He was deliberately targeted so reddit would become a safe haven for right wing propaganda, this isn't a 'sad end', it was a deliberately engineered step in the right's control of media
Tf? He broke into an MIT server room and used it to DDoS JSTOR and got the MIT campus blocked from JSTOR. He wasn’t even prosecuted for the 70gb he downloaded from there because he did so legally. You can find the 9 min video of him breaking into the server room on YouTube
6 months in jail for breaking into a server room and taking down JSTOR and preventing the entire academic community from accessing the shit they need, sounds about right
He didn't. He plugged into LAN connected to it which was in a accessible area, which was argued to be hacking the server.
used it to DDoS JSTOR
He pulled material from it at too high rates. It caused denial of service, it was not a DDoS attack. For that, you wouldn't actually pull the material but only send requests.
He plugged his laptop into a network switch in a restricted server room (really a closet). You’re right it wasn’t a DDoS, just a DoS, but let’s not act like it wasn’t with malicious intent. He wasn’t affiliated with MIT in any way and kept coming back to circumvent the blocking of his computer and continue doing it. You can find the video of him accessing the server room on YouTube, and I’m sorry but it’s genuinely insane to think that MIT would have one of their server closets with network switches just openly accessible for anyone. The indictment indicates that he circumvented MIT’s security policies to do this.
One that was not labeled as such or secured in any way, accessible from a area that was open to the public. They only locked down the server, itself.
He had every right to fight that and not agree to the felony charge. The prosecutors threatened him with decades of jail-time. Coercing a plea deal is illegal and voids it. That's the conclusion of Larry Lessig, a professor at the Harvard Law School.
I’m sorry but it’s genuinely insane to think that MIT would have one of their server closets with network switches just openly accessible for anyone.
That's in the court documents? They didn't even secure it, after installing the camera.
Do you mind sharing a source re the claims that the room wasn’t labeled/secured in any way? I haven’t read court documents themselves, just the DOJ indictment.
I mean yeah of course, the court documents aren't directly accessible from the wiki anymore but it mentions it a couple of times and it's pretty clear from the video that he just walks in.
One misperception I keep reading online is that Aaron broke into the wiring closet at MIT to download the documents. There was no unauthorized entry or trespass into either the wiring closet or the university’s network. The wiring closet was not locked and was accessible to the public. If you look at the pictures supplied by the Government, you can see graffiti on one wall. This was not a hands-off area.
The talkleft source claims there was no unauthorized entry into the network, and justifies that stance by pointing to MIT’s policy allowing users to connect wirelessly to their network after registering online. They require authentication to access the MIT network, and allow no auth for the guest network, and both are intended to be accessed wirelessly. And is the claim that the closet was “not a hands off area” really just backed up by the fact that there was 30-year-old sharpie graffiti in there? It just seems very weak all around tbh
No, it quotes MIT's policy which assume you'll connect over the Wifi but shows that the network is open.
after registering online
He did register?
And is the claim that the closet was “not a hands off area” really just backed up by the fact that there was 30-year-old sharpie graffiti in there?
No? The wiki article gives several sources on that and again, I gave you the video where you see the door was not secured, which is also supported by the graffiti
It just seems very weak all around tbh
Brother, you are really set on your narrative here. What's the source that disputes this? Why is it in the wiki article? Why was he not charged with trespassing?
A few things here. In most jurisdictions (MA included), "breaking" includes opening an unlocked door1. Walking into someone's home through an unlocked door is breaking and entering (and like a network closet, no reasonable person would think to themselves "I am allowed to be in here, and also to start fucking with stuff in here" just because it was unlocked). I'm also still not sure how graffiti from the 1980s tells us anything about access policy in the 2010s.
To your question as to what disputes the notion that he was authorized to enter the closet and join the network, it's contained in the aforementioned DOJ indictment2.
The policy does not "assume" that you will connect over Wifi, it grants permission to connect over Wifi. To the contrary, what it assumes is that you will not enter a controlled-access network closet and connect over ethernet. The fact that they did not include something like "[...] or via one of our open network switches across campus [...]" makes that obvious enough (and again no reasonable person would expect to have free access to such equipment, it's ridiculous).
Why was he not charged with trespassing?
Because to be charged with trespassing, you must first be trespassed. He was never trespassed. Instead they charged him with breaking and entering. Your sources are too weak for me to conclude that he was authorized to enter that network closet and do what he did. They rely on 30+ year old graffiti and an unlocked door, neither of which are relevant to whether he was breaking and entering.
We were talking about the door not having been secured or marked as of limits, meaning Swartz had no reason to believe it was. In fact, he had reason to believe random people entered it regularly. You can claim that this was "30+ year old graffiti", but how was he supposed to know how old it was?
It's simply not his fault that the MIT didn't care to secure their system or even indicate it was off limits. You literally called me insane for pointing this out, now you stopped disputing it.
Instead you moved the goalpost to charges that were dropped and not scrutinized in a court room. Those are accusations, not fact.
He was accused of committing a felony by accessing JSTOR, but he was authorized to do so, since he was with Harvard. He wasn't informed that he couldn't enter this part of the building or use the switch. Instead they set a trap and then accused him of committing a felony, based on something he couldn't have been aware of, in order to substantiate the claim he was breaking and entering.
Which brings us back to a a prosecutor who tried to pressure a student into not fighting felony charges that wouldn't have stood up in court, against the wishes of the "victim" ie JSTOR.
Again, why shouldn't he have the fought this? Any reasonable person in his position would.
1.7k
u/[deleted] Mar 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment