7 ms·

One hopes he is smart enough to have a solid legal argument for what he has done. If he loses the legal battle then it's going to set a bad precedent for all th

by kaerast 15y ago

One hopes he is smart enough to have a solid legal argument for what he has done. If he loses the legal battle then it's going to set a bad precedent for all these academic document stores to continue keeping hold of this information. On the other hand, if he were to win then it may make it harder for groups like JSTOR to continue restricting access to their data.

mark242 15y ago
A solid legal argument for switching your MAC address, hiding a laptop in a closet, and deliberately concealing your face to try to avoid recognition? He isn't going to win that defense.
- pnathan 15y ago
  Yeah, that one is going to be... problematic to explain away. sounds like he walked over the edge. Shame.
- kragen 15y ago
  Hypothetically: wiring closets are normal places for computers engaged in always-on network services. Putting a box over a laptop can keep it from getting stolen. Your bike helmet can end up in front of your face for a while while you're taking it off or putting it on. Switching your MAC address is reasonable if there's a MAC address conflict, or if you've gone and apologized to the network infrastructure guys for causing problems and they accepted your apology but didn't have the password for the DHCP server handy. Try to remember you're seeing the picture painted entirely by the prosecution, without even the evidence that the grand jury saw to support it.
  - mark242 15y ago
    "...or if you've gone and apologized to the network infrastructure guys for causing problems..." Read the indictment. He started on Sep 25th. He was blocked by IP on Sep 25. He switched his IP on Sep 26. The entire netblock was then blocked by admins. To try to turn the service back on for normal users, admins tried to block his MAC address on Sep 27, which worked until he changed it on Oct 2, and then added a second machine on Oct 8. Your "hypothetical" defense doesn't even come close to flying. This isn't a little misunderstanding; this is network admins blocking access, and being circumvented, multiple times.
    - kragen 15y ago
      Thanks, but I know what the indictment alleges. But the facts of the indictment may be false, and there may be many other highly relevant facts that are omitted.

by kaerast 15y ago

mark242 15y ago

A solid legal argument for switching your MAC address, hiding a laptop in a closet, and deliberately concealing your face to try to avoid recognition? He isn't going to win that defense.

pnathan 15y ago
Yeah, that one is going to be... problematic to explain away. sounds like he walked over the edge. Shame.
kragen 15y ago
Hypothetically: wiring closets are normal places for computers engaged in always-on network services. Putting a box over a laptop can keep it from getting stolen. Your bike helmet can end up in front of your face for a while while you're taking it off or putting it on. Switching your MAC address is reasonable if there's a MAC address conflict, or if you've gone and apologized to the network infrastructure guys for causing problems and they accepted your apology but didn't have the password for the DHCP server handy. Try to remember you're seeing the picture painted entirely by the prosecution, without even the evidence that the grand jury saw to support it.
- mark242 15y ago
  "...or if you've gone and apologized to the network infrastructure guys for causing problems..." Read the indictment. He started on Sep 25th. He was blocked by IP on Sep 25. He switched his IP on Sep 26. The entire netblock was then blocked by admins. To try to turn the service back on for normal users, admins tried to block his MAC address on Sep 27, which worked until he changed it on Oct 2, and then added a second machine on Oct 8. Your "hypothetical" defense doesn't even come close to flying. This isn't a little misunderstanding; this is network admins blocking access, and being circumvented, multiple times.
  - kragen 15y ago
    Thanks, but I know what the indictment alleges. But the facts of the indictment may be false, and there may be many other highly relevant facts that are omitted.