[danso]

Isn't this like asking "How is wearing a fake mustache in public a false pretense?" It isn't. But if I'm doing it with an obvious intent on deceiving someone about my identity, don't you think that context matters? Even if the fake-mustache seems ridiculous?

[JohnsonB]

That's the point, the spoofing of the IP/MAC addresses in themselves prove nothing, and yet Kerr is assessing it as such. The guy with a fake mustache could be a method actor preparing for his next role, and Swartz could have thought "MIT/JSTOR doesn't give a damn if I scrape these articles, but I don't care to ask for official resources to do it just to be told no."

[andylei]

> Swartz could have thought "MIT/JSTOR doesn't give a damn if I scrape these articles, but I don't care to ask for official resources to do it just to be told no."

except that

1. his behavior was clearly against JSTOR's terms of service

2. his computer was blocked MULTIPLE times

3. when he retrieved his computer, he was using his helmet as a mask to avoid being filmed

[JohnsonB]

1.) We're reading TOS now? Is that against the law?

2.) Irrelevant, could be a simple traffic reduction block.

3.) Too flimsy to rest the entire charge on.

[jforman]

A TOS can actually be very important in determining whether criminal law was broken or not.

Take a real property, rather than intellectual property, example: my house is private property. If you open my door and walk into my living room, you are trespassing, which is a crime (or you could be breaking and entering depending on your intent). However, if I put a sign up saying "come on in, JohnsonB!" then you have my consent to enter, and you have therefore not violated the letter of the law.

See how consent to use private property is the crux of whether a criminal violation occurred?

A TOS defines the boundaries of how an intellectual property owner consents to your use of that property. Go outside the bounds of that TOS and you are no longer operating with consent, and may indeed be committing a crime.

I'm not saying that this is how it should be. Just that this is how the law is generally interpreted.

[andylei]

> 1.) We're reading TOS now? Is that against the law?

so is your comment a joke reply, or do you have a serious argument? has this ridiculous response indicates that you concede that it is against the terms of service?

> 2.) Irrelevant, could be a simple traffic reduction block.

if he thought it was that, why did he need a mask to retrieve his computer?

> 3.) Too flimsy to rest the entire charge on.

agree. except there's all the stuff above.

[jasonzemos]

Violating a private entity's TOS is not a federal crime. He did not mask anything: MIT has an open network, and apparently unlocked wiring closets (trespassing was not charged). Rotating your IP address on an already open network to circumvent said TOS does not constitute a statutory violation either. You can sue him, that's about it.

[pdonis]

What about JSTOR's TOS?

[brazzy]

You're being deliberately obtuse, or accusing Aaron of being.

[tedunangst]

If a bouncer kicks you from a bar, then you come back wearing a hoodie over your head and get bounced again, then come back wearing a fake mustache, you can't claim "I never knew they wanted me to leave".

[danso]

Why are we speculating what Swartz "could have thought"? What was his defense team planning on arguing?

[gnud]

In that case, if he'd bought a new laptop instead of changing the MAC address, would he have been off the hook?

[andylei]

he did buy a new laptop. its in the article.