RIP Aaron Swartz

[Jeff7]

...I'm afraid I don't recognize those two.

 

[Printer Bandit]

...I'm afraid I don't recognize those two.

hewlett and packard ?

 

[Rakewell]

He did something else to piss off the Fed, here. This is more than just a TOS breach.

The DL's are just a red herring. It's the same shit they tried to do to John Lennon.

 

[Number1]

The guy was a thief who made himself look good by giving away something that wasn't his.



The debate over the legacy of Aaron Swartz

"I would suggest that many in that [open access] movement are highly naive about how the world works and whether or not some of this information would actually be pulled together if there wasn't someone paying for it,"


"All of the charges were based on established case law. Indeed, once the decision to charge the case had been made, the charges brought here were pretty much what any good federal prosecutor would have charged."

 

[halik]

The guy was a thief who made himself look good by giving away something that wasn't his.



The debate over the legacy of Aaron Swartz

"I would suggest that many in that [open access] movement are highly naive about how the world works and whether or not some of this information would actually be pulled together if there wasn't someone paying for it,"


"All of the charges were based on established case law. Indeed, once the decision to charge the case had been made, the charges brought here were pretty much what any good federal prosecutor would have charged."

But reddit and wikileaks, because everything is free!

This is the kind of mentality why I can't stand reddit; just an echo chamber of IQ mean reversion and minimal critical thought.

And then you have people like unokitty that are intentionally disingenuous about the topic (JSTOR is totally taking other people's stuff w/o permission and charging for it!), because they see lying as a way to further their cause:

"You have to source the publications. It also means going out and licensing and tracking down the copyright holders for all these things, and getting them to agree to give you the rights to bring the stuff online and who you can make it accessible to and doing that in a way they find conducive with their own objectives."

 

[Nintendesert]

You all just don't have an adequately developed sense of entitlement to find the logic behind the "everything is free!" crowd.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Knowledge and information SHOULD be free. It's all the greedy corporations and the government that don't want people to have it. It's all about greed. People like Aaron simply fight greed and fight for our freedom. Legal or not, there is nothing wrong with what he did.

 

[tcsenter]

But reddit and wikileaks, because everything is free! This is the kind of mentality why I can't stand reddit; just an echo chamber of IQ mean reversion and minimal critical thought.

Same with the 60s, man. Boomers were the first en mass generation who got things like allowances, cars for graduation, fashionable brand name clothing and shit for basically doing nothing. Their parents worked 60 hours per week thinking it was to give their kids opportunities or things that would make them happier children, who then learned absolutely fucking nothing and thought that everything should be free (you know, like all the stuff was when they grew up).

It wasn't all baby boomers, a lot of boomers were still poor as fuck or grew-up in households with few luxuries, but there was a sizable socioeconomic shift within a big swath of the middle class, whose children had all this pocket money and free time to go chum around with friends, get high, listen to music, weren't expected to join the workforce until at least 23, and entertain all these lofty notions about how the world should work. i.e. I shouldn't have to work my whole life in order to have something like...well....every generation before me. I'm special and deserve to have it better.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Aaron did not “hack” the JSTOR website for all reasonable definitions of “hack”. Aaron wrote a handful of basic python scripts that first discovered the URLs of journal articles and then used curl to request them.

...

I cannot speak as to the criminal implications of accessing an unlocked closet on an open campus, one which was also used to store personal effects by a homeless man. I would note that trespassing charges were dropped against Aaron and were not part of the Federal case.

Don't these two statements seem a bit contradictory?

I have to think that a reasonable definition of "hack" has to include the illicit tapping of unauthorized equipment into a computer network for the purposes of downloading stored files.

I suppose you can argue that MIT shouldn't have made it so easy for Aaron to access their network equipment. But leaving the keys in your car's ignition doesn't absolve a person who steals it.

What also seems crystal clear is that Aaron was very intentionally engaging in a pattern of "civil disobedience" that he must have realized would inevetiably lead to his prosecution under the laws he was trying to change. He had to see this coming; he shouldn't have been surprised.

I'm very sorry he committed suicide. That said, it doesn't make sense to blame his suicide on the prosecutors who were part of a confrontation that Aaron intentionally triggered.

 

[Markbnj]

Same with the 60s, man. Boomers were the first en mass generation who got things like allowances, cars for graduation, fashionable brand name clothing and shit for basically doing nothing.

Kids have been getting allowances from their parents for much longer than that. Anyway, I think you're a generation early there. I was among the last of the boomers, born in the 15 years after WW2 ended, and the years from 1960 to 1980 were not a cakewalk of conspicuous consumption. They began in the shadow of the cold war, proceeded through the Cuban missile crisis, the assassination of John and Robert Kennedy, the counter-culture movement, Vietnam, anti-war protests, race riots in '67 in which dozens of people were killed in major cities across the U.S., Watergate, the oil embargo, hyper inflation, the Tehran Hostage crisis, and finally and perhaps most destructively, disco.

The "happy times" began, for whatever reason, with the 1980's and lasted until 2001, in my opinion, with not too much interruption. But by 1980 the youngest boomers were 20 or so.

 

[tcsenter]

Kids have been getting allowances from their parents for much longer than that. Anyway, I think you're a generation early there. I was among the last of the boomers, born in the 15 years after WW2 ended, and the years from 1960 to 1980 were not a cakewalk of conspicuous consumption.

The disco bit almost made me spew mah drink. I may actually be a half-generation too late. A sizable youth culture with a lot more freedom and not much connection to the toil of their parents (or society in general) sprang-up even earlier than 1960s, though I think they were sorta the exception and belonged to a decidedly affluent minority. e.g. the hot-rodding, cruising, concert going, partying, and rock-n-roll youth cultures of the 1950s. Where do teenagers in the 1950s get the money to support such a hobby like street racing and hot-rodding? I started working at 16 (part time) and could barely afford to keep my 10 year-old used car maintained, running, and insured, forget Hi-Po engines, racing fuel, tires, transmission mods, etc.

Some of the kids who had muscle cars and whatnot in my community were farm kids who did a lot of hard farm labor, so I get that a lot of young persons probably worked. But there seemed to be a relatively short period, over which a lot of young persons who worked were suddenly able (or permitted) to spend a large part of their income on themselves rather than having to contribute to their working-poor households. Somewhere between the 50s and 70s.

IDK, maybe its been incrementally trending all along, a few more percent of the population every so many years. I certainly am not excluding my generation from this or laying blame squarely on the boomers. It was definitely more prevalent in the 70s than 60s, in the 80s than 70s, so on and so forth.

 

[unokitty]

Don't these two statements seem a bit contradictory?

I have to think that a reasonable definition of "hack" has to include the illicit tapping of unauthorized equipment into a computer network for the purposes of downloading stored files.

I suppose you can argue that MIT shouldn't have made it so easy for Aaron to access their network equipment. But leaving the keys in your car's ignition doesn't absolve a person who steals it.

What also seems crystal clear is that Aaron was very intentionally engaging in a pattern of "civil disobedience" that he must have realized would inevetiably lead to his prosecution under the laws he was trying to change. He had to see this coming; he shouldn't have been surprised.

I'm very sorry he committed suicide. That said, it doesn't make sense to blame his suicide on the prosecutors who were part of a confrontation that Aaron intentionally triggered.

The issue is one of proportionality. No one is saying that Aaron wasn't a nuisance. He never denied that he walked onto an open campus, into an unlocked wiring closet, and plugged in a laptop and registered as a guest on the MIT network.

Lessig is pretty eloquent about the proportionality issue.

"But all this shows is that if the government proved its case, some punishment was appropriate. So what was that appropriate punishment? Was Aaron a terrorist? Or a cracker trying to profit from stolen goods? Or was this something completely different?

Early on, and to its great credit, JSTOR figured "appropriate" out: They declined to pursue their own action against Aaron, and they asked the government to drop its. MIT, to its great shame, was not as clear, and so the prosecutor had the excuse he needed to continue his war..."

-- From Prosecutor as Bully

Uno

 

[unokitty]

And then you have people like unokitty that are intentionally disingenuous about the topic (JSTOR is totally taking other people's stuff w/o permission and charging for it!), because they see lying as a way to further their cause:

Is English your native language? If so, you don't seem to grasp it very well.

Regarding JSTOR what I said was that I never gave them permission to sell access to any of my work. What that means is that I never gave them permission to sell access to my work. That was true when I said it. It is true now

What part of "I never gave them permission" don't you understand?

Perhaps, if your grasp of English was better, we could have discussed third party permissions which you obviously fail to understand is different that explicit permissions.

Then again, if your grasp of English was better, you wouldn't have to resort to transparently false accusations and pathetic name calling.

Uno

 

[Markbnj]

Regarding JSTOR what I said was that I never gave them permission to sell access to any of my work. What that means is that I never gave them permission to sell access to my work. That was true when I said it. It is true now

You said it, but it's not unfair to question your certainty. I have never written for academic journals, however I have published 20 or so pieces in software trade magazines, so I know what sorts of rights are typically acquired by the publisher, and which are retained by the author. I also know those arrangements vary quite a bit based on many factors, so I accept that you may be right. In the commercial world periodical publishers almost always get the right to republish the work in annuals and compendiums, at least.

 

[hans007]

i once got out of jury duty for telling the jury pool that i didn't think i could award emotional damages to a man because i didn't think awarding damages for it based on "he feels really sad, about X happening" made sense.

case was about some guy who got fired for not showing up to work for 3 weeks, then didn't bother getting a new job for 2+ years and then files the case 2 years later.

anyhow i feel about the same about this guy.

he knew what he was doing was maybe a little questionable. its obvious a company scanned all that stuff even if it was free, and you are paying for the scanning. you accept those risks if you are going to do them. if im driving 5mph over the speed limit and not hurting anyone, its possible they will give me a ticket.

then he kills himself when he gets caught.

he's not a martyr. if he's anything he's a product of our world where being an emotionally fragile person doesn't get you labeled a "pussy" anymore, but gets you called "depressed".


hell if you take paris hiltons money away she might be depressed. that doesnt make me sympathetic at all when kids in the world are living in cardboard houses in haiti and starving and those kids are "depressed". oh well, we lost a priviledged brilliant child who couldn't accept even the possibility of consequences for something he did. too bad, guess we cant seperate the brilliance from the weak psychological makeup.

 

[OlafSicky]

he knew what he was doing was maybe a little questionable. its obvious a company scanned all that stuff even if it was free, and you are paying for the scanning. you accept those risks if you are going to do them. if im driving 5mph over the speed limit and not hurting anyone, its possible they will give me a ticket.

then he kills himself when he gets caught.

he's not a martyr. if he's anything he's a product of our world where being an emotionally fragile person doesn't get you labeled a "pussy" anymore, but gets you called "depressed".


hell if you take paris hiltons money away she might be depressed. that doesnt make me sympathetic at all when kids in the world are living in cardboard houses in haiti and starving and those kids are "depressed". oh well, we lost a priviledged brilliant child who couldn't accept even the possibility of consequences for something he did. too bad, guess we cant seperate the brilliance from the weak psychological makeup.

So what you are saying Darwin at work? What he did was wrong nothing is free people making the database had costs even if the material was given to them. He was brilliant yet very foolish and naive perhaps he was raised by hippies. I think the real issue here is did he deserve 35 years in prison and 1 mil fine. In my opinion no that was too severe. What would have been a good punishment for his crimes? People are also calling him "kid" He was a 26 year old man who was a self made millionaire. If he grew up perhaps he could have contributed to society in a meaningful way other than throwing others work away because he felt it was the right thing to do.

 

[lxskllr]

I think the real issue here is did he deserve 35 years in prison and 1 mil fine. In my opinion no that was too severe.

Some other crimes for comparison...


Manslaughter: Federal law provides that someone who kills another human being “pon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion” faces a maximum of 10 years in prison if subject to federal jurisdiction. The lesser crime of involuntary manslaughter carries a maximum sentence of only six years.

Bank Robbery: A person who “by force and violence, or by intimidation” robs a bank faces a maximum prison sentence of 20 years. If the criminal “assaults any person, or puts in jeopardy the life of any person by the use of a dangerous weapon or device,” this sentence is upped to a maximum of 25 years.

Selling Child Pornography: The maximum prison sentence for a first-time offender who “knowingly sells or possesses with intent to sell” child pornography in interstate commerce is 20 years. Significantly, the only way to produce child porn is to sexually molest a child, which means that such a criminal is literally profiting off of child rape or sexual abuse.

Knowingly Spreading AIDS: A person who “after testing positive for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and receiving actual notice of that fact, knowingly donates or sells, or knowingly attempts to donate or sell, blood, semen, tissues, organs, or other bodily fluids for use by another, except as determined necessary for medical research or testing” faces a maximum of 10 years in prison.

Selling Slaves: Under federal law, a person who willfully sells another person “into any condition of involuntary servitude” faces a maximum prison sentence of 20 years, although the penalty can be much higher if the slaver’s actions involve kidnapping, sexual abuse or an attempt to kill.

Helping al-Qaeda Develop A Nuclear Weapon: A person who “willfully participates in or knowingly provides material support or resources . . . to a nuclear weapons program or other weapons of mass destruction program of a foreign terrorist power, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be imprisoned for not more than 20 years.”

Violence At International Airports: Someone who uses a weapon to “perform[] an act of violence against a person at an airport serving international civil aviation that causes or is likely to cause serious bodily injury” faces a maximum prison sentence of 20 years if their actions do not result in a death.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...-sold-child-porn-faced-less-time-prison.shtml

All this is aside from the fact that the only one who gave a shit was the government. They didn't have a dog in the fight, yet made it their business for some unknown reason; probably because they had their noses rubbed in shit from their first encounter with Aaron...

 

[Red Squirrel]

Yeah it's really sad when you compare other more serious crimes. The part he did that was wrong was entering that closet. Definitely should have been punished, but worse case scenario he should have been expelled. The law should not even have been involved unless he did it again. At very worse, it should have been like 1 year for trespassing or something like that. Entering a part of the building that is not meant for everyone. The rest was not even criminal, the same could have been achieved by someone very fast at clicking in a browser. So what if he wrong a script to do it, it still sent the same packets that would otherwise be sent. Hacking would be if he found a way to bypass some security to gain access to something that he was not suppose to. Even then, I don't think hacking should be more than a few years. Nobody's life is in danger, unless it was a hospital server that controls the robot arm that's actively doing a surgery, or something.

 

[lxskllr]

At very worse, it should have been like 1 year for trespassing or something like that.

A year?! 40 hours community service, and a stern tongue lashing would have been above and beyond. Anything else is ridiculous. MIT is built on "hacking". That's what they do, and they've made it into an art form. While Swartz wasn't a student there, he was carrying on an age old MIT tradition. This is government overreach, plain and simple.

 

[Red Squirrel]

A year?! 40 hours community service, and a stern tongue lashing would have been above and beyond. Anything else is ridiculous. MIT is built on "hacking". That's what they do, and they've made it into an art form. While Swartz wasn't a student there, he was carrying on an age old MIT tradition. This is government overreach, plain and simple.

I meant more at worse, and if he actually did something very malicious like put a packet sniffer to get people's passwords or something. But even then, now that I think about it, a year for any form of non damaging hacking is way too much. Their responsibility for not leaving a wiring closet door open.

When I worked at the hospital if we had left a wiring closet door open and some MHU inpatient went in and started ripping out all the wires or something, it would be our ass on the line, not the patient's. So really in this case it should have been IT's fault.

 

[unokitty]

You said it, but it's not unfair to question your certainty. I have never written for academic journals, however I have published 20 or so pieces in software trade magazines, so I know what sorts of rights are typically acquired by the publisher, and which are retained by the author. I also know those arrangements vary quite a bit based on many factors, so I accept that you may be right. In the commercial world periodical publishers almost always get the right to republish the work in annuals and compendiums, at least.

"Academic publishing is an odd system — the authors are not paid for their writing, nor are the peer reviewers (they’re just more unpaid academics), and in some fields even the journal editors are unpaid. Sometimes the authors must even pay the publishers. And yet scientific publications are some of the most outrageously expensive pieces of literature you can buy…. As far as I can tell, the money paid for access today serves little significant purpose except to perpetuate dead business models."

-- From So when does academic publishing get disrupted?


Uno

 

[PowerEngineer]

The issue is one of proportionality. No one is saying that Aaron wasn't a nuisance. He never denied that he walked onto an open campus, into an unlocked wiring closet, and plugged in a laptop and registered as a guest on the MIT network.

You make a fair point, however there's a big difference with being threatened with the maximum penalities possible under the law and with actually getting them.

Forgive me for not providing links, but what I've read makes it clear that negotiations over a possible plea deal were ongoing and that the offer by the prosecuter included some (~ 6 months ) of jail time. While Aaron did and many others might believe that any jail time is too much, this does (at least for me) largely undercut the proportionality laments.

I also read that his defense attorney was confident Aaron would be acquitted when/if the case went to trial.

Again, Aaron had to anticipate what the government's reponse to his intentional flouting of these laws would be. He made a mistake by starting down this path if he wasn't prepared follow it to its end.

IMHO it is unfair for people to blame the government for Aaron's suicide. I shake my head when I read statements by his family that "he was killed by the government" and that his death was "the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...ernment_n_2482646.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

 

[Markbnj]

"Academic publishing is an odd system — the authors are not paid for their writing, nor are the peer reviewers (they’re just more unpaid academics), and in some fields even the journal editors are unpaid. Sometimes the authors must even pay the publishers. And yet scientific publications are some of the most outrageously expensive pieces of literature you can buy…. As far as I can tell, the money paid for access today serves little significant purpose except to perpetuate dead business models."

-- From So when does academic publishing get disrupted?
Uno

That's interesting, but not really surprising, and it doesn't address the question. I'm close to being in the odd position of defending university administrators, to my horror. I have no problem believing they'd rip off their staff as quickly as they rip off their students. Someone has to pay for the $500k and house that the 4th Assistant Special Secretary to the Assistant Dean of Student Life gets in his compensation package.

But, having said that, it all boils down to what was agreed to. If you're positive that nothing you signed gave the university the right to republish your work through jstor then I'll take you at your word.

 

[KeithTalent]

You make a fair point, however there's a big difference with being threatened with the maximum penalities possible under the law and with actually getting them.

Forgive me for not providing links, but what I've read makes it clear that negotiations over a possible plea deal were ongoing and that the offer by the prosecuter included some (~ 6 months ) of jail time. While Aaron did and many others might believe that any jail time is too much, this does (at least for me) largely undercut the proportionality laments.

I also read that his defense attorney was confident Aaron would be acquitted when/if the case went to trial.

Again, Aaron had to anticipate what the government's reponse to his intentional flouting of these laws would be. He made a mistake by starting down this path if he wasn't prepared follow it to its end.

IMHO it is unfair for people to blame the government for Aaron's suicide. I shake my head when I read statements by his family that "he was killed by the government" and that his death was "the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...ernment_n_2482646.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Completely agree with all of this. :thumbsup:

KT