|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 16 2013 @ 09:59 AM EST |
I think you are mistaken on this slightly. Yes, MIT did
boot him off the wireless network several times, and he did
change the MAC address on his laptop. However, as I
understand it, the reason for his getting booted off the
wireless was not because he was accessing JSTOR, it was
because he was using too much bandwidth. The reason for
connecting directly to the network was to use a port where
the bandwidth usage would not be a problem with the network.
And, Swartz's status with MIT and Harvard allowed him access
to the network - he wasn't subverting anything when he went
to a wired connection, he was allowed to use it.
So, there has been no conflation between wired and wireless
access. To all rights, Aaron was permitted access given his
status with both MIT and Harvard.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, January 16 2013 @ 02:03 PM EST |
Actually, all of that is in the indictment, which
I provided. I didn't text it because it's a tiff.
And my wrists can't take a lot of typing any more,
after ten years of Groklaw. If you'd like to do
it as text, I'll gladly post it.
But if you read the description of the MIT network,
wireless was also free to anyone walking in off
the street or even from the street. As for the
closet, the indictment says it was locked and he
broke in. His lawyer, in another filing, says it
was unlocked.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 16 2013 @ 02:16 PM EST |
> he w[e]nt back -- trespassing --
Where does it say that?
That's the bit missing in my observation. I've seen two methods of
allowing guest access to campus wifi.
One, a splash screen appears requiring logon, guest/guest account
is common, and the screen will warn of restrictions and contain a link
to ToS;
two, as at MIT, is open, free and invisible, limited time [14 days]
then service stops for that MAC. The assumption is that a normal
user would go to the appropriate authorities for more permanent
access. With no warnings, no ToS, there's nothing to stop a not
normal user coming back with a different MAC.
Ultimately Swartz was warned for the specific offense of
using excessive bandwidth in the wifi network.
Solution? Get onto the wired ethernet. MIT probably use managed
switches, where any old unused ethernet port around campus will
be turned off at the switch, until a request is made by someone
authorized to request service for a specific user or class of users.
Which is why Swartz went directly to the network closet, and
searched for a spare live port on the switch. Seems as if MIT
are like many other institutions, these places are easy to find and
access for someone who knows what they're looking for.
There was no "Trespassers W" sign. It is stated that a homeless
person had been storing belongings in the closet. MIT's response
was not to lock the closet, or even put a trespass warning sign.
They put up a video camera to complicate the issue.
And another thing, I don't see anyone spelling out what
JSTOR's download limits are, or that Swartz was told this.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
