skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Federalism is a shady argument? And Obama came in saying he wouldn't do exactly this? I don't see any reason to be to not be outraged about it.
Why are we speculating what Swartz "could have thought"? What was his defense team planning on arguing?
Sir, blame it on your ISP. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5052903
I stayed at Stonehenge for about 3 months last summer, great place. First hacker house I'd ever lived at (and I'll admit I wasn't sure about the idea at first), but it turned out to be a lot of fun.
Yup, same here in the UK. Although, we don't have the best track record in this regard either.
Opportunity taken, with link back to your comment since I didn't pick that up when I read it. Thanks. :)
This is why I'm often at my most productive on long train rides or flights. There is just me and the terminal with no Internet-based distractions, and somehow the surroundings fade away as I hack. Lots of projects like dnode-php and NoFlo have gotten their start this way.

For a long time we've had the house rule of no laptops at home to keep some separation between free time and work. Recently I bought a Kindle Paperwhite so that I could enjoy my books and Instapaper articles without the distractions my Android tablet used to provide. There was always some interesting notification, be it email or a tweet I need to react to. With Kindle I get my content but nothing else.

At work, the Do not disturb mode that both GNOME3 and OS X have is a good start. I wish Android had something similar built-in.
Actually I think you are wrong. The problem is then replaced with filter maintenance. If you've ever witnessed a seasoned outlook email hoarder, you will see this is just as bad.

I very much doubt a person functions any better with a smartphone versus without. Communications can usually wait, and if they can't, voice is still better.
Ask the Kiwis? I admit that I'm a kiwi and so I don't have a clear perspective, but I've never considered our Parliament to be be particularly unstable. Certainly there's a bit of horse-trading around election time, but not much. The advantage is that parties like the Greens have a much fairer slice of the influence.
Improving Content through SEO
I'm a senior developer and I cost about that, at freelance rates. I could definitely design and build the things you mention in a month, providing the core functionality (a document storage system) is not overly complex.

And who said anything about the yearly cost of operating it?
Federal law breaks state law.
It's the same in federal countries of the EU.
In Germany for example there are several laws where federal law overrides state law.
For example the [Constitution of Hesse](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Hesse) allows death sentences but is overruled by the German Constitution (the "Grundgesetz")
Except it is, and always has been. Legislation is written by elected representatives, and then interpreted by judges when it is "tested in court". At least in the UK, we have had well meaning legislation that was universally condemned, simply because the way it was written allowed it to be interpreted in a large number of ways, some of which were very different to the original intention of the legislation. In the US, if we look at one of the most famous civil rights activists, Rosa Parks, she was seen as so successful because she was the perfect person to be used for a test of the city's segregation laws.

That said, I personally don't believe that was the case here. It seems that in many ways this prosecution was just a standard prosecution; prosecutors often ask for crazy sentences (and don't get them-, and I don't honestly believe that there was a particularly unprecedented amount of malice on the part of the prosecution.
It appears the Administrative Office deemed RECAP ok, while at the same time prohibiting "fee exempt PACER users" from sharing content [1]. That is a fine line.

1. http://www.pacer.gov/announcements/general/exemptnotice.html
> Swartz could have thought "MIT/JSTOR doesn't give a damn if I scrape these articles, but I don't care to ask for official resources to do it just to be told no."

except that

1. his behavior was clearly against JSTOR's terms of service

2. his computer was blocked MULTIPLE times

3. when he retrieved his computer, he was using his helmet as a mask to avoid being filmed
Security experts on Java: Fixing zero-day exploit could take 'two years'
Best SEO Tools for your Toolbox
Ubnhd2 - alternative, pentesting linux for the HTC HD2 phone
I think you don't understand that Orin Kerr is a long-time critic of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (or at least, how broadly some of its provisions are interpreted) [1,2]. Also, he's not associated with the DoJ.

[1] http://www.volokh.com/2011/11/14/my-congressional-testimony-...

[2] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=399740
I think the attorneys getting fired would be a great first step. After all they hounded Aaron and people like him to send a "message". Let them get sent a "message" in return.
Error handling in C akin to Go's defer.
> Swartz's actions took place in the "open" culture of MIT, and that context matters and should be taken into account before you accuse Swartz of wire fraud.

Orin Kerr:

> As for unauthorized access, you're assuming that the unauthorized access was to MIT's computer. [...] I don't think thhese objections work if you assume that the unauthorized access was to JSTOR's computer.
Reminds me of the trick from the early web where if you really wanted to compress a JPEG it was better to resize the image smaller rather than go below about quality 25 and then display it at the larger size. Still blocky, but a different kind of blocky.
On the legal theory used, I do find a few areas where further information would be useful.

In the case of Wire Fraud, is it JSTOR or MIT's rights that was violated if someone under false pretenses gains access to MIT's facilities and MIT's licensed access for research articles? What is the legal precedence in regard to rented or licensed property; is it the licensee's right that was violated if a crime is made to the property whiles in the care of the licensee or is it the licensers? By continuing giving MIT access after the breach of contract/license agreement, does JSTOR still have a legal claim of Wire fraud?

In the case of Unauthorized Access, Orin Kerrthe refer to a methodology of using the cost of production as a means to determine the value of the information obtained. But are we talking about the cost of production that JSTOR did in producing access to the information, or the production of the information itself done by parties not JSTOR or MIT. If we talk about the production efforts made by JSTOR, would the production cost be limited to the licensing fee's that JSTOR is (or are they?) paying to get exclusive access to the research journals?
“Femen” cacciate a forza dall’Angelus. Benedetto XVI “non vede”
A very easy to read grey on a very nice grey background.

Yes please.
Bootstrap Tour Extended - JS Tour library built for highly dynamic applications
You know what Aaron's sin was? Greed.

If he'd set this same thing up so that it would download JSTOR over the course of, say, two years, nobody would ever have been the wiser, we'd actually have that data today since it's actually been two years, and he'd still be alive.

But he had to have all the data NOW. I get it, I really do. He lost track of the goal in the excitement of the pursuit.
"From 1998 to 2001, he was employed as an Honors Program trial attorney in the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section of the United States Department of Justice Criminal Division."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orin_Kerr
Scientists hate the GOP for a reason
The permissions have to be checked somehow. The other typical way to do this is to ask all the permissions when you enable the app, though I sometimes like the more granular manner that browsers have.

Another interesting option would be to allow users to have a more general policy, like "I'm OK with any app reading my Twitter stream, but not with allowing them to post"
Google Goggles- A Must App For All Android Users
This was written by Loyd Blankenship shortly after his arrest [0].

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyd_Blankenship
Rising above our prejudices and instinctive "identifications" would be acknowledging that maybe there's something wrong with the drug laws that incarcerate 1 in 3 poor black men. Not denying that there's also something wrong with threatening 35 years in prison for downloading publicly-funded research papers. In other words, don't invalidate one injustice simply because we can't fix all injustices.
I think the matter of his guilt or innocence here isn't the matter: The system in which systemic overcharging is used to coerce a plea bargain out of everyone needs to be reformed. It FUNDAMENTALLY perverts our right to a trial.

The difference between 30 year sentence and 1-5 is HUGE and is exploitative to charge a person for 20 crimes to generate that perspective 30 year sentence just to get them to agree to 1-5. Especially with the high 90s conviction rate of federal prosecutors (which is in part generated by the plea bargaining system, in which witnesses had 5-10x sentences thrown at them if they do not testify). Additionally, we should reinstate a functional golden platter rule (right now expenses for illegal activity are non deductible, so people can't really pay taxes on illegal activity, paying taxes on the full sale price of say, Pot) and make many drug related criminals stop money laundering. This would garner more taxes, and take a LARGE burden off the courts and prisons.

Plea bargaining is illegal most places. We should very much tone down the overcharging (throwing the book at them, charging them for every violation, etc), especially at the federal level. Additionally, parole requires acceptance of guilt in most places, even if sent to prison via a coercive plea bargain. Maintaining one's innocence is a no go if you want out "on time".
Yes, after all, "an eye for an eye" is a great system of justice.

No, they shouldn't be fired for doing their job, regardless of the consequences.

It is a tragedy that Aaron took his life, but nobody can argue that it was an appropriate response to the challenges posed to him.

You can't blame a prosecutor because Aaron reacted violently to them doing his job, just as you can't blame violent video games for Columbine or D&D for kids hurting themselves in the forest with swords.

They are all contributing factors, but it is the core mental illness that is at fault.
She Doent understand what internet means and the difference between conventional "stealing" "Robbing" to material download in which the the "Original Material" is still with JSTOR and a case can not be made out as he did not get any benefit out of his steal.

Sadly, the World Lost an Intelligent Guy becuase of some Ruthless people and infact,Life of those Ruthless we should investigate and find they are Clean and able to prosecute as their job says.
If they don't have money to upgrade the system, where does their $65 million in operating "income" go? I recognize this question could sound facetious, but I'm genuinely curious. My guess would be that they probably don't have the autonomy to take their budget and do as they please with it. Do PACER profits just get thrown into some general US gov coffer?
> You say it is irrelevant that "MIT runs an open network," but if exaggerated charges are being made, and he is being accused of maliciously hacking into this network, then it is relevant.

actually it is irrelevant. the computers in question are JSTOR's, not MIT's.

read this: http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/#comme...
I agree. MMP as in Germany and NZ looks pretty good to me (I'm in Australia, with preferential winner-takes-all as the grandparent post would seem to advocate as better). I have never seen any evidence for the 'impossible to govern' line, which seems to be pulled out by big parties with a big desire to retain the status quo (In the UK they even pulled out this argument to much effect against preferential/alternative/instant-runoff voting, which seems crazy from Australia)...

I'd agree that compulsory voting is good though. In Australia we also tend to vote on the weekend, which I think is also important and probably overlooked.
Michael Bisping Vs. Vitor Belfort: The Cheater and the British Hooligan
I would have suggested Israel or Tasmania as a better example of the stability problem than New Zealand.

New Zealand is vulnerable to it though: MMP makes it harder to form majorities, and encourages the election of "hacks" - abrasive party people who the system motivates to carve out a brand rather than inclusive electorate-centric members. This pattern also plays out in Gerrymandered electorate systems like California.

> The advantage is that parties like the Greens have a
> much fairer slice of the influence.

I understand your point, but disagree with a premise. The way you've stated that thinks in terms of party brand, rather than representatives.

The Westminster system is fundamentally about responsible representatives for the purpose of governing. Members with electorates have an incentive to be mild and inclusive, to keep their electorate happy. Whereas parties have incentive to be abrasive to carve out brand. Electorate systems that favour parties have a jobs-for-the-boys culture.

Look at the US or Australian senate vs the lower houses. Or the UK upper house which is one of the most effective in the world for the purpose of performing quality review despite being not elected. It's also the only upper house I can think of that's not packed with teachers, lawyers and party hacks.

If anything, what we should be seeking is to reduce the reach of parties. For example, the Hare-Clarke system used in Tasmania doesn't have party names on the ballot papers and you're not allowed to hand out how-to-votes outside polling booths. (Tasmania multi-member electorates have a counter-effect to this though, and encourage party strength)

The continual pursuit of democracy for its own sake is not necessarily a positive force. Before the 1948 Australian senate reforms, the Australian senate was elected with each state being an electorate. This meant a high turnover of senators, giving more people a shorter role in public life, and it clearly defined them as reviewers. The role of the senate is murkier now: it entrenches the role of party in political life (through election and balance of power contests), senators have long political lives and it has become a place that otherwise unelectable powerbrokers go to sort out their superannuation (e.g. Graham Richardson, Noel Crichton-Browne).
We really need to change the laws as they relate to computer crime and copyright.
TL;DR is for people who forget "statement, explanation, example". Usually, they write some poorly formed paragraph and put a "TL;DR" at the end. Often, that TL;DR is simply the "statement" part of the paragraph that should have been at the very beginning anyway.

TL;DR: most people can't English anymore.
I don't like the use of the word greed here. If you're going to liberate information, you have to be timely. And it would still have been a lot to download even over years, so whilst your proposal reduces the instantaneous bandwidth, the aggregate is still large and so still likely to be noticed. The longer that laptop is in the cupboard...
One company that fascinates me is the John Lewis Partnership - this is a large (~40K employees, ~£3.5B turnover) upscale retailer in the UK that manages to be both rather successful while being an employee owned "partnership" that appears to allow employees a reasonable say in the running of the company while still have a strong management team.

They even have an explicit constitution:

"The Constitution states that 'the happiness of its members' is the Partnership's ultimate purpose, recognising that such happiness depends on having a satisfying job in a successful business. It establishes a system of 'rights and responsibilities', which places on all Partners the obligation to work for the improvement of our business in the knowledge that we share the rewards of success."

http://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk/about/our-constitution...

[I particularly enjoy the irony of a retailer famed for being the favourite of the upper middle class being a workers co-operative].
YES YOU CAN MAKE FREEPHONE ~ VARIEDZONE - mobile
It's his intent that matters, who's computer he supposedly was trying to gain property from only matters once you prove he was using false pretenses. IP/MAC spoofing is not intrinsically a fraudulent activity, and in the context of MIT's campus from where he could access JSTOR, there's no reason to assume Swartz thought he wasn't allowed to do a bit of scraping, IP blocks for low traffic's sake notwithstanding.
Actually the main problem with the New Zealand parliamentary system is the short three year term. The two main parties always get 30-40% chunks of the vote apiece, and from there it is generally just a matter of the largest winner cobbling together a coalition out of agreeable minority parties, of which there are always an ample supply. And, as every cabinet since MMP has been a coalition cabinet, all of the parties have gained extensive experience in how to make these arrangements work. Sticking points are hashed out in the post-election night negotiations and, as far as I am aware, no coalitions have ever fallen apart or gotten into serious squabbling later on. It helps that the minor parties are all pretty pragmatic about their relative lack of negotiating power, and used to trading horses.

It's the short term that really hamstrings the ability of parliament to go through a thorough, protracted legislative review process and pass high-quality new acts. A lot of legislation-in-progress gets shelved as election year approaches, and when the new term rolls round, and the new parliament gets settled in, conditions have changed and the process needs to be started afresh. And legislation that does get passed is often rushed and quickly becomes obvious that as needing revision. The result is in my understanding a recurrent self-reinforcing cycle of low-quality legislation.
1.) We're reading TOS now? Is that against the law?

2.) Irrelevant, could be a simple traffic reduction block.

3.) Too flimsy to rest the entire charge on.
Slow, glitchy and shopping integrated.

I gave Unity 3 ubuntu releases until I tried Gnome 3.6 and have wondered how I survived until now. Look at how quick Gnome's sidebar is compared to Unity. Look how they got the movement right in term of screen window movement. Look at how quick the finder is. Look at how the bar hides when you don't need it by default. Look how the menu bar is with each window reducing the distance your mouse has to travel to get to what you want.

Having the Unity side bar on a phone is a waste of screen real estate. 70% of the screen is with the previous application which you are switching away from and you are going to have to scroll more with the single width unity bar (based on the images seen).
Interesting to read that there is a patent on the Ouija, issued in 1916. Luckily it is a only a patent on the trademark :-)
> In the spirit of the MIT ethos, the Institute runs this open, unmonitored and unrestricted network on purpose. Their head of network security admitted as much to us.

irrelevant. the computers aaron gained unlawful access to were JSTOR's, not MIT's

furthermore, dishonest. MIT tried banning his computer from the network multiple times

> Aaron did not "hack" the JSTOR website for all reasonable definitions of "hack". Aaron wrote a handful of basic python scripts that first discovered the URLs of journal articles and then used curl to request them

just because JSTOR's website sucks doesn't mean its okay to abuse it. JSTOR's terms of service limit the amount of downloads individuals can make. if you forget to lock your door, does it make it okay for someone to take things from your house?

> Aaron did nothing to cover his tracks or hide his activity

just not true. they put a security camera in the closet where his computer was. when he came in to grab his laptop, he used his bike helmet as a mask so he couldn't be identified.

also, they banned his computer multiple times from the network.
The Dark Side of Vitaminwater
His sin was being in the middle of the barbell. Act fully legally and under your own name (or, only slightly illegally, and with the intention of being arrested and prosecuted as civil disobedience), or, act entirely covertly, unlinkable to your identity, and just get it accomplished.

Doing things multiple times with risk that someone would set up surveillance is what exposed him. Buying a throwaway laptop for cash, wiping all prints, and hiding it somewhere off-video, waiting a few days, and then starting a slow-leech, uploading the content to some anonymous site, and then acting shocked about how someone copied what he'd done with PACER in this way, would have been a lot safer. $300 laptop is cost of doing business. ATM skimmers crews know this.
eh turning off a vast number of notifications and keeping it in my pocket at meals defeats 99% of issues with it.
Even the UK (or at least parts of it) has this structure - where I am we have Scots laws, then UK laws then EU laws. Appeals can go from local courts to the UK Supreme Court and to the EU European Court of Justice.
Moe - An -OFun prototype of an Ultra Modern Perl 5
Impatience is a better word for what you are saying than greed. And I'm not sure I completely agree with your analysis but I doubt that you would have got the downvotes if you had used the word impatience.
I disagree, I'll often look for a TLDR to get a summary of an article if I'm unable to spend full time reading it, for example when at work.

I do agree that the acronym TLDR doesn't make sense, perhaps we need a new acronym?
That was over a decade ago. His salary, as you put it, does not depend on the DoJ.
Is A Bad Attitude Damaging The IT Profession? [2007]
Aaron Swartz on Google's Privacy Problems. In 2003.
Depends on the journalist and publication. I at least like to think I understood the topics I wrote about when I was writing stories a couple of years ago. But I wrote for a niche publication, not a general news site, so I wasn't required to write about "everything," just the subset I was familiar with.
We're also too damn creative at using sex (or deprivation thereof) to control others. I see no reason to assume that's a recent invention.
He has what appears to be a correct analysis of the law. I suspect a fair number of dispassionate legal observers would come up with the same analysis. Part 2, where he talks about prosecutorial discretion, is going to be the interesting part.

(I personally thought the CFAA "unauthorized access" could be fought, but that leaves 3/5. Computer Fraud and Wire Fraud are essentially always true if you do anything even slightly mean on a computer, and I'm not sure about the damage to computer systems -- that was self-inflicted by JSTOR, and IMO could have been fought. The MIT side of it was also stupid.)
An eye for an eye? Please, we're talking about firing some people, not a dozen+ felonies and decades in prison.

>You can't blame a prosecutor because Aaron reacted violently to...

That is not what we are proposing firing them for.

> them doing his job

They did a shit job of that, and that is what they need to be fired for.