Interesting. I can't see the upvotes but your comment didn't go gray on my downvote. I guess the YC/Airbnb/"laws don't apply on the Internet" fanboys are out in force just like I expected.
What do you mean "laws don't apply on the internet". Someone very clearly broke the law here and should be caught and punished accordingly. That's not the argument - it's that a lot of companies can and will play dirty if they have to. Don't you remember the facebook/google PR scandal from a few months ago?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
You think MA doesn't have computer crime statutes? The subtext to this thread seems to be "if they charged him locally they'd only be able to get him on trespassing". Uh, no.
There is a difference with charging him locally though (in my mind). The attorneys that would prosecute Aaron in MA were hired by a left government accountable to a fairly liberal population. Those prosecuting Schwartz federally were hired by a government that leans slightly to the right. I honestly think that makes a difference in the outcome of this particular case, given the nature of the crimes. Also when we consider Aaron's personal history, I think it's safe to say he has fairly influential friends in MA and possibly some enemies on the federal level.
All of this is pure conjecture and speculation of course. But I would be lying if I said I wouldn't be more comfortable about the situation if Aaron was being tried by the MA government.
I see what you're coming from but I don't really buy it. I think the difference between federal and state is strictness and deliberation, not right vs. left.
The state criminal justice systems are deluged by drug violence and domestic violence and are largely reactive (I write while missing the court date for my mugger's prosecution, due to a sick daughter).
The federal system is more deliberate (word chosen carefully) and somewhat less reactive. It has more discretion about what cases to chase down. It's probably more inclined to keep its teeth sunk into anything it starts too.
The same political environment that appointed this prosecutor also appointed the prosecutor that took down Scooter Libby.
Re: left vs. right and deliberation: that seems reasonable. Also sorry about the mugging. :( Still though, that doesn't address the advantage Aaron has in MA in terms of friends and enemies. And as far as public support is concerned, you can be sure that a good number of the people that support Aaron have ties to MA or Cambridge. When we talking about a couple thousand people, that goes a lot farther on the local level than on the federal level I think. A speech by a group of MIT and Harvard professors for example might make a difference in MA but surly doesn't have that big of an impact nationally. Perhaps I am seeing differences where there are none though. ^^
Again, the state would only have bothered to get involved if MIT had bothered to press charges, which apparently they didn't. And all the stuff you mentioned happened across state lines, so if the case for those things is to be made at all, it should be made in federal court.
Well, he probably wouldn't be charged with the state crime in most states, if MIT's claim that they aren't supporting the prosecution is accurate--- it's very rare for these kinds of state-law charges involving property (trespassing, breaking&entering, etc.) to get prosecuted if the victim isn't interested in pressing charges. Federal prosecutors seem to take a more freelance approach to charging.
Hm, sorry if I gave that impression. Anyway, I'm more curious about why the feds are continuing with the case after everyone involved seems to have dropped it. Should be an interesting case to watch.
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".
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.
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.
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.
Hmm, so Gmail showing you ads based on the email you're currently reading is unlawful? I think you have a weird (i.e., excessively narrow) definition of "target advertising to inviduals".
They are targeting you, yes. But "you" is loosely defined as someone who reads email newsletters about cat toys, not necessarily "John Smith, cat toy enthusiast".
No, imho it's not bias. For wild fish, the US enforces the quantity of fish that can be taken much more effectively, than, say China/Japan.
Second, the regulations/practices on the environmental impact of fish farms on the nearby sea are probably better in the US than elsewhere (many fish farms are in the backwaters of an ocean).
Do you really find it hard to believe that the USA has higher standards of environmental protection than other countries?
A fish doesn't care what country it was caught by. The US limits are surely set with the current population in mind... a population that is directly effected by what other countries are fishing. The more Japanese fish you eat, the less America fishes. It all evens out.
Give your taste buds a break. You would rather buy fruit shipped halfway across the world (i.e., fruit designed for survive storage rather than taste good) rather than visit the local farmer's market? WTF.
I make it a point to not buy fruit from Chile, because I am voting with my taste buds that I want good fruit not cheap fruit.
My favorite fruit is the peach, and I wait for summer and farmer's markets so that I can get some ripe fruit (ever noticed how the supermarket peaches are usually unripe and never really ripen? they seem to go directly from unripe to rotten).
Maybe you live in North Dakota or some such remote place and Chilean fruit is all you get.
Anyway, just an excuse for me to sing the praises of California peaches. :)
is there really much competition? chile is in the southern hemisphere, so the seasons don't match up. i would have thought that when american peaches are in season, chilean peaches will be terrible, and vice versa.
as for transportation - america is a big country. i am not sure "local" californian peaches on the east coast will suffer much less than chilean peaches - in both cases, significant transport is necessary.
Are you sure there's no "permananent storage"? Who has verified that?
Second thing: there have been numerous instances of TSA workers leering at the scanner screens as people (esp attractive women) walk through. There have definitely been instances of attractive women being "randomly" selected.
If you think petty bureaucrats should have the power to leer at a curve-revealing outline of you and your loved ones in private at their whim, I'm sorry but you're just too complaisant for a strong democracy.
On a related note, how do you feel about airport toilet/shower "security" cameras with a promise that the tapes are deleted every hour? You know, just to prevent people from smoking drugs there. Airport is a public place, so it should be ok to watch you at all times, right?
There have definitely been instances of attractive women being "randomly" selected.
I saw this two days ago at DCA. I always make a note of how much the new scanners are being used--the whole time I was in line waiting to have my ID and boarding pass checked, probably about 15 minutes, not a single person was sent through them. I actually thought, "Oh, good, they're not using them today." Then, an attractive woman who was right in front of me got sent through, and the TSA agent who selected her blatantly stared at her rear after she walked past him into the machine.
