News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on US Attorney Chided Swartz On Day of Suicide. Parent comment

Re:US Attorney Chided Swartz On Day of Suicide by glesica on Sunday January 13, 2013 @02:34PM (#5051594)
He used the Internet as it was meant to be used. MIT had no security, JSTOR had no security. Issuing a GET request to a web server is not, and should not be a crime.

http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartz...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US Attorney Chided Swartz On Day of Suicide by mpyne on Sunday January 13, 2013 @11:11PM (#5053251)
> Issuing a GET request to a web server is not, and should not be a crime.

A DDoS is also "the Internet as it was intended" by your logic.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US Attorney Chided Swartz On Day of Suicide by Evbn on Sunday January 13, 2013 @11:22PM (#5053272)
Did MIT and JSTOR really have no posted TOS? That is not my recollection of MIT wifi.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US Attorney Chided Swartz On Day of Suicide by jlgreco on Sunday January 13, 2013 @11:47PM (#5053325)
Does violating a few TOS's warrant 35+ years in prison?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US Attorney Chided Swartz On Day of Suicide by danem on Monday January 14, 2013 @01:42AM (#5053562)
That's a separate matter entirely. The point being discussed is whether Aaron did in fact violate the law. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone here who believed Aaron deserved the sentence or the prosecution brought upon him, but personally I find it incredible how quick people are to absolve him entirely.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:US Attorney Chided Swartz On Day of Suicide by glesica on Monday January 14, 2013 @09:20AM (#5054703)
First, he wasn't using wifi. Second, JSTOR does not have a click-through ToS on university campuses, so he never had to agree to anything.
[ Parent | on HN ]