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."
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.
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?
<> 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!
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.
MIT made a choice to have an open wifi network, for use by guests. It wasn't open due to incompetence or ineptitude.
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.
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
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.)
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
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
>> 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.
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...
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.
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.
<<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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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."