Anonymous v. DOJ re: Aaron Swartz's death.

Post Reply New Topic

http://mashable.com/2013/01/26/anonymou ... lares-war/

Have they stumbled across something big or are they bluffing?

This will be prove to be an interesting week in the realm of the Internet.

UPDATE: Front page article: http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/an ... itics.html

What did the legal system do wrong in the case of the hacked who killed himself`?

_________________
Health is a state of physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity I am not a jigsaw, I am a free man !

Diagnosed under the DSM5 rules with autism spectrum disorder, under DSM4 psychologist said would have been AS (299.80) but I suspect that I am somewhere between 299.80 and 299.00 (Autism) under DSM4.

Yeah. He believed like many do that academic papers should be open to all.

that would be awesome.

Well my view of the case after looking at it is that while the offense regarding the academic papers is wrong, Aaron had done something wrong with the court paper database.

The problem is that while we might not agree with the eight cents per page rule or the paywall of the academic group JSTOR, I should not be free to take the law into my own hands and "liberate" material which in some ways is a form of stealing.

I have taken a look at the USSC web site and it is not the word of some monsters, I checked randomly and found a training film for lawyers, judges and others which explains how some existing jail terms for crack cocaine can be reduced. This is not the sort of thing which a bunch of "lock em up and thorw away the key" people would publish.

I see the actions of anonymous as being about "free speech", but surely it goes against the free speech of the people at the USSC. The problem with "right" is that they apply both to the people you like and those you do not like.

Why are anonymous going after the USSC rather than MIT / JSTOR, also if they do not like the law then those members of anonymous living in the USA get involved in the democratic system to try to change the law ?

_________________
Health is a state of physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity I am not a jigsaw, I am a free man !

Diagnosed under the DSM5 rules with autism spectrum disorder, under DSM4 psychologist said would have been AS (299.80) but I suspect that I am somewhere between 299.80 and 299.00 (Autism) under DSM4.

:/ I see no evidence of Mr. Swartz tampering with the court system.

USSC was just chosen as the avenue to deliver a message to the DOJ and the federal courts.

Anonymous was cited years ago as a potential giant killer, and they are going to play hardball with the DOJ.

There is no democracy in the US, what we have now is an oligarchy of the rich that run the US for their own profit, the people mean nothing to them.

I would say that Aaron did not temper with the legal system, he did not try to alter the outcome of any given case. But he did do something which is likely to be illegal under the "UK computer misuse" law. He installed some software on a computer which did not belong to him at the law library. This relates to the PACER case.

While some of us think that the eight cents per page charge is wrong, people should not take the law into their own hands. While the democratic system is not perfect, Churchhill said "it is the least bad system". I hold the view that rather than acts of vigilantism we should try the democratic process.

_________________
Health is a state of physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity I am not a jigsaw, I am a free man !

Diagnosed under the DSM5 rules with autism spectrum disorder, under DSM4 psychologist said would have been AS (299.80) but I suspect that I am somewhere between 299.80 and 299.00 (Autism) under DSM4.

The man committed theft. He stole property belonging to another. At this point, it matters not whether he intended to give it away, sell it to the highest bidder, or print it all out and use it to wallpaper his house - he had committed multiple felonies (each paper he stole counting as a separate felony).

The fact that what he stole had little market value has no bearing on this; nor does the fact that what he stole existed in cyberspace rather than meatspace. He stole what belonged to others. And those aggrandizing him for his theft (and blaming the DoJ because he was too cowardly to face up to the consequences of his actions) are not that far above those who hero-worshipped Bonnie and Clyde during their 1930s crime spree. (They can claim some moral superiority, as at least Mr Swartz never actually killed anyone...)

Murderers and rapists get less time - sometimes - because in the cases where this is true, they only ever committed the one felony. (The guy who shot up the theater in Colorado, for instance, is unlikely to ever see unfiltered sunlight again...)