×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Have Questions For MIT's Aaron Swartz Review?

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the light-where-it-must-shine dept.

Crime 175

theodp writes "Explaining that it believes 'the most important questions are the ones that will come from the MIT community,' MIT announced that it won't be accepting questions from outsiders for its President-ordered 'review' of the events that preceded the suicide of Aaron Swartz. But if you feel the 25 questions asked thus far don't cover all the bases, how about posting additional ones in the comments where MIT'ers can see them and perhaps repost to the MIT site some that they feel deserve answers? Do it soon — MIT President Rafael Reif will be returning any day now from Davos, where he sat on a panel with Bill Gates, who coincidentally once found himself in hot water over unauthorized computer access. 'They weren't sure how mad they should be about it,' Gates explained in a 2010 interview, 'because we hadn't really caused any damage, but it wasn't a good thing. Computer hacking was literally just being invented at the time, and so fortunately we got off with a bit of a warning.'" Related: text has been published of public domain advocate Carl Malamud's remarks at Swartz's memorial. Quoting: "Aaron wasn't a lone wolf, he was part of an army, and I had the honor of serving with him for a decade. Aaron was part of an army of citizens that believes democracy only works when the citizenry are informed, when we know about our rights—and our obligations."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

175 comments

My Question (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42692017)

Why should we feel sorry for a criminal who chose to commit suicide rather than accept a a six month plea bargain for breaking and entering and accessing systems he shouldn't be accessing?

Oh, and please mod me down. I am seriously trolling here, and it couldn't possibly be a legitimate question. I mean our heroes are allowed to do whatever they want without consequence, right?

Re:My Question (5, Insightful)

GovCheese (1062648) | about a year ago | (#42692287)

"One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty," is what MLK said from a Birmingham jail. It's a sentiment I wish would enter the conversation more often when we talk about how to do civil disobedience the right way.

Re:My Question (3, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about a year ago | (#42692331)

Yup. Basically you have a child who was socialized to believe that as long as he felt he was right, his actions are justified and would not carry consequences. Even if he is morally right with his belief that this information SHOULD be free (not saying he is), he either has to comply with the laws or be willing to suffer the consequences to sand up for his beliefs.

Aaron is not a hero. Faced with adversity, he took the coward's way out.

Re:My Question / Suicide is not for cowards (3, Interesting)

Aguazul2 (2591049) | about a year ago | (#42692551)

<<Faced with adversity, he took the coward's way out.>> I'd say it takes more bravery than you imagine to commit suicide (especially when not in an emotional state -- and he chose the day, so it was more likely a conscious decision). You have to overcome all of your survival instincts to do it. So I would not call it the coward's way out. It is more like taking the suffering up front instead of deferring the suffering over a lifetime. A coward would simply go along with it and rot in jail and come out a bitter old man.

Re:My Question / Suicide is not for cowards (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42692649)

This is some seriously sick and twisted thinking.

Perhaps you should seek some help because you have obviously been trying to rationalize taking one's own life.

Re:My Question / Suicide is not for cowards (1)

Zeromous (668365) | about a year ago | (#42692907)

Oh christ, when I'm looking to kill myself, please don't come to my aid.

Re:My Question / Suicide is not for cowards (1, Flamebait)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about a year ago | (#42692797)

Oh dear God, are you serious? Suicide is bravery? I will echo the AC's sentiment when I say that you and the mod who voted you up should seek professional help.

Re:My Question / Suicide is not for cowards (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42692889)

Oh dear God, are you serious? Suicide is bravery?

Clinging to a life with zero quality, no matter the cost is bravery?

Are you serious?

Protip: It isn't. Terror is not the prime motivator for bravery.

And before anyone starts with the, "selfish!" bullshit: Who's really selfish? The person who chooses the time, place and circumstances of their demise, or the whining bitches who are only concerned with how they themselves feel?

Re:My Question / Suicide is not for cowards (3, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about a year ago | (#42693031)

Clinging to a life with zero quality? Aren't you being a bit dramatic about Aaron? Seriously? Or are you mistaking my argument for saying that suicide is NEVER good? If so, you need to learn about context.

Re:My Question / Suicide is not for cowards (5, Interesting)

Aguazul2 (2591049) | about a year ago | (#42693333)

I personally cannot survive without fresh air, natural surroundings and visiting mountains now and again. I feel a constant and increasing discomfort the longer I am away from that. If I was faced with 30 years away, then I'd be looking at 30 years of totally unbearable, 24-hours-a-day torture. There are more options for suicide before getting into the system ... The logic is undeniable. And if you've already made that decision, then you might as well make a statement with it and choose a symbolic day. That is how I personally can relate to Aaron's actions, although of course I have absolutely no idea what was actually going on in his head. (The other option of course is to compromise your morals and grovel and accept plea bargains and all the rest, but I don't think Aaron was up for that.)

Re:My Question / Suicide is not for cowards (3, Informative)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about a year ago | (#42693453)

He was originally faced with 6 months. The 30 years was not a realistic sentence.

If he couldn't handle being incarcerated, then perhaps he should have complied with the first request to stop accessing the network.

He is no hero. Sorry.

Re:My Question / Suicide is not for cowards (2)

guises (2423402) | about a year ago | (#42694791)

Six months was a plea bargain offer, it was not what he was facing. You may brush that aside, but that's the whole nature of the complaint against the prosecution: they were trying to force him to take the six months without a trial by threatening him with so much more.

Re:My Question / Suicide is not for cowards (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42692951)

No, but sacrifice is.

Re:My Question / Suicide is not for cowards (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42692953)

If the term "bravery" gets your panties in a bunch, let's put it this way: it takes a lot more guts to kill yourself than it does to surrender to authority. If you have trouble accepting this, you're probably lacking in the imagination department.

Re:My Question / Suicide is not for cowards (1)

mjr167 (2477430) | about a year ago | (#42693335)

And it takes more to fight. Killing yourself because the fight is hard and are sure you are going to loose is not an act of bravery. It is an act of spite or cowardice.

Civil disobedience often involves going to jail. If you cannot deal with the persecution involved with challenging authority, don't do it. Our actions have consequences. Some are just, some not. If you want to challenge injustice, you have to be willing to put yourself through it first.

Re:My Question / Suicide is not for cowards (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42694061)

As I said, some people just don't have the imagination. It takes a strong imagination to truly understand this. You are simply parroting what "civil society" has taught you: that people who take their own lives are as despicable as those who take others' lives. Try to forget about that for a second.

By definition, we are talking about the one act that takes more guts than any other act in the entire world. The reason it takes more guts is that we are human, and we are programmed to fight at all costs for the exact opposite (life). To overcome that instinct takes a force greater than (drum roll please) you can imagine.

I think your problem is that you relate the word "bravery" to "deserving of respect" (as "civil society" has taught you), and you feel insulted that somebody used such a sacred term to describe something you personally despise. Get over it.

Re:My Question / Suicide is not for cowards (2)

jfp51 (64421) | about a year ago | (#42694115)

My father blew his brains out, I think he took the cowards way out. Only non-victim in a suicide is the person who does it in my opinion...

Re:My Question / Suicide is not for cowards (2)

k6mfw (1182893) | about a year ago | (#42694779)

<<Faced with adversity, he took the coward's way out.>> A coward would simply go along with it and rot in jail and come out a bitter old man.

It seems to me Aaron is one of those very few who are very brilliant and has point of view not many of us are aware of. I've not followed this case in detail, it seems the prosecutor was out for blood and Aaron faced with onslaught of DOJ on a grand scale (can be extremely scary for a young person), and having nobody to go to for advice (who can you do refer to when you are the smartest person). Was he bipolar or on the edge? Many bipolars are phenomenally brilliant but can't cope in a world of idiots.

This Aaron Swartz case is an example of this "War on Piracy" jihad getting way too extreme. A recent article (NPR or PBS) about no high level bankers went to jail over financial debacle. Too big to prosecute so they go after small fry.

Re:My Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42692733)

If I ever end up in the same situation he was in, I hope I have the balls to kill myself.

Re:My Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42693069)

And I'm sure his decision has absolutely nothing to do with Clinical Depression.

But hey, I guess it's pretty easy to pass judgement on people while sitting in a nice comfy chair behind a computer screen isn't it?

Re:My Question (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about a year ago | (#42693209)

Yup, it is. I wouldn't have said a word if folks weren't trying to turn him into a hero and if folks weren't crying about folks enforcing the law.

Jealous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42693991)

He still was far more of a hero than you are (and than I am, for that). Have a problem with that?

Re:Jealous? (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about a year ago | (#42694053)

I am not sure that is true. You will never see my name in the news, but I have spent and continue to spend a significant part of my life investing in those that others would not. I don't care to be famous, but for those around me I want to make a positive impact.

Re:My Question (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42694621)

Pretty sure those people saw him as a hero before he committed suicide. Commiting suicide only made him a martyr.

The whole spiel about the folks "doing their job" is utter BS. If these folks felt so strongly about the law, they should be prosecuting every person who unlocks a phone without carrier authorization and they most definetly should be going after those teenagers who drugged their parents for extended internet access. But going after those people wouldn't offer the same level of "prestige" as it would for going after someone as "dangerous" as Swartz.

Make sure everyone of these people get felonies on their record and 14 days prison sentence per charge because they all broke the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act under fair reading.

Re:My Question (3, Insightful)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year ago | (#42693433)

I don't believe he was a hero. Not for this.

However, upon consideration, I don't think he was a coward either. What happened is that with his clinical depression he couldn't handle the stresses of civil disobedience (ie. jail time if caught). It was probably not a good idea to involve himself because of his condition, but I imagine he probably had little idea of exactly what sort of pain he would call down on himself.

It is sad that this happened, but he might have just as easily ended up committing suicide later anyway. Depression is a real condition, and cowardice really doesn't come into it, any more than PTSD is cowardice.

This should be a wake up call to those who believe that civil disobedience is some sort of get of of jail free card. It isn't. It is a statement and an exposition of the injustices of a situation. In that event, one must expect, at the very least, to have injustice visited upon them when fighting it.

Re:My Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42693803)

+1.

The stress might be more than just the prospect of jail time. The stress of the trial(s) themselves, the constant pushing and pulling of the lawyers on either side, the continual judgmentalism of the press and blogosphere are added things that may have fed into the depression. It had all been playtime, easy success and adulation previously, and the stress of realizing that things were now serious may have been too much.

Re:My Question (2)

Comrade Ogilvy (1719488) | about a year ago | (#42694849)

Quite possibly. The immense uncertainty itself could have easily taken a greater toll in the short term than the actual long term prospect of 6 months or 12 months or 24 months in jail.

Re:My Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42694097)

You are assuming that it really was suicide. Oh how the blind can freely walk among us believing that they can see...

Re:My Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42694233)

It takes a significant lack of empathy to consider a man who chooses to kill himself a coward. The intense suffering, despair and fear that drives one to such an action should not be dismissed. Diminishing the gravity of all that into the gross understatement of 'adversity' demonstrates a significant inability to process other people's emotions, to put yourself in his shoes.

Re:My Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42693061)

"One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty," is what MLK said from a Birmingham jail. It's a sentiment I wish would enter the conversation more often when we talk about how to do civil disobedience the right way.

Some key differences: none of the laws that MLK broke are in existence today. In fact there are laws that try to undo the effects of those laws. Most of the laws that Swartz broke will continue to be in effect and probably should. Their maximum possible sentences might be discussed but I think a lot of the things he did were wrong and the ends did not fully justify the means. Completely unlike MLK's civil disobedience.

Re:My Question (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#42693489)

MLK was fortunate he lived in a country where and at a time when the rule of law was respected.

Re:My Question (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about a year ago | (#42694775)

MLK was fortunate he lived in a country where and at a time when the rule of law was respected.

Yea he was fortunate up until the time he got assassinated...

I think history pretty much invalidates you assertion.

Re:My Question (3, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#42692683)

Hm. This seems to be modded insughtful. It's full of hyperbole.

Why should we feel sorry for a criminal who

Firstly he wasn't a criminal until ried in a court of law.

Secondly you say criminal like it's automatically a bad thing. Criminality is orthogonal from morality. They line up more than 50% of the time in a sane society, but there is nothing wrong with being a criminal. You've probably committed 5 felonies today unwittingly.

who chose to commit suicide rather than accept a a six month plea bargain for breaking and entering and accessing systems he shouldn't be accessing?

Plea bargaining is a fundementally broken system. So, basically, the prosecutor and police lie to load up as many false and inflated accusations as possible in order to bully someone into accepting something else. Basically, by accepting he would be tacitly admitting that the prosecutors were right. He chose to take the moral high ground, and you call *that* cowardly?

I mean our heroes are allowed to do whatever they want without consequence, right?

What's that even supposed to mean?

Re:My Question (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42692823)

1) It was modded down to -1 at one point.

2) He stopped the trial by killing himself

3) The facts that are substantiated demonstrate quite clearly that the accusations are not made up. Even what Aaron proudly admitted to state that he is at least substantially guilty of what he was being accused of.

4) It meant exactly what it said - there is a group who thinks Aaron should have been allowed to do whatever the hell he wanted and it is the authorities who are the bad guys. And this group is quite vocal.

Re:My Question (1)

Intropy (2009018) | about a year ago | (#42693051)

Criminality is not the same thing as morality. I agree with you there.

But criminality is also not the same thing as court conviction. A person who commits crimes is a criminal even if he is never convicted or never caught. A court trial is just the best way we know to determine whether crimes have been committed.

Re:My Question (4, Informative)

ma1wrbu5tr (1066262) | about a year ago | (#42692715)

Six months in jail.
Plus YEARS of probation.
Loss of the right to vote or carry a weapon.
Labeled as a felon for life.....

Yeah, it was just six months, what was his problem? /sarc

He committed no crime. He checked out too many library books. That should have stayed between him and the library (JSTOR) The library even asked the prosecutors to NOT pursue charges. So, yes, you are a troll. There was nothing insightful or intelligent about your rhetorical question. Here is a question for you.
Where were you when they were teaching concepts like compassion and fairness?

Re:My Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42692867)

Wahhhhhh. He checked out too many books? He was breaking and entering a private library that he wasn't invited to.

If he believed in his case he should have fought it. Instead, he off'd himself and I am supposed to feel outrage at the system.

Re:My Question (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42694213)

Aaron knew what he was doing was a crime. That's why he bought a "ghost laptop" to use for his plan instead of his personal one. That's why he went to MIT and used their access to JSTOR instead of just using his regular access at Harvard. That's why he provided a false name when he registered on MITs wireless network instead of his own. That's why he covered his face with his bike helmet when he went to retrieve his laptop. That's why he ran when he saw the cops.

Every day, wife beaters are prosecuted despite the protests of their spouses. The vast majority of people don't want to live in a society where criminals can get off simply by making things even worse for the victims if prosecution continues. That is one of the reasons why prosecutors have immunity and the discretion to continue even if the victims back down.

Re:My Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42693021)

Riiiight, because this dude is suuuuuch a dangerous criminal. I mean he created "fake" credentials and plugged a laptop into a network jack so he could "hack" into a "protected computer" and download a whole bunch of bits and then "return" them. 6 Months definetly seems appropriate.

The DoJ should insist on prosecuting those teenage girls who drugged their parents to go on the internet too for Computer Fraud and Wire Fraud in addition to whatever charges are already in place... Because, you know, that routers are "protected computers" too by definition of the Computer Fraud And Abuse Act.

Also, prison sentences for every "Anonymous Coward" poster here! Unless you can prove that your name is Anonymous Coward, but I'd have a pretty hard time believing that.

Oh wait a sec...

My Answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42693183)

While I perfectly know what Aaron has done for me (and I thank him for that!)... what have *you* done for me? Who are you, anyway?

Re:My Question (3, Insightful)

geekymachoman (1261484) | about a year ago | (#42693643)

>> Why should we feel sorry for a criminal who chose to commit suicide rather than accept a a six month plea bargain for breaking and entering and accessing systems he shouldn't be accessing?
>> Oh, and please mod me down. I am seriously trolling here, and it couldn't possibly be a legitimate question. I mean our heroes are allowed to do whatever they want without consequence, right?

Part of the reason he commited suicide is probably because... on this world, the likes of you.. exist. Sometimes it's really hard to deal with that fact.
If he's gonna be branded a coward, it's only because he couldn't or didn't want to it anymore. This what he did is seriously wrong, but not from your standard stupid moral ideas, it's because the society in which we all live provide environment in which people could become desperate enough to do suicides.

So you're the criminal, Mr. AC, and all the other people that shaped this reality to be ... this. What it is now.
Where people with good intentions, not selfish, with a vision passion and will, end up comitting suicide.

And eventually, history will remember people like you to be no more then traitors of life and justice. For now, enjoy your "5 minutes" and go f y' self.

Re:My Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42694093)

On another thread you told Americans to butt out of your politics. Yet you have no problem butting into ours. Quit being a hypocrite and stop posting on American political threads.

Re:My Question (2)

dcollins117 (1267462) | about a year ago | (#42694427)

Why should we feel sorry for a criminal who chose to commit suicide rather than accept a a six month plea bargain for breaking and entering and accessing systems he shouldn't be accessing?

Your question has nothing to do with this discussion, as Aaron Swartz wasn't a criminal. A criminal is someone who's been convicted of a crime. He wasn't.

He was accused under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of "stealing" documents he had legal access to. Had this gone to court, I have no doubt that he would have been found not guilty.

Get your facts straight, turn in your geek card, and get off of slashdot, moron.

Re:My Question (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about a year ago | (#42694807)

I think the more apt term is "alleged criminal" and playing semantics doesn't invalidate the OP's opinion. You are entitled to disagree.

DUI didn't used to be a big deal (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42692093)

Now cars are faster and there's a lot more traffic, and a lot more to lose. So DUI's and reckless driving are big deals now.

In the early pre-internet 80s, accessing computer systems wasn't such a big deal because most had nothing worthwhile on them. Now it is.

Why is this a hard concept to understand?

Re:DUI didn't used to be a big deal (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42692107)

Shut up. He is a hero and we should not only insist he not face consequences, but we should reward him. If Aaron had hacked my PC to get my financial records, I would have thanked him and sent him a nice key lime pie. You sir are a communist or a capitalist and shouldn't be trusted.

Re:DUI didn't used to be a big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42694005)

Shut up. He is a hero and we should not only insist he not face consequences, but we should reward him. If Aaron had hacked my PC to get my financial records, I would have thanked him and sent him a nice key lime pie. You sir are a communist or a capitalist and shouldn't be trusted.

I hate it when people post funny and insightful shit like this as AC and I got mod points that I ain't gonna waste on AC

Re:DUI didn't used to be a big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42694503)

I have a "badge" for 2^9 +5 posts. A few more mod points won't help. But thanks for your appreciation!

Is MIT's publically funded research public ? (4, Insightful)

An dochasac (591582) | about a year ago | (#42692175)

What steps has MIT taken to assure that publically funded research is published to the taxpaying public?

Re:Is MIT's publically funded research public ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42692363)

What steps should be taken to restrict tax payer funded research to the taxpayers? Presumeably, if the US funds something, then only the US public should get access. And if the state of Michigan funds research than Maine can go fly a kite.

Re:Is MIT's publically funded research public ? (1)

hermitdev (2792385) | about a year ago | (#42693601)

If you receive a tax deduction on your mortgage, is your house accessible to the taxpaying public? If you receive a tax deduction for dependents, are *they* "accessible" to the taxpaying public? What about those on social security? Welfare? Medicare? The point is, just because you receive money from the government, doesn't mean everything that money touches belongs to the public or in the public.

Re:Is MIT's publically funded research public ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42694063)

Sorry, but either your logic is broken or your head is deep within an asshole (perhaps your own). The Government funds research, meaning (possibly) your tax dollars pays for the materials, people, etc.. etc.. to produce something. Obviously this does not make those people working on the project available as items to the public. You don't have the right to make Johnny Scientist fold your laundry or tutor you in Science-y things.

What the tax payers that funded the project should have access too is: The results of the research. The accounting books for the project. The materials list for the project. This is normal for checks and balances. It is not normal or sane believing that it should take 35 years to find out that the Government has been giving LSD to unknowing people. This should have never happened, and if we were in an open society (true republic) it would have never happened. People would have demanded an end to the program and punishment for those harming society.

Comparing tax funded research to a tax rebate is beyond delusional. Get help man!

sheesh (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42692185)

When someone walks in off the street, enters a wiring closet, and plugs a computer into your network you call the cops. What is so hard to understand about that? Swartz wasn't a student, faculty, or a guest of MIT.

When someone repeatedly tries to get around the blocks you erect specifically for them and keeps screwing with your systems, you don't just suck it up and waste your time and money by continuing to play "whack a mole," you call the cops.

That's why we have laws on the books for dealing with people who pull stunts like Swartz. The penalties range from probation to years in jail to handle the spectrum of severity. Swartz's crime wasn't that severe and he had no record so he was facing the small end of potential sentence.

There was no issue with prosecuting the guy until victims found out that it was going to cause a lot of bad publicity. That's what this is all about. A bunch of folks with bully pulpits really liked the guy and are upset that he killed himself so they are looking for someone to blame.

Theres nobody to blame but Swartz. He is the one that pulled the stunt. He is the one that was very sick. Blaming the prosecutors, JSTOR, or MIT for Swartz's death is simply revolting.

Re:sheesh (2, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#42693423)

Swartz's crime wasn't that severe and he had no record so he was facing the small end of potential sentence.?

35 years in federal prison is the small end?

Theres nobody to blame but Swartz. He is the one that pulled the stunt. He is the one that was very sick. Blaming the prosecutors, JSTOR, or MIT for Swartz's death is simply revolting.

Anyone who thinks that 35 years is anywhere near to appropriate for what Swartz did is far, far sicker than Swartz. And far, far more dangerous too.

Re:sheesh (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42693891)

I see you still haven't educated yourself on the federal sentencing guidelines or how criminal sentencing works in general. Nor have you read the interviews with Swartz attorneys where they explain he was being offered four months to plea guilty, the prosecutor was threatening to ask for seven years if they went to trial, and the defense's belief that the judge would give probation, which is a possibility under the sentencing guidelines for people like Swartz with no prior convictions. Quoting the press release which simply adds up the maximum penalties for all the charges is disingenuous.

Re:sheesh (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#42694215)

Swartz had a right to a trial. It is disingenuous to claim that the punishment was proportional to the crime if he had to give up his right to a trial to receive that punishment. No, it's not disingenuous, it's an outright lie.

Re:sheesh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42694891)

Just like it is disingenuous to focus solely on the upper limit of sentencing guidelines to make a hyperbolic point.

Re:sheesh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42694671)

He was offered 6 months - likely in a minimum security summer camp, like Martha Stewart and other "white collar" criminals have served in. He refused.

Don't be disingenuous - he would've served 6 months (if that), and had a lucrative career as an "internet freedom advocate," speaking and advocating for internet freedom, as a "casualty of the fight for freedom on the internet." The 35 year number is a ploy to drum up sympathy, that is all it is. He was not remotely likely to have received a sentence anywhere near 35 years.

For IT people, Swartz serving some time for his fight would simply have allowed him to increase his speaking fees, it would have burnished his reputation as a man of deep conviction and principles, and given any pronouncement he made additional moral weight. And it would've been a fabulous "look at the injustice!" moment, as well.

Now, well, he's part of a "look at the injustice," moment, but he won't get to enjoy any of the additional fruits of his work that he could have if he hadn't killed himself.

Re:sheesh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42694653)

I agree.

That's why I shoot all kids who walk on my lawn with my shotgun.

After all they're trespassing and damaging my property, so fuck them, right?

The fact that they're kids doing what kids do pales in comparison to the fact that they are making divots in my lawn. Just like the fact that Aaron was doing work with a strong philosophical backing without a profit motive and without stealing from anyone pales in comparison to the fact that he used 10 or 20 dollars worth of bandwidth and broke a dime store padlock. Throw him under the bus, right? No need to feel pity towards anyone but the mighty.

Asshole.

Common sense! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42692215)

Common sense! Where the fuck is it?!?

Re:Common sense! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42694571)

Missing in this thread. sadly nothing but off topic trolling fucks.

None Of Your Business (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42692227)

If MIT said they aren't interested from outsiders, then why are you still trying to barge in on their process?
  It's like crashing a party you were not invited too. It's an MIT issue that and they should be ones who determines who is and isn't welcome in their review.

Slashdot, butt out.

As an MITian - Could MIT have saved his life? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42692251)

Yes/No

Re:As an MITian - Could MIT have saved his life? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42694299)

If you are a MITian, why can you not use proper grammar? I'm pretty sure you learn the uses for "a" and "an" much younger than college, so I'm guessing you are not quite a GEDian let alone "an MITian".

What divident should taxpayers expect when... (4, Interesting)

An dochasac (591582) | about a year ago | (#42692255)

What dividend should taxpayers expect when publically-funded funded MIT research is handed to private multinational companies?

Re:What divident should taxpayers expect when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42692595)

Progress!

Re:What divident should taxpayers expect when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42694725)

Why would you expect a dividend when you create publicly funded research? Aren't private companies part of "the public," too?

(Fun fact: Most of the private companies probably funded far more of the research, in terms of tax dollars spent, than you did, anyway.)

age are owned by their respective companies. The R (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42692261)

Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda is a 29-year old white male with a stocky build and a goatee. He responded to my ad to be interviewed for this article wearing only leather pants, leather boots and a leather vest. I could see that both of his nipples were pierced with large-gauge silver rings.

Questioner: I hope you won't be offended if I ask you to prove to me that you're a nullo. Just so that my readers will know that this isn't a fake.

CmdrTaco: Sure, no problem. (stands and unbuckles pants and drops them to his ankles, revealing a smooth, shaven crotch with only a thin scar to show where his genitals once were).

Q: Thank you. That's a remarkable sight.

(laughs and pulls pants back up). Most people think so.

Q: What made you decide to become a nullo?

(pauses). Well, it really wasn't entirely my decision.

Q: Excuse me?

The idea wasn't mine. It was my lover's idea.

Q: Please explain what you mean.

Okay, it's a long story. You have to understand my relationship with Hemos before you'll know what happened.

Q: We have plenty of time. Please go on.

Both of us were into the leather lifestyle when we met through a personal ad. Hemos's ad was very specific: he was looking for someone to completely dominate and modify to his pleasure. In other word, a slave.

The ad intrigued me. I had been in a number of B&D scenes and also some S&M, but I found them unsatisfying because they were all temporary. After the fun was over, everybody went on with life as usual.

I was looking for a complete life change. I wanted to meet someone who would be part of my life forever. Someone who would control me and change me at his whim.

Q: In other words, you're a true masochist.

Oh yes, no doubt about that. I've always been totally passive in my sexual relationships.

Anyway, we met and there was instant chemistry. Hemos is about my age and is a complete loser. Our personalities meshed totally. He's very dominant.

I went back to his place after drinks and had the best sex of my life. That's when I knew I was going to be with Hemos for a long, long time.

Q: What sort of things did you two do?

It was very heavy right away. He restrained me and whipped me for quite awhile. He put clamps on my nipples and a ball gag in my mouth. And he hung a ball bag on my sack with some very heavy weights. That bag really bounced around when Hemos fucked me from behind.

Q: Ouch.

(laughs) Yeah, no kidding. At first I didn't think I could take the pain, but Hemos worked me through it and after awhile I was flying. I was sorry when it was over.

Hemos enjoyed it as much as I did. Afterwards he talked about what kind of a commitment I'd have to make if I wanted to stay with him.

Q: What did he say exactly?

Well, besides agreeing to be his slave in every way, I'd have to be ready to be modified. To have my body modified.

Q: Did he explain what he meant by that?

Not specifically, but I got the general idea. I guessed that something like castration might be part of it.

Q: How did that make you feel?

(laughs) I think it would make any guy a little hesitant.

Q: But it didn't stop you from agreeing to Hemos's terms?

No it didn't. I was totally hooked on this man. I knew that I was willing to pay any price to be with him.

Anyway, a few days later I moved in with Hemos. He gave me the rules right away: I'd have to be naked at all times while we were indoors, except for a leather dog collar that I could never take off. I had to keep my balls shaved. And I had to wear a butt plug except when I needed to take a shit or when we were having sex.

I had to sleep on the floor next to his bed. I ate all my food on the floor, too.

The next day he took me to a piercing parlor where he had my nipples done, and a Prince Albert put into the head of my cock.

Q: Heavy stuff.

Yeah, and it got heavier. He used me as a toilet, pissing in my mouth. I had to lick his asshole clean after he took a shit, too. It was all part of a process to break down any sense of individuality I had. After awhile, I wouldn't hesitate to do anything he asked.

Q: Did the sex get rougher?

Oh God, yeah. He started fisting me every time we had sex. But he really started concentrating on my cock and balls, working them over for hours at a time.

He put pins into the head of my cock and into my sack. He attached clothespins up and down my cock and around my sack. The pain was pretty bad. He had to gag me to keep me from screaming.

Q: When did the idea of nullification come up?

Well, it wasn't nullification at first. He started talking about how I needed to make a greater commitment to him, to do something to show that I was dedicated to him for life.

When I asked him what he meant, he said that he wanted to take my balls.

Q: How did you respond?

Not very well at first. I told him that I liked being a man and didn't want to become a eunuch. But he kept at me, and wore me down. He reminded me that I agreed to be modified according to his wishes, and this is what he wanted for me. Anything less would show that I wasn't really committed to the relationship. And besides, I was a total bottom and didn't really need my balls.

It took about a week before I agreed to be castrated. But I wasn't happy about it, believe me.

Q: How did he castrate you?

Hemos had a friend, Zonk, who was into the eunuch scene. One night he came over with his bag of toys, and Hemos told me that this was it. I was gonna lose my nuts then and there.

Q: Did you think of resisting?

I did for a minute, but deep down I knew there was no way. I just didn't want to lose Hemos. I'd rather lose my balls.

Zonk restrained me on the living room floor while Hemos videotaped us. He used an elastrator to put a band around my sack.

Q: That must have really hurt.

Hell yeah. It's liked getting kicked in the balls over and over again. I screamed for him to cut the band off, but he just kept on going, putting more bands on me. I had four bands around my sack when he finished.

I was rolling around on the floor screaming, while Hemos just videotaped me. Eventually, my sack got numb and the pain subsided. I looked between my legs and could see my sack was a dark purple. I knew my balls were dying inside.

Hemos and his friend left the room and turned out the light. I lay there for hours, crying because I was turning into a eunuch and there wasn't anything I could do about it.

Q: What happened then?

Eventually I fell asleep from exhaustion. Then the light switched on and I could see Hemos's friend kneeling between my legs, touching my sack. I heard him tell Hemos that my balls were dead.

Q: How did Hemos react?

Very pleased. He bent down and felt around my sack. He said that it felt cold.

Zonk told me that I needed to keep the bands on. He said that eventually my balls and sack would dry up and fall off. I just nodded. What else could I do at that point?

Q: Did it happen just like Zonk said?

Yeah, a week or so later my package just fell off. Hemos put it in a jar of alcohol to preserve it. It's on the table next to his bed.

Q: How did things go after that?

Hemos was really loving to me. He kept saying how proud he was of me, how grateful that I had made the commitment to him. He even let me sleep in his bed.

Q: What about the sex?

We waited awhile after my castration, and then took it easy until I was completely healed. At first I was able to get hard, but as the weeks went by my erections began to disappear.

That pleased Hemos. He liked fucking me and feeling my limp cock. It made his dominance over me even greater.

Q: When did he start talking about making you a nullo?

A couple of months after he took my nuts. Our sex had gotten to be just as rough as before the castration. He really got off on torturing my cock. Then he started saying stuff like, "Why do you even need this anymore?"

That freaked me out. I always thought that he might someday take my balls, but I never imagined that he'd go all the way. I told him that I wanted to keep my dick.

Q: How did he react to that?

At first he didn't say much. But he kept pushing. Hemos said I would look so nice being smooth between my legs. He said my dick was small and never got hard anymore, so what was the point of having it.

But I still resisted. I wanted to keep my cock. I felt like I wouldn't be a man anymore without it.

Q: So how did he get you to agree?

He didn't. He took it against my will.

Q: How did that happen?

We were having sex in the basement, and I was tied up and bent over this wooden bench as he fucked me. Then I heard the doorbell ring. Hemos answered it, and he brought this guy into the room.

At first I couldn't see anything because of the way I was tied. But then I felt these hands lift me up and put me on my back. And I could see it was Zonk, the guy who took my nuts.

Q: How did you react?

I started screaming and crying, but the guy just gagged me. The two of them dragged me to the other side of the room where they tied me spread eagled on the floor.

Zonk snaked a catheter up my dick, and gave me a shot to numb my crotch. I was grateful for that, at least. I remember how bad it hurt to lose my balls.

Q: What was Hemos doing at this time?

He was kneeling next to me talking quietly. He said I'd be happy that they were doing this. That it would make our relationship better. That kind of calmed me down. I thought, "Well, maybe it won't be so bad."

Q: How long did the penectomy take?

It took awhile. Some of the penis is inside the body, so he had to dig inside to get all of it. There was a lot of stitching up and stuff. He put my cock in the same jar with my balls. You can even see the Prince Albert sticking out of the head.

Then they made me a new pisshole. It's between my asshole and where my sack used to be. So now I have to squat to piss.

Q: What has life been like since you were nullified?

After I got over the surgery and my anger, things got better. When I healed up, I began to like my smooth look. Hemos brought friends over and they all admired it, saying how pretty I looked. It made me feel good that Hemos was proud of me.

Q: Do you have any sexual feeling anymore?

Yes, my prostate still responds when Hemos fucks me or uses the buttplug. And my nipples are quite sensitive. If Hemos plays with them while fucking me, I have a kind of orgasm. It's hard to describe, but it's definitely an orgasm.

Sometimes Hemos says he's gonna have my prostate and nipples removed, but he's just kidding around. He's happy with what he's done to me.

Q: So are you glad Hemos had you nullified?

Well, I wouldn't say I'm glad. If I could, I'd like to have my cock and balls back. But I know that I'm a nullo forever. So I'm making the best of it.

Hemos and I are very happy. I know that he'll take care of me and we'll be together always. I guess losing my manhood was worth it to make that happen for us.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:

Note: You must accept a cookie to log in.

Related Links
o GhostOfTiber's Diary

Display: Sort:
Cmdr Nullo | 13 comments (13 topical, editorial, 1 hidden)
Godd thing I have pesto!. (none / 1) (#1)
by tetsuwan on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:57:26 AM EST

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance

        Wow, you read this? by GhostOfTiber, 06/24/2008 11:41:10 AM EST (none / 0)
                I admit nothing!: by tetsuwan, 06/24/2008 05:17:54 PM EST (none / 1)

Having read this story before, (3.00 / 2) (#3)
by it certainly is on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:27:56 PM EST

I did a search for "pisshole". I am pleased you left it intact.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
Is this where you got it from? (3.00 / 2) (#4)
by rpresser on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:30:54 PM EST

here

------------
"In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty

        No, just hidden slashdot comments by GhostOfTiber, 06/24/2008 12:38:01 PM EST (none / 0)
                I shouldn't admit to it by horny smurf, 06/24/2008 07:10:04 PM EST (3.00 / 4)

tl;dr (none / 0) (#6)
by Nimey on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 02:20:41 PM EST

--
Never mind, it was just the dog cumming -- jandev
You Sir, are an Ignorant Motherfucker. -- Crawford
I REALLY NEED THE WORK SUCKING COCKS IN ALLEYS -- LilDebbie
If you are reading this, you have serious issues, and should probably seek mental help. -- Morally Inflexible

        You're missing out on the best romance of our site by GhostOfTiber, 06/24/2008 02:33:04 PM EST (none / 0)

BEWARE! (3.00 / 4) (#9)
by Hiphopopotamus on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 07:08:34 PM EST

Openly making fun of localroger this way is nothing but playing with fire.

YOU WILL BE WARNED.
_________________

I'm In LOVE!
fuck (none / 0) (#11)
by undermyne on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:17:12 PM EST

just fuck.

ray eckson - "nigger eggs are all yolk, you racist fuck"
copypasta is copypasta (none / 0) (#12)
by j1mmy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:25:01 PM EST

sage

Cmdr Nullo | 13 comments (13 topical, 0 editorial, 1 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!

How does public money support private industry? (4, Insightful)

An dochasac (591582) | about a year ago | (#42692375)

JSTOR would not exist were it not for tax-funded public research. Neither would many of the other for-profit journals. Public (FBI...) resources are already used to defend the intellectual property of large private corporations. Should MIT also play the role of a tax-funded security force for private corporations? If so, does MIT also spend equivalent resources to protect the intellectual property of students and staff? How does MIT track public money used to support private ventures?

define "Automated Access" (2, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | about a year ago | (#42692421)

All access to computers is automated. I push a button or move a mouse it becomes that is interperted by the device interface which becomes a coded interaction moveing through layers of interface code to an application. The application then does something with the input given it. It is all automated. What happens depends on all the layers.

Browsers fetch all the data refered to on a "page" this can result in data fetches from 100's of places. I doubt any modern page is composed of data from a single fetch.

The "page" displayed by a browser is composed of data from many sources. Your browser does this automatically following a ruleset built into it. How is this structurally different from a automated fetcher which follows its own rule set and gets data from many sources? The difference is not the automation of multiple fetches, it is not the interaction with the human, the only different is the ruleset used to do the collecting of data.

My question is how do they describe how one automated rule set, say that used by a browser, is legal, while another ruleset, say that used by a sweeper is illegal? Both are fully automated fetch processes. They just have different rule-sets.

Re:define "Automated Access" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42692967)

My question is how do they describe how one automated rule set, say that used by a browser, is legal, while another ruleset, say that used by a sweeper is illegal? Both are fully automated fetch processes. They just have different rule-sets.

It depends on the program or the ruleset being malicious or not.

Re:define "Automated Access" (2)

RichMan (8097) | about a year ago | (#42694615)

What if he had composed a single page with references to all the documents. The page could have been local or anywhere in the world. Then used a regular web browser with the feature "open all referred pages". There would not even be a programmed access issue in the case, it would have been the ruleset/functionality of a normal web browser that he leveraged. There would be no malicious ruleset abuse. Just levaraging of the normal process.

This is the way the internet works. He broke nothing, he misused nothing. He used the normal interactive process supported by HTTP request transfer agents.

Internet Rule #1: If you don't want it accessed don't put it on the net.
Corrollary #1: If it is on the net it will be accessed in all ways and forms.

Obvious questions... (5, Insightful)

bazmail (764941) | about a year ago | (#42692431)

Why is it that you get to review yourself?
Shouldn't an external independent body be doing the reviewing (investigating)?
Isn't there a clear and obvious conflict of interest in you reviewing yourself?

Re:Obvious questions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42693957)

MIT is NOT reviewing itself.

MIT is NOT a singular body. It is made up of faculty, staff, and administration.

MIT faculty is almost always at odds with the administration over many many issues.

MIT's faculty is OUTRAGED by the behavior of its administration. MIT's faculty is investigating its administration.

Did anyone have less web security than MIT? (1, Interesting)

An dochasac (591582) | about a year ago | (#42692485)

McDonalds, Starbucks, the local GasNSip and Grandma all have their Wifi secured with a minimum of WPA/WPA2, often with some kind of MAC filtering, encrypted traffic and IP address management. Why did MIT, one of the most prestigious technology campuses in the world, lack even some of the simplest internet security models? Is MIT unable to find qualified technical staff as McDonalds and Starbucks have? Is it not likely that MIT's students could sue for damage to their computers caused by internal and external abuse of such a tin-can and string network infrastructure?

Re:Did anyone have less web security than MIT? (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year ago | (#42692669)

Social engineering? I'm pretty sure some part of "hiding a scraping box in a closet" involves playing on expectations. Good luck beating that in a large organization without DHS-grade paranoia.

Re:Did anyone have less web security than MIT? (2)

Griff (17764) | about a year ago | (#42692827)

MIT made a choice to have an open wifi network, for use by guests. It wasn't open due to incompetence or ineptitude.

Gov funding? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42692491)

Have any government funding/grants been tied (spoken or implied) to MITs continued charges agains Aaron Swartz?

Hacking (-1, Flamebait)

SparrowOS (2792265) | about a year ago | (#42692525)

Fuck you doctors and FBI, niggers. Making a PC operating system. Is Linux illegal? Why is making a PC operating system being slandered by you fucks! My first job was at Ticketmaster making a VAX operating system. This is my profession!

Re:Hacking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42693017)

I also found it odd how even Bill Gates calls cracking "hacking".

Can someone from MIT please post this (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42692763)

How about this:

The "wiring closet" where Aaron's laptop was connected to the switch, was also used by a homeless man to store his property.

If MIT knowingly permitted the homeless man to use the closet, why would MIT or the DOJ prosecute/persecute Aaron for similarly storing his laptop there?

If Aaron reasonably concluded that the use of the wiring closet was NOT off-limits, how did this not factor into the decision(s) by all parties involved in indicting Aaron? Did MIT not participate in review of the prosecution, or were the MIT or DOJ representatives unaware of the (unlocked and occupied) closet factor?

If the closet was unlocked, and used by non-MIT individuals with MITs knowledge and permission, how does connecting a laptop to a switch IN THE SAME CLOSET rise to the level of "unauthorized"?

If I am somewhere that I am allowed to be, and there is a network port or network switch in front of me, it is reasonable to conclude that connecting a laptop to that port or switch is permitted.

Any "authorized" or "unauthorized" would, at that point, be strictly a logical, rather than physical, issue - exactly the same as accessing a server over wifi.

And, given that the wifi usage was open, and wired connections did not require authentication, again, how did that rise to "unauthorized"?

Whose decision was it, and how was that decision validated?

Did the person making that decision do so in a manner that exceeded his/her authority, or in a manner inconsistent with PUBLISHED policies?

A published policy may hold more legal weight, than the interpretation of an individual if the two are in any manner inconsistent.

Re:Can someone from MIT please post this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42693023)

To be honest, those are pretty stupid "questions" or as most people would call them, arguments.

Read the indictment. He knew it was unauthorized access, because apart from the blatant TOS violation he deliberately evaded multiple IP and MAC bans, tried to hide his face from security cameras when he installed the laptop, and tried to run away when the guards apprehended him.

Of course, he never faced trial, so this is all "allegedly", but I think we can reasonably infer that he knew what he was fucking doing.

Re:Can someone from MIT please post this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42693771)

Gimme a break, Swartz wasn't a student, faculty, or guest and had no business on MIT campus at all much less abusing MIT's access to JSTOR. Here is a pic of him [prtst.net] entering the wiring closet to retrieve his laptop. Do you still think he "reasonably concluded that the use of the wiring closet was NOT off-limits"?

Re:Can someone from MIT please post this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42694165)

If I am somewhere that I am allowed to be, and there is a network port or network switch in front of me, it is reasonable to conclude that connecting a laptop to that port or switch is permitted.

You still get invited to dinner a lot with that attitude?

I sense you may have some growing up to do... (lol... CAPTCHA: puberty)

It doesn't add up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42692813)

Question: If Swartz was the kind of character who would be likely to commit suicide if he got investigated for pushing the boundaries, then why was he pushing the boundaries? Why does Slashdot have this stream of stories implying that it was MIT's fault?

internal versus external hacks treated differently (3, Interesting)

peter303 (12292) | about a year ago | (#42692883)

Internal hacks at MIT are a tradition. Good ones are celebrated. When an outsider physically entered a building and wiretapped a network to bypass a fire wall that was seen as an attack on property. In this case it got way overblown into a federal case. but there was still a crime here.

Re:internal versus external hacks treated differen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42693971)

JSTOR suffered damages too and are not located in the same state as MIT. That's why it is a federal case.

3 questions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42693067)

-For future reference: How many document downloads per minute are permitted before MIT refers it's own students to the DoJ for criminal prosecution.
-During MITs co-operation with the DoJ and/or other government departments, were you encouraged to pursue this case further than you had initially intended? If so, What were the reasons given to pursue this particular case so vigorously
-Did the mindset of "making an example" of Aaron come into play at any stage during MITs deliberations in this instance. If so, please carefully explain this thought process, and what was hoped to have been achieved by it.

Biggest question that has not been asked: (1, Flamebait)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about a year ago | (#42693181)

What steps has MIT taken to to ensure that the something like this will never happen again?

And, in case there is any confusion, I am not referring to steps to protect data, but instead to keep a student from being persecuted by federal authorities with the full support of the university.

Re:Biggest question that has not been asked: (1)

ccb621 (936868) | about a year ago | (#42693899)

What steps has MIT taken to to ensure that the something like this will never happen again?

And, in case there is any confusion, I am not referring to steps to protect data, but instead to keep a student from being persecuted by federal authorities with the full support of the university.

He was not an MIT student or affiliated with MIT in any capacity. MIT has no obligation to protect a physical and electronic trespasser.

Damage control? (4, Interesting)

cpghost (719344) | about a year ago | (#42693507)

  1. What does MIT intend to do, to restore its reputation and the reputation of its Alumnis? Because, frankly, right now, it sucks to be associated with MIT, even retroactively.
  2. Historically, Universities used to keep the State out of the equation to foster a free(er) academic climate. What happened to this free culture at MIT, and when did it change so fundamentally?

Re:Damage control? (1)

DrEasy (559739) | about a year ago | (#42694505)

Here's a few ideas:

1- publicly funded research should not copyright protected. Have a university-wide policy for that. Easily enforced by tenure and promotion committees.
2- to enable 1., get together with other top universities and start running a federation of open-access journals that are free to publish in and freely available to the public. Have your librarians run them.

My question: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42693581)

Would you be supporting the DoJ to prosecute students who unlock their phones without carrier consent starting tomorrow?

14 days prison sentence and a felony on their record for the plea bargain. Sounds about fair right?

Why did you kill him MIT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42694209)

It was your actions that lead trammeled his spirit and lead to his death.
 

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...