Skip to main content

View Diary: Family & Friends Blame U.S. Attorney for Aaron Swartz's Death (181 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So much misinformation in that post (8+ / 0-)

    There was no trespass. That charge was dropped. There was no sign on the door to the wiring closet restricting access. The door wasn't locked.

    Harvard and MIT cooperate with each other. Swartz was an MIT grad working at Harvard as a fellow at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard.

    The network problem was self inflicted. Swartz didn't take down the network.

    Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

    by Just Bob on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 06:50:58 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Why I didn't bring MIT into this post (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Just Bob

      Harvard & MIT have a complex relationship.

      look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

      by FishOutofWater on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 06:53:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The issue is that he could have. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Even if he didn't trespass, he certainly did not have any authority to be in that room, and he definitely did not have any right to hook his computer up to the network without permission (see The Tech article on investigation leading to Swartz's arrest.)

      •  Your link is broken (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Gareth, Laconic Lib, lyvwyr101

        I suspect it was the parentheses.

        That's an interesting link. Thanks. Swartz had legal and unrestricted access to JSTOR articles. His "crime" was being a network hog. While hardwired into the network he likely had a gigabit connection. While connected via WI-FI there shouldn't have been a problem with bandwidth.

        I don't doubt that he violated JSTOR's terms of service.

        There have been conflicting federal court opinions as to whether violations of TOS constitutes a crime. If it does my guess is that a significant percentage of the population is guilty of that "crime". JSTOR had no interest in prosecuting Swartz.

        Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

        by Just Bob on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 07:29:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Do we put people in jail for decades (5+ / 0-)

        because of what they "could have" done?  No, we don't.  There were much simpler ways to deal with the issue.

        This incident should also lead everyone to rethink the ridiculous idea of trying to lock up public information from brilliant young people who want to do research.

        Democratic Leaders must be very clear they stand with the working class of our country. Democrats must hold the line in demanding that deficit reduction is done fairly -- not on the backs of the elderly, the sick, children and the poor.

        by Betty Pinson on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 08:10:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is what Swartz and others were fighting (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shigeru, lyvwyr101, twigg

          The "Research Works Act" has been dropped but was under consideration at the time.

          If passed, the Research Works Act (RWA) would prohibit the NIH's public access policy and anything similar enacted by other federal agencies, locking publicly funded research behind paywalls. The result would be an ethical disaster: preventable deaths in developing countries, and an incalculable loss for science in the USA and worldwide. The only winners would be publishing corporations such as Elsevier (£724m profits on revenues of £2b in 2010 – an astounding 36% of revenue taken as profit).

          Since Elsevier's obscene additional profits would be drained from America to the company's base in the Netherlands if this bill were enacted, what kind of American politician would support it? The RWA is co-sponsored by Darrell Issa (Republican, California) and Carolyn B. Maloney (Democrat, New York). In the 2012 election cycle, Elsevier and its senior executives made 31 donations to representatives: of these, two went to Issa and 12 to Maloney, including the largest individual contribution.

          For all their talk of partnering with scientists, Elsevier's true agenda is nothing nobler than to line their pockets at the expense of scientists worldwide and everyone with a preventable or treatable disease.

          It's hardly surprising that publishers would fight dirty to hang on to a business model where scientists do research that is largely publicly funded, and write manuscripts and prepare figures at no cost to the journal; other scientists perform peer-review for free; and other scientists handle the editorial tasks for free or for token stipends. The result of all this free and far-below-minimum-wage professional work is journal articles in which the publisher, which has done almost nothing, owns the copyright and is able to sell copies back to libraries at monopolistic costs, and to individuals at $30 or more per view.

          Others have simply gotten old. I prefer to think I've been tempered by time.

          by Just Bob on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 08:46:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site