|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, January 16 2013 @ 02:32 PM EST |
And when they put up that camera, and monitored
him on the network, was it legal? If not,
are you indignant that they trespassed on
his rights?
No? How come?
If he had the right to download, and the emails
indicate he did according to both JSTOR and
MIT, then he was not trespassing. He just
did something they had not anticipated
anyone would do. So you see in the emails
they are conferring on how to change the
situation, with the obvious conclusion that
they didn't have it in place before he did
what he did. He took them literally at
their word. They were not prepared for that.
We can't know the facts for sure, so indignation
at "facts" is ... well... ignorant. Maybe
after MIT issues its report, we'll have a
firmer grasp on the facts.
By that I mean, nothing is established, so
you can't legally call him a trespasser. Just
because an indictment says something, that doesn't
make it true. It's well known that prosecutors
really lay it on thick, in the hope the defendant
will plead out and avoid a trial.
Life is short. Don't waste it hating people based
on ideas you don't even know are actually true.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 16 2013 @ 04:09 PM EST |
Given that MIT once had a "Non-student resident association" of people
squatting in closets and labs, I'd say that they take a relaxed view of physical
trespass. Would laches have applied? Last time I was around the main campus, I
don't remember signs saying "revokable right to pass granted" or
anything like that.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
