|
1) I don't think that civil disobedience is the right frame from which to analyze the Swartz case. In fact I have high confidence it is not. 2) I think that most of the legal speculation in the last few posts suffers from the fact that the publicly available information about what Aaron did, what MIT did, what the FBI did, and when, and why, has all been very confused and contradictory. For example: TenementFunster posted:the dude was obviously trying to challenge copyright law by doing something bold. mission accomplished, homeboy. This is not obvious at all. Most people have compared Swartz's downloading to his attempt to liberate PACER's document library and have presumed him to have been working towards a similar goal with JSTOR. But Aaron, while at Stanford, had also downloaded 450,000 law review articles from Westlaw in order to analyze the relationships between researchers and their funders and the topics they were researching. Similarly: woozle wuzzle posted:A guy knowingly and repeatedly tried to circumvent network protocols to download valuable material that wasn't his. This is also not accurate. MIT operates a completely open network (and a completely open campus). At the time of the incident, anyone connected to their network (wireless or wired) automatically authenticated to JSTOR. Any schlub off the street could walk onto campus, pull out their laptop, and start downloading from JSTOR. In other words, Swartz was fully authorized to download everything he downloaded and he circumvented no "network protocols" to do so. What he did do was a) write a script to download the articles in violation of JSTOR's TOS and b) change the MAC address on his computer so that he could reconnect to the network after his old IP address had been banned. These may well have been in violation of the CFAA (which, in my opinion, is a poorly written bill for all the reasons Paul Ohm has described), but it was not a case of hacking or copyright infringement as has been so widely and erroneously reported. The Abelson Report is expected to be released this term. I am certain it will clear a lot of the "who knew and did what when" questions up. I'm all for speculation but I think that, if folks are serious about analyzing the case, they need to wait until at least that time. If you really can't wait until the Abelson Report is released, then I would recommend you at least read this Slate article on Swartz, which is by far the most comprehensive, carefully researched, fact-checked version of the story available today. Petey fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Feb 14, 2013 |
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 19:35 |
|
|
Petey posted:1) I don't think that civil disobedience is the right frame from which to analyze the Swartz case. In fact I have high confidence it is not. This I definitely agree with. I dunno why Orin took that angle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
Speaking of which, Petey, want to help me write a PACER scraper to make some cash money?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
Petey posted:Ronald Dworkin is dead. May the right answer thesis be interred with him. The right answer thesis owns because when he discusses hercules he actually means me. I am always right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:Speaking of which, Petey, want to help me write a PACER scraper to make some cash money? It'll probably need to wait until I am done with my thesis but sure, why the hell not. Project Asymptote is a cool thing in this space. quote:Operation Asymptote is an initiative designed to download as much of PACER as possible by spreading the burden across many individuals, none of whom need to spend anything by staying under PACER's $15.00 per quarter free access allowance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
Pacer is The Worst Thing, though it would actually be worse if you had to pay westlaw prices for it. It's irritating in this day and age we need to rely on something as bad as that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:There's no mens rea with losing your ring at the beach. But Schwartz was a giant ball of mens rea. The prosecution may have had difficulties proving the technical act due to a lack of MIT user agreement. But what Schwartz did is definitely against the "spirit" of computer fraud crimes. Whether or not he technically committed computer/wire fraud, he certainly intended to. I'm not sure how mens rea enters into it, since the point isn't that the actions were exactly comparable. I'm sure we can all think of things that would technically violate the law, but shouldn't be prosecuted (or at least not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law), even if done with intent. Do you believe that what he did warranted 35 years (or more) in prison? Granted, the prosecutor offered a six-month plea deal, but that's kind of the point: prosecutor overcharges defendant with massive potential sentence in order to coerce a plea deal. Said plea deal prevents a potentially meritorious case from reaching trial, and leaves defendant with no recourse except to accept the deal. In a case in which even the alleged victim was against criminal charges, where the law is at best not entirely settled, and where the defendant made no profit from his actions, that seems over-aggressive to me. As Langbein points out, though, that's the problem with the system. This isn't really the Aaron Swartz thread, though, so this may be getting to be a bit of a derail.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
Petey posted:This is also not accurate. MIT operates a completely open network (and a completely open campus). At the time of the incident, anyone connected to their network (wireless or wired) automatically authenticated to JSTOR. Any schlub off the street could walk onto campus, pull out their laptop, and start downloading from JSTOR. That leaves us with: He took materials that weren't his. If files are property, and property can be leased and licensed, then he stole property that wasn't his. Let's say I have a jar on my public counter that says "FREE Jelly Beans: take all you want". A guy takes one per hour, I decide I don't like his t-shirt and ask him to leave. He puts on a fake mustache and comes back to take more jelly beans, I notice and send him away again. Undeterred, he breaks in to my back storage room to hide, with a biker helmet across his face, hopping out to grab a jelly bean whenever the clerk's back is turned. He knew I didn't want him to have the property. Despite the quasi-free nature of the jelly beans to the public, they were mine to distribute and he knew I didn't want him to take them. That's called stealing. The free nature of the material doesn't change the ability of MIT to control its distribution. woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Feb 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle, I believe that you are significantly misunderstanding and mischaracterizing what occurred, as frankly most have, in large part because of speculative and inaccurate reporting. I think we should discuss this further once the Abelson Report has been released. I'm not saying that to hide behind it but only because I myself want to wait until after the dispositive has been released too, and because I agree that this isn't the Aaron Swartz thread. evilweasel posted:Pacer is The Worst Thing, though it would actually be worse if you had to pay westlaw prices for it. It's irritating in this day and age we need to rely on something as bad as that. PACER is unconscionably terrible, though my current side project of hitting every public school and library in the country with a FOIA request might match it on the frustration front. Thank god for MuckRock. Petey fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Feb 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
PACER blows but at least it exists and is reasonably complete. Good luck trying to ever retrieve a state court document or file something online outside of New York County.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
Petey posted:woozle wuzzle, I believe that you are significantly misunderstanding and mischaracterizing what occurred, as frankly most have, in large part because of speculative and inaccurate reporting. I think we should discuss this further once the Abelson Report has been released. I'm not saying that to hide behind it but only because I myself want to wait until after the dispositive has been released too, and because I agree that this isn't the Aaron Swartz thread. If I say "free blowjobs to all comers, except you Petey", and you put on a disguise and get a free blowjob, it's still theft of a blowjob. The free nature of my public domain mouth doesn't mean it's not theft to take from it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:If I say "free blowjobs to all comers, except you Petey", and you put on a disguise and get a free blowjob, it's still theft of a blowjob. The free nature of my public domain mouth doesn't mean it's not theft to take from it. Well now we're getting into crazy Israeli lying-to-have-sex-is-rape territory and I don't think we should go there!
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
Petey posted:These may well have been in violation of the CFAA (which, in my opinion, is a poorly written bill for all the reasons Paul Ohm has described), but it was not a case of hacking or copyright infringement as has been so widely and erroneously reported. The CFAA is a fun way to threaten and fire employees that take employer files they're not supposed to. "But it was evidence that they were discriminating!" "WELP YOU STILL BROKE THE LAW! GTFO!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 23:43
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:The CFAA is a fun way to threaten and fire employees that take employer files they're not supposed to. Only in the 1st and 7th Circuits, at this point. The 9th mostly has rejected that and I believe the 2nd has as well. (Nobody cares about those other hick circuits.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Only in the 1st and 7th Circuits, at this point. The 9th mostly has rejected that and I believe the 2nd has as well.   loving hicks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:I just totally got TROUNCED this morning. gently caress. Competent opposing counsel sucks
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
Ersatz posted:I'm a 2010 grad from a T14. I'm a patent prosecutor at Biglaw in DC, with a focus on post-grant proceedings. I worked punishing hours for my first two years, and then realized that my firm doesn't demand a masochistic work ethic from its associates. I now bill around 45 hours a week, and I telecommute as much possible. If you worked at my firm, I'd love you right now for telling me I can stop killing myself. But we're in Alexandria. Reexams suck.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 02:48
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Only in the 1st and 7th Circuits, at this point. The 9th mostly has rejected that and I believe the 2nd has as well. With regards to employment issues, the 7th Circuit is a hell of lot more persuasive than the 9th. Whenever the 9th does anything everyone just chalks it up to them being a bunch of potted up communist hippies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
Petey posted:I suppose I could go to law school if I went the JD/PhD route. I don't want to encourage you for a ton of reasons that you already know, but the few folks I know who did that are all doing well. Like them you could pull off the right combo of schools to where it could be pretty cool. E: Should add it came down more to their social science chops. Two of the people I'm thinking of had cool projects and already had NSF grants.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
wacko_- posted:If you worked at my firm, I'd love you right now for telling me I can stop killing myself. But we're in Alexandria. Reexams suck. Ersatz fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Feb 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 05:37
|
|
|
Any of you DC patent people hiring?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 14:22
|
|
|
Hey guys I just got into Georgetown and read on their website about their A vs B curricula for 1ls. A is a traditional Law School curriculum with Torts and Civil Procedure and whatnot and B is apparently a "cross-disciplinary" thing that focuses on the "why" of law instead of the "how." Instead of the usual stuff you take things like "Democracy and Coercion" instead of Criminal Justice. In other words the B curriculum looks like a huge trap to me and "A" looks like what I should be doing. Does anyone have any knowledge/experience about the two curricula?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Glow Sticks posted:Hey guys I just got into Georgetown and read on their website about their A vs B curricula for 1ls. A is a traditional Law School curriculum with Torts and Civil Procedure and whatnot and B is apparently a "cross-disciplinary" thing that focuses on the "why" of law instead of the "how." Instead of the usual stuff you take things like "Democracy and Coercion" instead of Criminal Justice. Congrats, you're gonna be a lawyer!!!!!! A hundred facebook likes! My guess is that the B curriculum will weed out a lot of the most obnoxious people from your A classes, so yeah, don't do it. I met a guy at a party who was doing the B curriculum once and he kept needing to shut up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
I can't imagine a lot of jobs liking it when they see things like "democracy and coercion" instead of the basics everyone is expected to know (or at least be able to relearn well enough when they're needed years later). Sounds like it's "law school for people who don't want to be lawyers".
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Glow Sticks posted:In other words the B curriculum looks like a huge trap to me and "A" looks like what I should be doing. Does anyone have any knowledge/experience about the two curricula? On the other hand, evilweasel is right that you'll need to explain to potential employers that Bargain, Exchange, and Liability, for example, is really contract + torts + additional material, and that yes you really did learn law. However, as far as I know, Section 3 students are hired and pass the bar at the same rate as everyone else, so the choice between curricula doesn't seem to have real impact on career options. Whether you should participate in Section 3 really just comes down to how you learn and what you want your first year experience to be. I've never regretted my choice to opt out of the standard curriculum. Ersatz fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Feb 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
.
Stop fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Mar 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
I was Section 2 the same year as Ersatz, and it all is a wash after your 1L year. There were insufferable assholes in every section, and the curriculum didn't make a difference.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
If you're concerned, maybe ask the career office if there's any difference in whether/where students who choose the B curriculum are hired? Personally I would go with the A curriculum, since you know that will be fine and you're never going to have to explain anything. But from what Ersatz says, it sounds like it's not a huge difference one way or the other.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
If you're going to law school, you already made the biggest mistake of your life anyhow. Might as well take the fun (relative) classes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:Any of you DC patent people hiring? That said, if you'd like to give it a shot let me know; I can forward your resume on to the hiring coordinator just in case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
If you're going to law school, you already made the biggest mistake of your life anyhow. Might as well take the fun (relative) classes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
Ersatz posted:Technically yes, but I've tried to get two of my examiner friends through the door and, although one of them was granted an interview, I was eventually told by the relevant people that, at this time, the firm isn't interested in hiring examiners who lack prosecution experience. That's strange to me given the obvious advantage to a patent prosecutor of having had experience as an examiner, but I'm told that we don't want to take on the costs associated with "training" new prosecutors. Jesus, what the gently caress law firms. What the gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:Jesus, what the gently caress law firms. What the gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
Ersatz posted:I was in Section 3 (B curriculum). If you opt for Section 3, you'll learn all of the black-letter law taught in the other sections, in addition to a heavy dose of jurisprudence. The focus is less on rote memorization of cases, and more on understanding and critically assessing modes of legal reasoning and their implications. I really enjoyed it. I am a recent section 3 grad (2011) and I would agree with Ersatz, though the profs have changed some (a couple years ago Peller actually didn't teach BEL, which blew my mind). My work/interview experiences were about the same as my non section 3 classmates. Worst that happens is that someone asks you what Democracy and Coercion is at your interview. I have friends from all the sections and people I loathe from all of them as well. Section 3 slightly self-selects for public interest, I think, but its very slight. And Baruch, we aren't hiring either (at least not in DC). Edit: also, if you have more specific curriculum b questions, feel free to PM me, happy to answer them. Kalman fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Feb 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
Still some bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:Still some bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
builds character posted:3. Just wondering what happened to everyone who posted in this thread two/three years ago. Living the dream (of not practicing).
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
Glow Sticks posted:Hey guys I just got into Georgetown and read on their website about their A vs B curricula for 1ls. A is a traditional Law School curriculum with Torts and Civil Procedure and whatnot and B is apparently a "cross-disciplinary" thing that focuses on the "why" of law instead of the "how." Instead of the usual stuff you take things like "Democracy and Coercion" instead of Criminal Justice. To go against the grain here, my friend is in Curriculum B right now and if you're interested in more public-interest-esque pursuits, Curriculum B is more likely to set you up with like-minded professors and students, which can be helpful as everything becomes about who you know more than what you know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
boss just asked me to submit a self-assessment for my pay negotiation. spoiler alert: I rule and should be made an equity shareholder at once, because of my awesomeness
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 19:35 |
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:Any of you DC patent people hiring? We were, but it looks like we have a candidate now. Gotta hustle for those spots.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2013 02:05
|
|