8 ms·

How is what Aaron did legally different from what Google does with Google Books and Scholar?

bpolania 14y ago
Not much. This is not about him doing something dangerous, this is about a government agency trying to set an example clearly pressured by businesses. In Aaron´s case it wasn't even the affected part putting the pressure, but a whole industry that feels threatened by what 'hackers' can do with easy-to-access information. They don't feel threatened by google because if it infringes a law they know they can sue and settle for several millions, but they know they can't stop hackers sitting in a computer in their homes or a public library, so they need to scare them away with preemptive strikes. It Aaron's dead results in a change of this policies, not only lives but innovation will be saved and at least his dead won't been in vain. Hopefully.
- rayiner 14y ago
  "Hackers" who access information they're not permitted to just because they can, against the law, are not to be lionized. They're nothing more than thugs and bullies, who think that their special talents give them the right to violate the rights of other people. The only difference is that their special talent is computer skills instead of physical strength. I think if anything it's a disservice to Aaron's cause to mix him up with hackers who access information just "because they can" not to make some more meaningful point.
- pyre 14y ago
  | this is about a government agency trying to set | an example clearly pressured by businesses. Which businesses? JSTOR recommended that the DoJ drop all charges. MIT possibly was pushing for the charges, but I wouldn't call that 'pressured by businesses.' More likely that Aaron was: 1) a feather in the prosecutor's cap 2) a way to show the public that she is/was 'tough on crime', and/or 3) another attempt to stretch the Federal statutes on 'hacking' (setting precedent).
  - rayiner 14y ago
    The rumor and innuendo I've seen so far suggests that MIT was more than "possibly pushing for charges."
    - pyre 14y ago
      Though some might see higher learning as a business these days, I still don't view universities in the same light as corporations, so no matter the level of pressure from MIT, I still wouldn't class it as, "pressure from businesses."
      - rayiner 14y ago
        MIT isn't just a business, it's a quasi-corporate entity that is a key piece of the military industrial complex. It's a piece of the establishment that's open right up to the point where it's not. There is nothing wrong with that, and it's a true treasure to the U.S., but there is no need to pretend it is anything other than what it is. People are demonizing JSTOR and making excuses for MIT in this situation, but their perception of who is the big faceless establishment entity here is wholly mistaken.
  - bpolania 14y ago
    I think I wasn't clear enough on this point. I wasn't implying that Aaron's case was directly pressured by businesses, actually I said in my post that in his case the affected parts, i.e. MIT, JSTOR, et al, decided to not push anymore. When I talked about "businesses" I was referring to the constant pressure they apply for regulators to punish these kind of practices, as the case of Andrew Auernheimer shows, he was also prosecuted for access publicly available information perhaps with the same severity they did with Aaron. Both cases demonstrate a common practice that initiated by the necessity of businesses of cover their backs against these "intrusions", and in both cases also the prosecutors went out of their ways to set an example.
mpyne 14y ago
Have you ever used Google Scholar? When I did, even if it indexed paywalled articles it didn't offer direct links to it (would have made my job easier at the time, trust me). It's hard to hold Google up as a paragon of "doing the right thing" IP infringment when they'll auto-remove videos from YouTube based just on their similarity to other videos that have been flagged inappropriately for copyright violation.
- dublinben 14y ago
  Google Scholar currently offers direct links to articles, free or otherwise. Many are posted on public sites, whereas others require institutional access.
gnaritas 14y ago
> How is what Aaron did legally different from what Google does with Google Books and Scholar? One's an easy target to be made an example of, one isn't.
rayiner 14y ago
First, Google didn't sneak into a closet at MIT and surreptitiously plug into their physical network. Second, Google has formerly coordinated with JSTOR to index its content. Third, Google doesn't bypass the paywall--it just links to freely available copies if they are available outside JSTOR. So aside from the fact that it's completely different, you're right, it's exactly the same.
- betterunix 14y ago
  Aaron had every right to access JSTOR and did not bypass any paywall (I have the same access). He also had every right to access MIT's network, just like any other member of the general public does. The one thing you mentioned that might have been a crime was to enter a closet without permission, but he was not even prosecuted for that one.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - pyre 14y ago
    1. He used the network closet because they booted him off of the wireless network. 2. He changed his MAC address because they blocked his old one. I don't think that this alone should be enough for a conviction though. For instance, he wasn't privy to the reason that his network connection wasn't working anymore (so far as the MAC address was concerned). The prosecutors wanted to argue that changing the MAC address was a purposeful attempt to thwart restrictions, but from the outside he couldn't have known why the old MAC was no longer working. 3. Instead of using Harvard's network and signing up with his own name, he used MIT's network (which is open to the public) and signed up for access with a fake name. The prosecutors would have argued that this was his way of hiding his identity because he knew what he was doing was wrong. 4. The US Department of Justice has had a hard-on to expand the hacking statutes to cover "any crime with a computer." See the case about the MySpace/Facebook mother that drove her daughter's classmate to suicide. They tried to go after her for 'hacking' into the website because she signed up with a fake name which is against the Terms of Service (i.e. "unauthorized access" to the website).

Not much. This is not about him doing something dangerous, this is about a government agency trying to set an example clearly pressured by businesses. In Aaron´s case it wasn't even the affected part putting the pressure, but a whole industry that feels threatened by what 'hackers' can do with easy-to-access information. They don't feel threatened by google because if it infringes a law they know they can sue and settle for several millions, but they know they can't stop hackers sitting in a computer in their homes or a public library, so they need to scare them away with preemptive strikes. It Aaron's dead results in a change of this policies, not only lives but innovation will be saved and at least his dead won't been in vain. Hopefully.

rayiner 14y ago
"Hackers" who access information they're not permitted to just because they can, against the law, are not to be lionized. They're nothing more than thugs and bullies, who think that their special talents give them the right to violate the rights of other people. The only difference is that their special talent is computer skills instead of physical strength. I think if anything it's a disservice to Aaron's cause to mix him up with hackers who access information just "because they can" not to make some more meaningful point.
pyre 14y ago
| this is about a government agency trying to set | an example clearly pressured by businesses. Which businesses? JSTOR recommended that the DoJ drop all charges. MIT possibly was pushing for the charges, but I wouldn't call that 'pressured by businesses.' More likely that Aaron was: 1) a feather in the prosecutor's cap 2) a way to show the public that she is/was 'tough on crime', and/or 3) another attempt to stretch the Federal statutes on 'hacking' (setting precedent).
- rayiner 14y ago
  The rumor and innuendo I've seen so far suggests that MIT was more than "possibly pushing for charges."
  - pyre 14y ago
    Though some might see higher learning as a business these days, I still don't view universities in the same light as corporations, so no matter the level of pressure from MIT, I still wouldn't class it as, "pressure from businesses."
    - rayiner 14y ago
      MIT isn't just a business, it's a quasi-corporate entity that is a key piece of the military industrial complex. It's a piece of the establishment that's open right up to the point where it's not. There is nothing wrong with that, and it's a true treasure to the U.S., but there is no need to pretend it is anything other than what it is. People are demonizing JSTOR and making excuses for MIT in this situation, but their perception of who is the big faceless establishment entity here is wholly mistaken.
- bpolania 14y ago
  I think I wasn't clear enough on this point. I wasn't implying that Aaron's case was directly pressured by businesses, actually I said in my post that in his case the affected parts, i.e. MIT, JSTOR, et al, decided to not push anymore. When I talked about "businesses" I was referring to the constant pressure they apply for regulators to punish these kind of practices, as the case of Andrew Auernheimer shows, he was also prosecuted for access publicly available information perhaps with the same severity they did with Aaron. Both cases demonstrate a common practice that initiated by the necessity of businesses of cover their backs against these "intrusions", and in both cases also the prosecutors went out of their ways to set an example.

mpyne 14y ago

Have you ever used Google Scholar? When I did, even if it indexed paywalled articles it didn't offer direct links to it (would have made my job easier at the time, trust me). It's hard to hold Google up as a paragon of "doing the right thing" IP infringment when they'll auto-remove videos from YouTube based just on their similarity to other videos that have been flagged inappropriately for copyright violation.

dublinben 14y ago
Google Scholar currently offers direct links to articles, free or otherwise. Many are posted on public sites, whereas others require institutional access.

gnaritas 14y ago

> How is what Aaron did legally different from what Google does with Google Books and Scholar? One's an easy target to be made an example of, one isn't.

rayiner 14y ago

First, Google didn't sneak into a closet at MIT and surreptitiously plug into their physical network. Second, Google has formerly coordinated with JSTOR to index its content. Third, Google doesn't bypass the paywall--it just links to freely available copies if they are available outside JSTOR. So aside from the fact that it's completely different, you're right, it's exactly the same.

betterunix 14y ago
Aaron had every right to access JSTOR and did not bypass any paywall (I have the same access). He also had every right to access MIT's network, just like any other member of the general public does. The one thing you mentioned that might have been a crime was to enter a closet without permission, but he was not even prosecuted for that one.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- pyre 14y ago
  1. He used the network closet because they booted him off of the wireless network. 2. He changed his MAC address because they blocked his old one. I don't think that this alone should be enough for a conviction though. For instance, he wasn't privy to the reason that his network connection wasn't working anymore (so far as the MAC address was concerned). The prosecutors wanted to argue that changing the MAC address was a purposeful attempt to thwart restrictions, but from the outside he couldn't have known why the old MAC was no longer working. 3. Instead of using Harvard's network and signing up with his own name, he used MIT's network (which is open to the public) and signed up for access with a fake name. The prosecutors would have argued that this was his way of hiding his identity because he knew what he was doing was wrong. 4. The US Department of Justice has had a hard-on to expand the hacking statutes to cover "any crime with a computer." See the case about the MySpace/Facebook mother that drove her daughter's classmate to suicide. They tried to go after her for 'hacking' into the website because she signed up with a fake name which is against the Terms of Service (i.e. "unauthorized access" to the website).