Blaming the government again...
It was JSTOR. When money trumps freedom, that’s where the problem lies. And ONLY the government protects freedom.
Don’t believe me? Read any EULA.
All JSTOR did was try repeatedly for several months to block massive downloads that were causing service disruptions. JSTOR never involved law enforcement in this, and even tried to contact the downloader to see about arranging less disruptive access. Instead, the downloader kept evading the blocks.
It wasn't until MIT discovered that the downloader had moved from using their public guest WiFi network to going into places closed to the public to surreptitiously install hardware directly on the MIT LAN to continue the downloading that MIT called law enforcement.
Here's the timeline from JSTOR's point of view [1]. What do you see in there that they should have done differently?
Keep in mind that JSTOR is essentially a library and a non-profit. They do not own the copyright on the journals they distribute. Wherever they can, they provide cheap or free public access to most of the library.
They have probably done more than any other organization to provide ways for the public to get free or cheap access to non-open access journals. Maybe someday most research will be published in open access journals and we won't need JSTOR, but until then they are among the good guys.
> We frequently support such research by providing access to datasets, free of cost, in a way that does not affect access for other users.
This is a bit misleading. They are talking about large datasets here. But in a later paragraph they describe their central fear-- that the downloader was trying to acquire the entire data set. And-- according to JSTOR-- while they feared the entire dataset was being downloaded, the access pattern had changed so that it was no longer interrupting regular JSTOR access at MIT. So disruption to service was clearly not the issue at that point.
It seems reasonable to conclude from this, and from their subsequent actions, that their definition for "large datasets" does not include "the entire dataset."
As the documentary points out, there was precedent for Swartz downloading entire datasets from other databases for legitimate research purposes prior to this event. Is there evidence that JSTOR allowed other researchers to run automated analyses on the entire dataset through their free service? If not, they should have stated explicitly somewhere in their statement that they believe it is not legitimate research to run analyses on their entire dataset.
> going into places closed to the public to surreptitiously install hardware directly on the MIT LAN
I think that's a line few hackers cross. I mean physically breaking and entering a server room to help with exfiltration all whilst being monitored by CCTV is pretty bold stuff.
It was a wiring closet. I've been in some of these, possibly the same one. While there is more valuable stuff than telephone punch-down blocks in them nowadays, it is nothing like breaking in to a server room.
Yeah I agree. In the movie they say that JSTOR didn’t prosecute though, and that it was some government entity that wanted to make an example out of Aaron. Sorry I don’t remember which one - I’d have to scan the subtitle file. I wrote this because I’m quite against the current Intellectual Property system (the US one, and the US-inspired global one: TRIPS).
My comment was intended more as a critique of the fact that the IP monopoly-granting system is part of American state yet it undermines democracy. I see it as a violent, anti-human and oppressive configuration (despite many claiming it’s a free-market) [Kevin Carson and Guy Standing do a fantastic job of critiquing this fact].
It was a bit careless of me to say ‘government’ because it can undermines the great work many governments entities do do.
That's probably why they said "it's harder to oppress people with guns, so they do it less" and didn't add "and if it is hard to oppress people that makes you effective".
Basic "necessary but not sufficient" thing here.
The counter-example would be places where armed people are kept under the boot by those in power anyway, where the government is very effective at oppression.
edit: unless you are equating "able to do things that make citizens want to shoot you" with "effective"? I'm assuming you misunderstood, which is the charitable reading.
Define "effective". Can a government do anything they want when they fear the people, no. Can they legislate in progressive ways that build an economy and keep people safe, absolutely.
I don't really have to define 'effective' because the thing I'm responding to is a bit of pat mythology to try to sort-of-explain something complicated and unclear like 'Why does the US Constitution have this weird 2nd amendment and what the hell does it mean?'. It's a shorthand, not a real thing, think of things like 'not a democracy, a republic', etc. There's obviously no simple direct connection, historically, statistically, whateverlly, between who has guns and how government works. People who get upset enough with their government to want to violently remove it with guns just get the guns or convince the people with the guns to join them, etc. Nobody sits around around pondering "boy, we'd start a movement of dissent but we won't because none of us are packin".
How did that work out for the people of Hong Kong? The govt laughed at them with their signs and umbrellas. Now they can be shipped off for posting a tweet the CPP doesnt like.
On a grander scope, notice how Taiwan has not been invaded by China despite their decades of rhetoric. They're armed, the price is high and the move would be risky.
And no you dont just pray at the time you need a weapon and it pops up in your hands. That's not how things logistically work. Also a big part of it is an ongoing cognitive deterrence. That doesnt happen when people dont have them at the present time.
None of this really has anything to do with an individual right to bear arms. Notice how you had to shift to sovereign states being armed to try to make something out of this. The thing is just bumper-sticker 2A fandom expression. It's fine as that, but it it isn't a serious argument about anything and, outside of 2A fandom, nobody thinks it is, whatever their views on gun ownership rights are.
Just like we don't use 'I brake for whales' or this old chestnut:
