Have Questions For MIT's Aaron Swartz Review? 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."
What divident should taxpayers expect when... (Score:5, Interesting)
Did anyone have less web security than MIT? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:My Question / Suicide is not for cowards (Score:3, Interesting)
Can someone from MIT please post this (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
internal versus external hacks treated differently (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:My Question / Suicide is not for cowards (Score:5, Interesting)
Damage control? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:My Question (Score:2, Interesting)
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.