You are either trolling or you are a complete and utter bitter imbecile who really needs to get laid to get rid of some of that teenage angst that seems to have progressed into middle-aged insanity.
I will not grace you with a constructive reply.
PS. Please see a psychiatrist. You are not well in the head.
Up to 30 years in prison - scary yes - but I don't see a minimum sentencing guide line. So we don’t know what kind of deal if any they had in the works.
Yes I’m sure that in the unlikely event that he could have plead down to a few months in jail followed by several years of probation, the probation would have strictly limited if not outright prohibited the use of a computer and access to the internet.
Personally, I firmly believe that he should have gotten at least 3 months in jail but no more than a year with a year of probation that prohibited access to a computer.
I don’t care if he was creating internet changing technologies at 14 or at 7 – it is irrelevant to the case. Nor does it matter that he was pulling from JSTOR (beyond the fact that it was a secure and not publicly accessible system).
Once again, the facts in the case are that he repeatedly circumvented security to gain unauthorized access to a system causing thousands of dollars in damages to MIT and JSTOR as they had to repeatedly kick him off and restore system integrity. I do not see a single reason for why his charges should have been dropped outright or why he should NOT be on probation. Because he’s brilliant?
Regardless of the nobility of his goals, his actions were criminal even given a conservative reading of the current law.
We can argue about the laws involved if you like, but I fear that you will find it pretty tough to make a computer security law that holds any water and yet lets you plug in unauthorized laptops in network closets legally.
Also where in the world do you see that I prefer that he die rather than get off?
If the charges were dropped, I wouldn't give a rats ass. Hell had Aaron Swartz waited it out and see where the case goes before taking the quick way out, the charges may very well have been dropped or at the very least reduced in a plea barain.
I am sorry that he killed himself, I am even more sorry that he chose to comit acts that should have been obviously criminal to him.
This says a lot about you as a person. You would prefer that this man die than he get off without spending half his life in prison. I am an atheist myself. Always have been. But the message about compassion and kindness and forgiveness, enforced by cultural norms and a belief in eternal damnation, is as needed in the world now as it ever was. And it's due to people like you who would rather see this guy dead than him getting away with downloading some files. People like you make me almost physically ill.
I wish he had not commited the criminal acts because THAT is the root of the problem.
If he had not killed himself, he would still at best end up with a criminal history - which for an "Ethics Fellow" at Harward would have been devastating. He'd also end up with a probation of several years that probably limited if not outright prohibited computer use.
So yes - I do wish that he never escalated his actions beyond the wifi connection. Fact is that if he had not made the choice to physically enter MIT facilities and plug in a laptop this case would NOT exist. The authorities were NOT invovled until he hooked into the network closet.
You can say that I make you sick, that I am blood thirsty and what not - I really don't care. Educate yourself on the case and the charges ( http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/ ) or just keep ranting and raving. The fact is that the case and charges against Aaron Swartz were sound.
I am unsure what caused an otherwise smart individual to take the path he took. I wish he had not. Still the blame lies with Aaron Swartz alone - both for the unauthorized access and the suicide.
You're nuts.
If someone plugged in an unauthorized machine into a switch inside a secured network closet with the intent to gain access to content that they had been blocked from - I would want them prosecuted AND to serve jail time AND to have a felony on their record. No matter how you twist it, no matter what the goal, it was a criminal security breach at that point.
There is just no way around the fact that he was actively and knowingly trying to circumvent security and would NOT stop trying well past the point of reason.
MIT nor JSTOR did not care when it was wifi, they blocked him and blocked him over an over all without involving authorities. When he broke into their closet and hardwired in a laptop - authorities got involved.
I fully agree that the "maximum" 30 year sentence would have been outrageous had it been the sentence that was given. For all I know, he may have been given a very lenient peal bargain had he waited.
30 years in prision at 26 is hardly a terminal illness and nobody expected him to get or serve the full term.
The keyword in the charges has always been UP TO.
> The case is about someone gaining unauthorized access to the system - repeateldy, tresspassing and wire fraud.
"wire fraud" is a bullshit crime used by the corrupt to intimidate the innocent. It's the perfect example of the problem here. It's a manifestation of the fascist approach to enforcing the law here.
It's nonsense to "trump up" charges with.
THIS is why we don't want cops on campus. I fear cops much more than I fear a psycho with a gun. Cops are much more likely to destroy your life over some trivial shit and it won't ever make the evening news.
So you don't think breaking into a network closet and hooking up a hidden unauthorized laptop to a switch is a criminal act?
Seriously, read the posts when he was first indicted - most people agreed that he WAS commiting criminal acts.
He kills himself - and suddenly the public is upset about trumped up charges on an innocent kid.
Just because he killed himself does not mean that he was innocent of what he was charged with.
Here, let me quote what you responded to back for you: "Yes, Swartz did things that would justify some degree of punishment. Spending the best half of his life in a cage (which IMO made suicide an entirely rational decision in this case)? Not so much."
So, I would ask you bluntly - Do you believe what he did justifies spending 30 years in a cage?
No - and I'd be really REALLY surprised if he didn't end up with a plea deal for less than 4 years and end up getting out on probation in 2 or less.
Had he been found guilty and sentenced to 30+ years - he could have easily killed himself at that point. As a non violent offended he would proably have been given several weeks if not several months before reporting to prison to serve his time.
Aaron Swart did not make a rational decision by killing himself nor did he make a rational decision messign with MIT and JSTOR.
Also - seriously - stop trying to play suicide as rational in cases other than terminal illness. It's seriously offensive and fucked up.
Seriously?
Please don't try to split hairs.
It WAS unauthroized access - as he was certainly NOT authorized to download gigs from JSTOR. Furthermore - it was unathorized because JSTOR and MIT both kept trying to block him over and over and he kept circumventing their blocks. If you have to constantly change IPs and mac addresses and finally end up breaking and entering to get physical acceess - you don't get much more unauthroized than that.
He entered the MIT wiring closet, and plugged in a laptop - where once again he was unauthorized to plug in. The time MIT and JSTOR both had to spend trying to kick him off their network was probably totaled hundreds of hours. I'd hate to have been their admin.
He was commiting what he MUST have known was a criminal act. What did he expect?
Stuffing a laptop into a wiring closet that isnt yours is a serious CRIME.
A crime. Yes. B&E, arguably (if the average passer-by would have reason to believe they shouldn't peek inside). But a "serious" crime? Not talking about breaking into the Pentagon here; not even someone's home where we'd have a reasonable expectation that no one but the owners would casually stroll within a few feet of that spot; but a (literal) closet in the basement of the same building MIT that students occasionally turn into a giant game of Tetris as a prank. So your assertion of seriousness would depend on what he did with that laptop.
What he did with the laptop was gain access to an unauthorized network and download data that he did not have legitimate access to.
Even if he didnt take any data, the act of placing the laptop in the closet should be a felony in itself.
Why? Does littering normally count as a felony?
I guess we just have radically different ideas of justice, when copyright violation as a form of civil disobedience merits a 30 year stay in Club Fed. Yes, Swartz did things that would justify some degree of punishment. Spending the best half of his life in a cage (which IMO made suicide an entirely rational decision in this case)? Not so much.
He obviously knew that he was tresspassing as he used his helmet to block his face from the camera as he entered the closet.
Just because he killed himself does not mean that he was innocent of what he was charged with.
He was repeateldy kicked off the wifi network, he broke into their network closet and hardwired in a laptop which he hid under a box. He used a bycicle helmet to obscure his face from the camera as he entered the closet.
There is a lot more to the case than some kid downloading a bunch of articles.
The case is about someone gaining unauthorized access to the system - repeateldy, tresspassing and wire fraud.
If I hop on to your wifi and start downloading your media collection, you kick me off, so I break into your house and hardwire a laptop in your basement - I doubt you'd complain about charges being pressed.
The suicide is unfortunate - but the case agaisnt Aaron Swartz IS sound and legitimate. He had full knowledge of what he was doing being a criminal act.
I am sure that had he been willing to put up a fight he could have easily secured a high caliber lawyer at little or no cost due to the high profile of the case. EFF and others may have been willing to help and if not - all he'd have to do is start a fund raiser.
The problem isn't that the charges are overblown, or that he ran into a career prosecutor - the problem is that the evidence is damning. He'd have a very tough time getting out of this without a felony conviction - which he actually does deserve because he DID knowingly, intentionally and repeateldy gain access to a system that he was not authorized to use in the manner he used it in.
I am sorry that he killed himself, I am even more sorry that he chose to comit acts that should have been obviously criminal to him. When you are breaking into a network closet while using a bycicle helmet to cover your face - it's kinda hard to blame anyone but yourself.
Unfortunately, a plea bargain would have required Swartz admitting that he did broke the law, and it looks like he was not the type of person who would do that.
He tried to use a wifi connection to download the articles. He was kicked off wifi - over and over and over. So instead he broke into a network closet, and hid a hardwired laptop in to continue downloading the articles.
The university installed a camera - which he was aware of and used a bicycle helmet to block his face from the camera.
I am as unhappy with the outcome as anyone here - but come on - to even imply that he is not guilty of knowlingly trying to gain unauthorized access REPEATEDLY is insane.
I have lived in Australia. Seriously - it's the most laid back country in the world as far as I can tell. I don't think they'd be shooting eachother if they all had gattling guns and free ammo.
I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.
