6 ms·

Nice spin: he's been charged for "excessive downloading". Way to ignore the physical break-in to install a computer directly on a network switch. I, for one, h

Nice spin: he's been charged for "excessive downloading". Way to ignore the physical break-in to install a computer directly on a network switch. I, for one, hope that he gets a criminal record at the very least (plea deal). This really puts the crime in a different league. Unless I have my facts wrong, in which I'm willing to be corrected.

pstuart 15y ago
Way to ignore the notion of intent when evaluating a "crime".
- tptacek 15y ago
  Actually, from the material in the charging document, Swartz's actions do go a ways towards demonstrating intent. He's clearly aware that JSTOR and MIT don't want him doing what he's doing, and devises an escalating series of tactics to evade their countermeasures. "Intent" is largely expressed in words like "purposefulness".
  - pstuart 15y ago
    I disagree -- I was referring to the "ultimate" intent of openness and transparency. Shall we focus on the intent of the Woolworth's lunch counter sit-in as a purposefulness to deprive white people of their midday repast? Edit (appending as reply chain is too deep): Thomas, I see you that your focus is computer security, so I can understand how you are focusing on the breach of security and not the end goal. Perhaps I'm naive, but from the posting this thread is discussing it appears that his intentions clearly are honorable.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      The sit-in directly targeted an unjust law; the sit in was both the means and the end. Swartz is accused of breaking laws as a means to a different end (unless he planned on dumping the database to BitTorrent, in which case the whole thing was a grand act of civil disobedience; for his sake, I hope that's not what's going on.) In either case, I don't have to agree with the prosecution to point out one obvious way it could be structured.
sp332 15y ago
Well, a physical break-in would be a matter for the local police, maybe state. Federal prosecutors don't get involved with those cases unless it's the Pentagon or something. This is only at the federal level because the "unauthorized access" crossed state lines. (Aaron was at MIT when he was knocking over JSTOR servers, probably in NYC.) So the prosecutor is only going to worry about that part.
- tptacek 15y ago
  I don't get why I'm expected to care about whether local or federal employees take an interest in the event. The state criminal court system isn't warm and fuzzy either.
  - sp332 15y ago
    He said "way to ignore the physical break-in" and I'm pointing out that federal prosecutors (almost) always ignore physical break-ins. It's not a federal crime.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      I take your point, but I'd like to point out that it's a side track. It gives the impression that you don't want to talk about whether a crime happened, and instead focus on the purported injustice of federal involvement. Well, what's unjust about that? That the DoJ and federal court system is more severe than Massachusetts?
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        It is, at the very least, more expensive.
      - sciurus 15y ago
        It's not a side track to point out that he should be charged with one set of crimes by the state government, but that he is instead being charged with a different set of crimes (Wire Fraud, Computer Fraud, Unlawfully Obtaining Information from a Protected Computer, Recklessly Damaging a Protected Computer) by the federal government.
klbarry 15y ago
I don't think that this poster should have so many downvotes, as of 12:59 EST. Even if he is wrong, or you do not agree with him, he is adding to the discussion in a reasonable matter, inviting conversation and debate.
- gobongo 15y ago
  Don't you understand? You're not Google's customer, you're Google's product! Wait, wait, that isn't the right groupthink response for this situation.. Give me a second.... This is not a bubble this time, this is a real new new economy, the old rules (nor the old new rules) don't apply. Wait, that's not right either... nm, I'm not sure how to think about this one so I'm just going to downvote you.

pstuart 15y ago

Way to ignore the notion of intent when evaluating a "crime".

tptacek 15y ago
Actually, from the material in the charging document, Swartz's actions do go a ways towards demonstrating intent. He's clearly aware that JSTOR and MIT don't want him doing what he's doing, and devises an escalating series of tactics to evade their countermeasures. "Intent" is largely expressed in words like "purposefulness".
- pstuart 15y ago
  I disagree -- I was referring to the "ultimate" intent of openness and transparency. Shall we focus on the intent of the Woolworth's lunch counter sit-in as a purposefulness to deprive white people of their midday repast? Edit (appending as reply chain is too deep): Thomas, I see you that your focus is computer security, so I can understand how you are focusing on the breach of security and not the end goal. Perhaps I'm naive, but from the posting this thread is discussing it appears that his intentions clearly are honorable.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    The sit-in directly targeted an unjust law; the sit in was both the means and the end. Swartz is accused of breaking laws as a means to a different end (unless he planned on dumping the database to BitTorrent, in which case the whole thing was a grand act of civil disobedience; for his sake, I hope that's not what's going on.) In either case, I don't have to agree with the prosecution to point out one obvious way it could be structured.

sp332 15y ago

Well, a physical break-in would be a matter for the local police, maybe state. Federal prosecutors don't get involved with those cases unless it's the Pentagon or something. This is only at the federal level because the "unauthorized access" crossed state lines. (Aaron was at MIT when he was knocking over JSTOR servers, probably in NYC.) So the prosecutor is only going to worry about that part.

tptacek 15y ago
I don't get why I'm expected to care about whether local or federal employees take an interest in the event. The state criminal court system isn't warm and fuzzy either.
- sp332 15y ago
  He said "way to ignore the physical break-in" and I'm pointing out that federal prosecutors (almost) always ignore physical break-ins. It's not a federal crime.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    I take your point, but I'd like to point out that it's a side track. It gives the impression that you don't want to talk about whether a crime happened, and instead focus on the purported injustice of federal involvement. Well, what's unjust about that? That the DoJ and federal court system is more severe than Massachusetts?
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      It is, at the very least, more expensive.
    - sciurus 15y ago
      It's not a side track to point out that he should be charged with one set of crimes by the state government, but that he is instead being charged with a different set of crimes (Wire Fraud, Computer Fraud, Unlawfully Obtaining Information from a Protected Computer, Recklessly Damaging a Protected Computer) by the federal government.

klbarry 15y ago

I don't think that this poster should have so many downvotes, as of 12:59 EST. Even if he is wrong, or you do not agree with him, he is adding to the discussion in a reasonable matter, inviting conversation and debate.

gobongo 15y ago
Don't you understand? You're not Google's customer, you're Google's product! Wait, wait, that isn't the right groupthink response for this situation.. Give me a second.... This is not a bubble this time, this is a real new new economy, the old rules (nor the old new rules) don't apply. Wait, that's not right either... nm, I'm not sure how to think about this one so I'm just going to downvote you.