Charged as Hacker for Downloading Too Many Academic Articles

Charged as Hacker for Downloading Too Many Academic Articles

www.wired.com

Well-known coder and activist Aaron Swartz was arrested Tuesday, charged with violating federal hacking laws for downloading millions of academic from a subscription database service that MIT had given him access to. If convicted, Swartz faces up to 35 years in prison and a $1 million fine.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I'm... A bit confused. Still reading it, but How exactly does downloading too much knowledge constitute hacking?

I honestly have to know the definition in legal terms of hacking to comprehend the reasoning behind this.

Obviously the main problem here is education. How can one be arrested for knowing too much, and not anything secret either. Perfectly knowable data.

I'm simply confused as to how anyone could plausibly and possibly be arrested with up to 35 years in jail for learning.

www.wired.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

So now anybody using their public libraries EBSCO access can be sent to prison?

That's healthy and sane.

My thoughts are that he may be facing this because he downloaded so much data, and can't possibly have the ability to learn it all - or so the authority may think.

That leads to reason that he may be giving this information away for free to individuals who do not go to the particular school - there for it may be a form of theft of digital data, which could be filed under hacking laws.

Just an idea - though I'm now lawyer.




Also, after reading the snipit again - it says MIT gave him access to a subscription service.

But what does access mean? Did he a have access to the server - what?

By subscription that means that one would usually have to pay for it, I would beleive. If he is not paying, but dowloading so much data, he may have violated some sort of rule regarding the data....

Ok I'm done now, lol

hahaha....time to attack the academics...the dark ages de ja vu....

they need to be clear...if your too smart...you could be deemed a threat??!....this is pathetic. i think the police need to be questioned on what they waste their time doing, im not paying tax for them to chase a dude thats consuming way too much data anyway...seems like its keeping him busy...

or is this academic social engineering....
this isnt new...arabs stopped going to flight school....blacks have stopped working at a jewellers.....the spanish stopped working in politics.....there iv cleared that up for any aspiring person growing in this society...

our social status is laughable...makes us look 2nd rate to the asians...

My guess is he's been given access, then he's passed that access info onto friends, who's passed it onto friends, who in turn passed it onto other friends etc etc.

So his one account has probably had hundreds of users downloading their own needs.

I think the question is whether he really did have access.. Another spin on the story:

Aaron Swartz, a 24-year-old researcher in Harvard University's Center for Ethics, broke into a locked computer-wiring closet in an MIT basement and used a switch there to gain unauthorized access the college's network, federal prosecutors alleged Tuesday

www.theregister.co.uk...

Originally posted by Gorman91


I'm... A bit confused. Still reading it, but How exactly does downloading too much knowledge constitute hacking?

I honestly have to know the definition in legal terms of hacking to comprehend the reasoning behind this.

Obviously the main problem here is education. How can one be arrested for knowing too much, and not anything secret either. Perfectly knowable data.

I'm simply confused as to how anyone could plausibly and possibly be arrested with up to 35 years in jail for learning.

www.wired.com


Thats like saying downloading music and movies is nothing but downloading art and culture. The real question is, was he allowed to download that information to his personal computer? Just because you have access to an information, it doesnt mean you could copy it. Our nertwork admin has access to a lot of info from our companies, but that doesnt mean he can make a copy of everything and take it to his home. If all those articles were public, then i see no crime. If they were private to MIT students, then we start having a problem...The article does say that was a subscription database, so it wasnt publicly open to everyone...
(visit the link for the full news article)

It seems to be because some of the information was copyrighted (but that makes me wonder why he was able to use a public account) and he was evading their attempts to kick him off the network. The punishment is definitely very excessive however, because he resolved the issue with JSTOR and gave back the files. It does seem to be the digital equivalent of checking too many books out of the library, and it DEFINITELY is not hacking of any description. I can easily change my IP to get around download limits on websites such as megaupload, but it is against their terms of service. It isn't hacking though.

I found this laughable....

The indictment alleges that Swartz, at the time a fellow at Harvard University, intended to distribute the documents on peer-to-peer networks. That did not happen, however, and all the documents have been returned to JSTOR.

"Returned"? Exactly what did he do... erase them? That would be a different thing entirely.

Also.... another oddity....

“It’s even more strange because the alleged victim has settled any claims against Aaron, explained they’ve suffered no loss or damage, and asked the government not to prosecute,” Segal said.

So without a complaintant.... exactly how did they get a warrant to arrest him?

Me thinks this is a joke of sorts.... I can't wait for the punchline.

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle
Also, after reading the snipit again - it says MIT gave him access to a subscription service.

But what does access mean? Did he a have access to the server - what?

Well I have never had access to that MIT service but I did have that at a NASA server

If you have a valid research request you can get permission for a file, but they get upset if you snoop around. The NASA server has it set so the password will only let you get that one file. If he got millions of files, it seems likely that he used some leeching software... it would take forever to do manually. MIT has lots of classified projects in fusion and nuclear research as well as weapons research

This is the NASA server screen for the 'good stuff' The file I requested was one on Methane found on Mars



I would imagine that the MIT site has a similar warning

JSTOR charges $25.00 to $45.00 for scientific papers... it was actually that that made me write NASA to get that file It was free there

Originally posted by MentorsRiddle

The NASA server has it set so the password will only let you get that one file. If he got millions of files, it seems likely that he used some leeching software... it would take forever to do manually. MIT has lots of classified projects in fusion and nuclear research as well as weapons research

more importantly...when is he gonna read all that....i thought the beauty of the internet was one word..information.

if its for breach of copywrite....then why call it hacking?

so theres a downloding law??....i thought that me internet provider told me i had unlimited downloads...it aint kiddie porn or bin ladens web page is it

and a last point...MIT should not be publishing sensitive information...if i stumble onto that site... i might one too keep some pdf. `s in case of armageddon.....who else is gonna build the roads and hospitals...i need information...input ... i need input....number johnny five...inpuuuuuuuuuuuuut!

Most academic WORKS are copyright protected. to STEAL those WORKS is, in business terms "unauthorized acquisitions", however in legal terms THEFT ...

Depending upon the scope of the THEFT, the CHARGE is WEIGHED... a.k.a. LEVIED.

Originally posted by thePharaoh

if its for breach of copywrite....then why call it hacking?
so theres a downloding law??....

There probably is no 'downloading' law, hence the hacking charge

Problem here is the definition of hacking

Wiki says;

Hacking may refer to:

* Computer hacking, including the following types of activity:
o Hacker (programmer subculture), activity within the computer programmer subculture
o Hacker (hobbyist), to heavily modify the software or hardware of one's own computer system
o Hacker (computer security), to access computer networks, legally or otherwise
o Computer crime
* Illegal taxicab operation
* The act of stealing jokes

en.wikipedia.org...

Also, IMO this is a prime example of why information should be free. I find it highly moronic that humans decide to restrict access to knowledge because of money. It really points out how these stupid monetary systems and massive corporations are nothing but shackles on all of humanity, dragging us down a path of petty materialism and pop-culture. This guy just wanted to make this information free and easy for everyone to access, benefiting humanity in his own way (and a some what significant way too for one person). TELL ME THAT'S A CRIME.

reply to post by zorgon


First don't use wiki to define a term. You should know better of all people Zorgon

The real issue here from what I gather. Is not the fact that he obtained so much data. Its the fact he circumvented measures in place to download the amount of data he did. This is what they can consider hacking. You are manipulating the system and security measures in place. With him doing this it also caused a network to completely crash. He is actually lucky to not get charges for damages incurred because of this, or maybe he is I don't know. Also, because some of the content is copyrighted I'm sure has to do with it as well.

He also clearly knew what he was doing was against policy, maybe not necessarily against the law. However, his actions of how he did it certainly has garnered the attention of certain government officials. Also, if what he was doing was of no consequence he would not have gone out of his way to hide his face from security cameras.

Defining the term hacking is very tricky. It completely depends on many things such as city, state or federal laws.

reply to post by zorgon


Stealing Jokes is considered hacking? Really?

What are they going to consider hacking next? Taking the words out of someone's mouth?

Jesus. I have to download PDF files and the like for classes, is that going to land my in prison?

INFORMATION IS FREE. IT COSTS THE CREATORS NOTHING.

And from yet another source:

with the intent of sharing them online

"Aaron Swartz, 24, hacked into the MIT computer network to automatically download 4.8 million articles from the scholarly archive JSTOR — even though he already had access to the materials through his Harvard affiliation, prosecutors alleged in documents unsealed today."

"the organizations had already tried to ban him from the site for earlier activities and “more than one hundred times the number of downloads during the same period by all the legitimate MIT JSTOR users combined,” according to the indictment."

It appears he hacked his way into the system after he had already banned (or tried to be banned) from it, in order to access the data/files (which as another pointed out are copyright), to share online.

Seems like his only intention was to steal it and give it away.

35 years, wow...

Of course, maybe he just wanted to see if he could hack it and download it?

Originally posted by zarlaan
reply to post by zorgon

 

First don't use wiki to define a term. You should know better of all people Zorgon

The real issue here from what I gather. Is not the fact that he obtained so much data. Its the fact he circumvented measures in place to download the amount of data he did. This is what they can consider hacking. You are manipulating the system and security measures in place. With him doing this it also caused a network to completely crash. He is actually lucky to not get charges for damages incurred because of this, or maybe he is I don't know. Also, because some of the content is copyrighted I'm sure has to do with it as well.

He also clearly knew what he was doing was against policy, maybe not necessarily against the law. However, his actions of how he did it certainly has garnered the attention of certain government officials. Also, if what he was doing was of no consequence he would not have gone out of his way to hide his face from security cameras.

Defining the term hacking is very tricky. It completely depends on many things such as city, state or federal laws.

edit on 19-7-2011 by zarlaan because: (no reason given)

Zorgon's quote of Wikipedia - however distasteful to some - is spot on, seeing that this individual has also been accused of this:

Aaron Swartz, a 24-year-old researcher in Harvard University's Center for Ethics, broke into a locked computer-wiring closet in an MIT basement and used a switch there to gain unauthorized access the college's network, federal prosecutors alleged Tuesday

This point was brought out earlier in the OP...

Utilizing a back door that was criminally created by Aaron Swartz for the very purpose of stealing documents is the reason... NOT the actions of 'downloading' per say, but the actions of 'breaking and entering' (to create a searchable, direct downloadable back door that violates the University's applied policies, and breaks existing federal laws).

Let's look at this honestly here people... The SWARTZ just wasn't with Aaron!