecute so they go after small fry.
mfwright@batnet.com
Six months was a plea bargain offer, it was not what he was facing. You may brush that aside, but that's the whole nature of the complaint against the prosecution: they were trying to force him to take the six months without a trial by threatening him with so much more.
I think the more apt term is "alleged criminal" and playing semantics doesn't invalidate the OP's opinion. You are entitled to disagree.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Quite possibly. The immense uncertainty itself could have easily taken a greater toll in the short term than the actual long term prospect of 6 months or 12 months or 24 months in jail.
I'd be lieing if I said that question had not croseed my mind.
Why can't we go back to using jumpers to configure slot adapter cards? Why? I say!
Notice how you're calling him a criminal, when he hasn't been convicted of anything? Do you feel bad about that, or do you think this was a cut and dry case and he was clearly guilty of _______ (what was he charged with, anyway? breaking into the wiring closet, sure, but wire fraud? what the hell is that? how is downloading JSTOR articles wire fraud? please, enlighten me, since you seem to know he's guilty of that already.)
You make it sound like the easiest thing in the world, admitting guilt to a crime in exchange for not spending your life in jail.
Maybe someday you'll be past the grand jury, the prosecutor threatening you with 50 years for a crime you didn't commit, dangling a 1 year plea bargain in front of your greasy face.
And the people around you will say it's obvious, you should take the plea bargain.
And you'll say you're innocent, but they'll call you stupid for saying that, because if you keep saying that you'll go to trial with the mandatory minimums and the 50 years and the lawyer's costs, and FFS why don't you just admit to the crime you didn't commit and serve your 1 year of unjust prison?
Spend just a bit of time reading up on mandatory minimums and how they remove that small but important part of the criminal justice system:
the trial
and replace it with the simple test of (a) grand jury and (b) browbeating defendants.
Try
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21570742-how-mandatory-minimum-sentences-distort-plea-bargaining-thumb-scale
or
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-richman-cohen/medical-marijuana-montana_b_2095609.html
etc etc
You make it sound so neat and clean, giving up your right to a trial because you're being threatened with life in jail.
Internal MIT hacks are childish bullshit.
He faced 6 months if he accepted the plea bargain, effectively admitting that his moral position was wrong, admitting that he was nothing more than a common cracker and thief, accepting that the people in authority must always be respected even if they are obviously wrong and dangerously blind to reality. I can see why he might be unable to do that. That leaves the 30+-year alternative. Probably he didn't anticipate having that thrown at him. He was engaging in a form of protest. According to your logic, any street protester should be ready for 2 years of daily waterboarding from the FBI. The punishment was completely out of proportion to the offence. His suicide doesn't make him a hero. His actions while alive do to some extent, though.
I love how this is modded insightful when none of the sentences make sense.
He had a lawfully acquired account on the system he was downloading from. He had a lawfully acquired account on the network he was using. He didn't "break and enter" anything - at most, he may have violated rules on the amount of downloading permitted. Neither JSTOR (the company from which he was downloading) nor MIT (the university whose network he was using to do the downloading) asked for charges to be pressed - the prosecutor decided to do that on his own.
In point of fact, we don't know what theory the prosecutor intended to present to show that his access was "unauthorized", and therefore a crime under current US law, and we may never know, since the case will now never be presented.
I have argued before that this is only one kind of civil disobedience. The context of MLK's quote and actions is important: he is laying out a strategy and criticizing the actions of his opponents.
He's not kidding about anarchy. The torture and lynchings carried out by rabid segregationists were truly barbaric. The Civil Rights movement depended on the defense of law. While protesters fought local and state laws, they appealed to friendly rulings from the Supreme Court. Their aim was to draw in the federal government to affirm the existing legal rights of blacks. The quote you have chosen, and indeed the letter as a whole, is an effort to walk a delicate line, defending the right to civil disobedience while reaffirming respect for the laws that the movement depended on for success.
You can't simply take this quote out of context and treat it as a universal claim about all law-breaking. In the same letter he gives the example of the Boston Tea Party: but the people who participated in that event disguised themselves to avoid being caught. Then there's this:
The freedom fighters in Hungary in 1956 actually fought. People died. Nor do I think for a moment that MLK would say all resistance to Nazi laws must be open, loving and done with a willingness to accept the consequences. More relevant to Civil Rights, of course, was the previous history of slavery. No-one on the Underground Railroad broke the law openly. When escaping slaves got cold feet, Harriet Tubman would force them to continue at gunpoint lest they reveal the identities of others. Not only was such lawbreaking justified: I would suggest that inaction in the face of such great injustice was wrong.
The matter of civil disobedience cannot be resolved without considering context. Is the tactic effective? Is it likely to produce bad outcomes (e.g. anarchy)? Is the law just in its intent, its consequences, and its application? Is it politically legitimate? Are there better alternatives for opposing it? MLK chose what he believed was the most lawful way to achieve a just end. Looking at the state of copyright law and politics in the U.S. and internationally (Swartz's manifesto explicitly discusses access to knowledge and the developing world) and the outcomes (his actions were hardly likely to provoke anarchy), I think Swartz may have done likewise.
I have written more previously, which I won't repeat here.
Apparently he did break and enter a wiring closet to connect his laptop. Still, though, given the traditions at MIT of what sort of pranks and hacks happen, this seems like a huge overreaction... and the government's case against him seems to have centered around "unauthorized downloading", rather than the breaking and entering.
No, he wasn't breaking and entering a library he wasn't invited to. He had a legitimate account with JSTOR.
Trust someone named GovCheese to misinterpret a quote as "no-one should really complain about unjust imprisonment ever".
Why not save us all the tedium of reading your posts and do it now?
Other sources say that the closet was open and unlocked. Again this will never be proven true or false in a court of law.
Perhaps I didn't state my objection to the OPs comments accurately, then, because our differences are not just semantic.
I do not believe any crime occurred. I think he was falsely accused of committing crimes that he in fact did not commit. I believe his actions were entirely legal.
The question of "Why should we feel sorry for him?" is to me crystal clear: We should feel sorry for him because he was the victim of a grave injustice.
I tend to agree. It takes bravery to stare into the void and then decide to throw yourself into it, but that opinion seems to 'offend' these people (yeah whatever).
Let's be honest; 'Blah blah bullshit coward's way out blah blah Martin Luther King said Words blah blah total coward blah blah blah what a pansy he probably loved cocks up his bum as well...' is just a thinly veiled way of crowing over someone's suicide. So I'm confident that these posters dislike him because of his association with this or that, and just wish to crow over the fact he was driven to suicide.
He did nothing wrong. He put some info out that was already public. Nothing, absolutely nothing wrong. And keep in mind he didnt get to trial. We dont really know if he wouldve won or not.
The thing is, if my parents told me they would have to sell their house to help pay for my legal fees because a butthurt-cause-of-wikileaks Obama prosecutor sees Voldemort in any computer-literate person doing what is right without hurting anyone or actually breaking any reasonable law, I would probably consider suicide as well. Not my parents nor anyone deserve to pay for what I did, even if it was right which it fucking most certaintly was.
Anti hacking laws in the US are incredibly idiotic, written by technically illiterate people with clear unreasonable technophobia engraved in their neanthertal microcortex.
For example, you americans wont be able to unlock your phones bought from today onwards without breaking the law. How is that for FUCKING STUPID?
NO SIG
I once fingered my girlfriend in that closet. It's not locked. It's not very romantic either, but we were young and very, very drunk.
He did what he thought was right regardless of the depression, and that takes guts and determination. He presumably thought he could take whatever the authorities threw at him, and either underestimated it (the prosecutor was piling on disproportionate pressure, AFAIK), or his ability to resist. In any case, I have to admire him.
It's quite possible that he was headed into deeper depression when he killed himself. That can make suicide very tempting, and if he wasn't sure he'd be free to do so later I can easily imagine him taking the only sure preventative action.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
i have a good question.
could MIT publish a warning to the person who violates there "rules" at the second they know rules were broken?
could MIT tell the public that there was a BREACH in there systems so the public could defend itself from an unknown attack?
why MIT took the responsibility to all collateral damage from a "hack" that happened to MIT , which could damage all mit computers and users? why was it a secret? why MIT is not responsible to answer to the tax payer there situation of being under attack, like any company that is funded under wall street , to let everyone know that an attack is on the run, and the security team is handling it?
if the share holders don't know isn't it a violation of share holder trust and money? isn't MIT funding is the people? shouldn't the people know what happens in there institute? why tax payer money is "ok to handle by the right people" but wall-street company has to "out everything" or miss conduct?
the owners should know. if Aaron known the consequence of his actions he might stop, and prosue other means. letting know what the game is about is fair play, and blocking him to come in from another hole is just provocation for "we don't know , we don't care, we blocked it, we don't deal with it, no one knows about it or will, or care, you wont enter this domain" which is what a hacker needs to try again.
For me, the main thing I want MIT to do is to take a clear institutional position on the following points:
1. Do they believe that Aaron Swartz was indeed guilty of the felony counts he was charged with?
This question is important because it deals with the plea bargain. Swartz should only have taken the plea bargain if he was indeed guilty, legally. If not, the correct thing to do was stand trial and contest the case in court. The prosecutor, and her husband, tout the plea bargain as though that dispenses of the 35-50 year prison sentence, but if the charges were "trumped up" then it would be morally wrong to expect someone to accept a plea bargain to dispense with them.
In this case, "We don't know" is the same position as "No," because only if they believed he was definitely guilty, should he have taken the plea bargain. Plea bargains are only for guilty people, not innocent or possibly innocent ones.
I don't expect MIT to give a clear answer to this, but I can dream.
(This also doesn't determine whether Swartz should indeed have taken the plea bargain. That depends on whether he, himself, thought he was legally guilty or not, and we can't ask him about that. )
2. The next question goes beyond the legal dimension and to the moral dimension:
Does MIT, as an institution, believe that Swartz's crimes morally merited 35-50 years in a Federal Prison?
This has nothing to do with the letter of the law as written. MIT can take the position that these are good laws well applied and that if Swartz were found guilty a lengthy prison sentence was indeed appropriate. Or they can take the position that these were bad laws or that they were badly applied. In other words, they can take the position that he was morally in the right, but legally he was in trouble.
It also has nothing to do with what he would likely actually have gotten if he had been found guilty. Presumably the judge would have given a lighter sentence, but I believe the judge could have given him the entire 35-50 years. It was a possible outcome of a trial, therefore that's the baseline. The reason why I put "35-50" is because I've heard those numbers from different sources, some give a max of 35 and some give a max of 50. If MIT likes they can even say, "We believe Swartz deserved 35 years in prison but that 50 would be too much," as ridiculous as I consider that position to be.
Oh, and I encourage them to explain what punishment Swartz morally deserved for what he did, what kind of prison time, community service, fines or probation they think would be just. Obviously, they had the chance, before Swartz solved the problem with his belt, to take a position as the case was ongoing. I'd like them to take a clear and unambiguous position, now.
This is important. MIT is revered as having a "freewheeling" culture. This culture has enabled it to attract top talent from all over. People considering it as a school have the right to know it's moral position on the use of laws to prosecute "hacking" like what Aaron was doing.
Oh, I've quoted Aaron's family in my signature. MIT probably thinks that quote is unfair. Answering these questions would help to determine that.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
The MIT name has a lot of 'brand', in industry, in academia, and even with some Congress People. If MIT could help start a movement to amend the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to make it less draconian and Stalinistic, would it do it?
He is a hero precisely because most of us don't do that, and wouldn't do that. The knight who slays a dragon is a hero for doing what must be done for the good of all, when others do not or cannot.
But Aaron was not a very successful hero. Many of JSTOR's documents are still locked up despite his attempts. And JSTOR is only the tip of the iceberg. There is so much knowledge buried and hidden in universities. What is it buried for? Humanity needs it _now_.
We live in a world where copyright is misused to stifle progress, to control what people can learn, to segregate the rich and the poor through access to knowledge. And the trend is accelerating by technological means.
> Why should we feel sorry for a criminal who chose to commit suicide rather than accept a a six month plea bargain for breaking and entering and accessing systems he shouldn't be accessing? Oh, and please mod me down. I am seriously trolling here, and it couldn't possibly be a legitimate question. I mean our heroes are allowed to do whatever they want without consequence, right?
Please please please I hope you are jailed for mail fraud for misspelling your name somewhere, and get so badly buggered in prison you have to wear a daiper for the rest of your life. What goes around, comes around baby and it's clear in real life you're an asshole.
Please don't propagate this fairytale meme. MLK said a lot of good things, but this is ridiculous. If you're going to break an unjust law, always make sure that you cannot get caught. This is important, so I'll repeat it. Do not get caught. Unjust laws must be broken again, and again, and again. You cannot do that if you're in prison. Only those who aren't caught can break unjust laws again and again.
Imagine if Robin Hood, after his first robbery, had turned himself in to the Sheriff straight away? We wouldn't be reading about his exploits, that's for sure, and _nothing_ would have changed.
Those who criticize Aaron as illegal or wrong should realize that journal paywalls effectively exclude about 99% of the human race from much of the world's recent science, medicine, and academic scholarship. The authors and peer reviewers almost never get any part of this ill-acquired revenue that mainly feeds excessive corporate profits. Most of the creators want their work to be accessible to more people, but usually cannot make this happen.
And there is a good alternative available -- bundling publication with total research/scholarship cost. Less than one percent of most projects' cost including overhead could easily support free online publication available to everyone (including scholars in developing countries, and at non-rich universities everywhere).
Nothing better illustrates the misuse of intellectual property to impose an economy of scarcity on a newly available possibility of abundance.
There is much rubberiness in what exactly a "criminal" act. There are generally two types of breaches of law; civil (a private matter between two parties) and criminal ("an act so horrendous it is a crime against society"). Criminal acts used to be covered by Common Law overseen by judges who kept the whole thing 'just'. But governments took this over and now 'criminal' is whatever the government decides to write in statute as being criminal. Statutes always trump Common Law, which really ties the judges' hands. Enter lobbyists. They lobby to have anything that violates their client's business model declared criminal by statute.
Were Aaron's actions an act so horrendous what he did was a 'crime against society'? I think not. Just because some dorkenmeiner government official wrote it into a criminal statute so they could lock up people doing it doesn't mean it genuinely was 'an act against society'. The 'Terms of Service' violation under the Computer Fraud act is laughable. I would love to know how the hell that go in there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
Governments workers have incredible power over the citizenry, and they have rewritten laws to make them so ridiculously broad so they can get anyone for anything. You would be amazed what you can be imprisoned for. Here's an example where a guy was imprisoned for not properly supervising one of his employees. No one was hurt, but federal employees went after him. We're not talking about the FBI here, but federal agency employees love to flash their badges and throw their weight around. It's good to be the king. The poor sap probably can't believe that he ended up doing hard time. So those readers beating their chest about Aaron that he 'did the crime - do the time' really should know what they are signing up for: http://books.google.com/books?id=Tu5RB6YHf10C&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&ots=51Ya4U8XFt&dq=lynch+in+the+name+of+justice (Go to page 43 of this Google Books preview). http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/eo20120803gw.html
His girlfriend said he had spent all his money on lawyers too. Probably his families as well. Dale Carson says this is what they never show on TV Law shows: Just how much the charade costs. http://www.amazon.com/Arrest-Proof-Yourself-Ex-Cop-Reveals-Arrested/dp/1556526377
How about they bring back 'Law and Order' with a few twists to make it more honest?
1. They add a 'Final Act' to each show where the accused - innocent or not - goes out and files for bankruptcy.
2. They have a running dollar total in the corner of the screen.
3. They replace the McCoy crowd with aggressive, publicity-hungry prosecutors who pass up on big time criminals to pursue small fry: "No, not him. He's rich. We'd be tied up in court for years, but what about this guy? College student. Family not wealthy. We can bleed him dry and make him cop anything. Plea bargain the sucker to the slammer, and I get the corner office with a view. Threaten him with 35 years in jail, then offer him 6 months. His family will thank us!'
Faced with adversity, he took the coward's way out
With all due respect, you're a sick fuck, and represent everything that's wrong with America these days. Most of the rest of us are actually sick of sociopaths like you, and of the damage people like you do, and it won't be long until everyone rises up against the sociopaths.
My other UID is three digits.
Just a reminder, anyone who feels Carmen Ortiz overreached here, please consider signing this petition ("A prosecutor who does not understand proportionality and who regularly uses the threat of unjust and overreaching charges to extort plea bargains from defendants regardless of their guilt is a danger to the life and liberty of anyone who might cross her path").
My other UID is three digits.
Let's not blame MIT. MIT is a great place, unfortunately, even at great places are black sheep. And just like any other freaking institution MIT is run by PEOPLE or for that matter black sheep.
So, let's take a closer look at PEOPLE behind the matter who are running that place. First, we had President Hockfield, who was replaced by President Reif. So, it's unfair to blame either of the two presidents. Is it ? The one person who was in fact .orchestrating
and part of all this was Chancellor Eric Grimson.Now a little bit of background music: He and the current President Reif received tons of Media attention for their educational project, edX. With that Project, came fame and money($$$$). Where do u guys think that money came from ? A big guess.
It appeas that Grimson did not want to jeorpadize in any way wat might have affected his i) income stream ii) his reputation on not having been tough enough on that issue.
As a result, when he was given the choice to let things go with a slap in the face (aka Aaron's face), he denied to exercise this privilege and wanted to fully blow up the case. (Only later when he started he is ruining a kiddo completely and that people may think low of him, he tried to pull back, but that was too late.
Aaron father was given half truths by the Chancellor and the Legal Counsel. It is saddening to see that this poor guy had to swallow all of that.
Point here is not EVEN WAS SWARTZ GUILTY OR NOT.
WAT should concern us is why MIT and for that matter the Chancellor Eric Grimson made sure that he would not invoke his privilege to cease the investigation when almost all cards were laid out on the table.
Abelson's analysis will side step this crucial point that is not widely known outside of the trust tree. Abelson's analysis will distract with other half truths OR complete truths that are not relevant. HIS REPORT WILL MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE IN THE TOP LAYER OF MIT IS CLEAN. SO, MY QUESTION ... WHY DO WE EVEN CARE ABOUT HIS ANALYSIS WHEN WE ACTUALLY KNOW WAT IT WILL CONTAIN ?
In conclusion, MIT is not guilty, by that we mean MIT's culture, but the legal counsel including the chancellor ARE THE GUILTY ONES AND SHOULD BE PUNISHED FOR THEIR EGO's that led actions unfold the way they did.
Let's not blame MIT. MIT is a great place, unfortunately, even at great places are black sheep. And just like any other freaking institution MIT is run by PEOPLE or for that matter black sheep.
So, let's take a closer look at PEOPLE behind the matter who are running that place. First, we had President Hockfield, who was replaced by President Reif. So, it's unfair to blame either of the two presidents. Is it ? The one person who was in fact .orchestrating
and part of all this was Chancellor Eric Grimson.Now a little bit of background music: He and the current President Reif received tons of Media attention for their educational project, edX. With that Project, came fame and money($$$$). Where do u guys think that money came from ? A big guess.
It appeas that Grimson did not want to jeorpadize in any way wat might have affected his i) income stream ii) his reputation on not having been tough enough on that issue.
As a result, when he was given the choice to let things go with a slap in the face (aka Aaron's face), he denied to exercise this privilege and wanted to fully blow up the case. (Only later when he started he is ruining a kiddo completely and that people may think low of him, he tried to pull back, but that was too late.
Aaron father was given half truths by the Chancellor and the Legal Counsel. It is saddening to see that this poor guy had to swallow all of that.
Point here is not EVEN WAS SWARTZ GUILTY OR NOT.
WAT should concern us is why MIT and for that matter the Chancellor Eric Grimson made sure that he would not invoke his privilege to cease the investigation when almost all cards were laid out on the table.
Abelson's analysis will side step this crucial point that is not widely known outside of the trust tree. Abelson's analysis will distract with other half truths OR complete truths that are not relevant. HIS REPORT WILL MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE IN THE TOP LAYER OF MIT IS CLEAN. SO, MY QUESTION ... WHY DO WE EVEN CARE ABOUT HIS ANALYSIS WHEN WE ACTUALLY KNOW WAT IT WILL CONTAIN ?
In conclusion, MIT is not guilty, by that we mean MIT's culture, but the legal counsel including the chancellor ARE THE GUILTY ONES AND SHOULD BE PUNISHED FOR THEIR EGO's that led actions unfold the way they did.
see, that's the problem- popular misconception and legal mythology. 6 months is not actually a felony. The original statutory classification of the offense is just a general label, people get convicted of specific charges. emphasis on 'charges', like any other bill. 6 months is less than a year so this is a misdemeanor.
and no he would not lose the right to vote or carry weapons- this depends on the State i'm in, each has it's own rules. at 6 months a misdemeanor, that's not going to disqualify. and even the disqualified can usually find some exceptions, like long guns, or gain a waiver. and no the United States federal jurisdiction doesnt issue any rights to vote or keep arms, so that's moot. 'Interstate Commerce' is not a 51st State.
that's why i find it hard to believe he really killed himself, or any of this is about some gibberish scholarly articles no one would ever read. I "heard" he may have had much more on these people. Who kills himself by hanging?? unbelieveable. lokks more like 'suicided'... RIP Aaron.
According to your logic, any street protester should be ready for 2 years of daily waterboarding from the FBI.
CIA. I know I'm being a pedant, but I think blame should be placed on the right party.
Apparently I am anonymous coward. Anyways, In reality, even if he plead not guilty, i.e., refused the plea bargain, the government would only have argued for 7 years. anything involving the number 30 or higher is unrealistic and not believed by anyone with actual knowledge of the situation.
Perhaps you should learn what the big words mean before you use them.
From the details given by most of the articles detailing the events leading up to his arrest, I would have to disagree with your assertion.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...