tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post1269678187767880137..comments2024-01-16T05:48:33.523-05:00Comments on Errata Security: I conceal my identity the same way Aaron was indicted forDavid Maynorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09921229607193067441noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-84772068360980289602014-05-23T09:42:24.295-04:002014-05-23T09:42:24.295-04:00@Daniel Gore
you're wrong. The precedent of G...@Daniel Gore<br /><br />you're wrong. The precedent of Griswold v. Connecticut states that the Constitution does in fact grant the right to privacy. Also the larger issue at hand is that he was going to spend most of his life in prison over stupid charges. outside of the B&E the wire fraud only applies to obtaining money,[this is nobody's property hence his access to it under the law cannot be challenged], his "damage" is very easily undone to the protected computer. That's the larger issue at hand even ignoring the fact that the stringency of current computer laws is hardly good for the internetimplicitly blankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08368702617495818515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-37531822241391448102013-01-21T12:29:14.908-05:002013-01-21T12:29:14.908-05:00This is a little off (some of) the topics, but som...This is a little off (some of) the topics, but someone asked how to change MACs on a Windows Box. I generally use http://www.technitium.com/ (freeware) for that. <br /><br />I also just ask my VM manager (e.g. VirtualBox, VMWare Player/Workstation/Fusion, etc.) for a new one when needed. (I use a lot of VMs.) More and more, computers and network devices are virtual rather than physical. (Where do you think all those MACs are coming from?) I know people that use a new (virtual) computer every day for web browsing.<br /><br />In practice, there's nothing reliably identifying about a MAC, but since so few people actually do change it, it does get abused that way. But it is by no means a form of authentication. Abusing it that way is just lazy convenience.<br /><br />Now for actual hardware (network cards or chips), it can be like a device serial number. So if you don't think it's wise to always wear something akin your Social Security Number on your shirt, you should probably change it, at least in certain circumstances.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-40767275436330888622013-01-19T12:06:21.053-05:002013-01-19T12:06:21.053-05:00Your efforts are pointless. Google is tracking all...Your efforts are pointless. Google is tracking all that and saving/reporting it. Apple is tracking much of what you're doing too, just like Canonical would with Ubuntu.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-67316900456758627852013-01-19T00:02:56.452-05:002013-01-19T00:02:56.452-05:00SO, sounds like you're saying aliens could bea...SO, sounds like you're saying aliens could bear culpability?<br /><br />I don't rule out the possibility he was murdered. NO NOTE....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-45011135873204197902013-01-18T15:40:41.176-05:002013-01-18T15:40:41.176-05:00...(con't)... ie. Gary mckinnon stated he was ......(con't)... ie. Gary mckinnon stated he was specifically looking for "ufo"/kosmonaut-ish activities ...project space warden/solar warden...<br /><br />Yes, this is not intent of article..but if he suspected that the jstor was a gateway to "other" materials than perhaps the legal & lawful tenets are inapplicable because black projects are can not rely upon earthly commercial & ADMIRALITY law...upon which international "intellectual and creative" products and informationals are instantiated and subsequently governed ....enforcable by non-black dicks with guns...er, 30 inch waistbelts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-21985986700218724022013-01-18T15:31:31.855-05:002013-01-18T15:31:31.855-05:00Has anyone asked you to explain why you're doi...Has anyone asked you to explain why you're doing that? If not, it might be because you didn't break into JSTOR. Aaron wasn't indicted because he faked a MAC address he was indicted because some people think that breaking into JSTOR was a criminal act. It's one more sad note about Aaron's passing that with his being gone, we no longer have the opportunity to clear all this up via litigation. I think your next blog post should be an open letter to your congressman, telling him the way the laws should be changed to protect Aaron's indicted activities in the future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-18227372193195556032013-01-18T15:26:37.515-05:002013-01-18T15:26:37.515-05:00Sorry if i missed this but..
Is there a complete l...Sorry if i missed this but..<br />Is there a complete listing of files downloaded even though the data itself was surrendered?<br />or perhaps more to the point : which databases or sources was he after?<br />He was a unique kind of intellect/genius. ...like chess grandmasters, yes?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-83744342841543352872013-01-18T10:47:17.579-05:002013-01-18T10:47:17.579-05:00@Daniel Gore
>>A right can only be conferre...@Daniel Gore<br /><br />>>A right can only be conferred by the community in which you live, <br /><br />Maybe you are not familiar with the USA, where we are "endowed with certain unalienable rights from our creator."<br /><br />You can argue whether privacy is one of those rights, but your assertion is wrong - at least concerning the law in the USA.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-75216508669079779422013-01-17T16:20:16.113-05:002013-01-17T16:20:16.113-05:00spoofing your laptop's mac inside your own pri...spoofing your laptop's mac inside your own private network does absolutely nothing unless you are trying to fool yourself.<br />when you make a connection from a device inside your network, to a device outside your network, the mac address of the WAN port of your router is used, never the mac of your computer connected to your private network.<br />when your packet reaches your ISP's router and get routed to the next router upstream, the mac then becomes the mac address of the interface that relayed the packet, it does this every router it goes through, the only thing that stays the same is the origin and destination IP's and ports.<br />MAC's are just identifiers between physically connected interfaces.<br /><br />Now spoofing the mac of your router's WAN interface is only going to make it look like you keep changing routers to your ISP, nothing beyond that will matter, and when somebody comes looking for the person using IP's x, y, and z, on specific dates and times, your ISP is going to know that it was you, regardless of what mac address your router was using.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-42885214903950632032013-01-17T15:42:33.121-05:002013-01-17T15:42:33.121-05:00There are many examples of laws that impute intent...There are many examples of laws that impute intent to situations, but the closest examples are drug laws where possession of some may be legal (controlled OTC or with a prescription), getting multiple prescriptions (presumably from different doctors) or using multiple identities for controlled OTC drugs(parallel to changing MAC addresses to get more than the allowed number of documents) is illegal, and regardless of how obtained, possession of more than X can be illegal regardless of how obtained and can 'prove' intent to illegally distribute - not necessarily for a profit, just without the legal right to do so.<br />(Anonymous becuase I don't like to have to get permission to speak. KDLNeal other places.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-90125376724462505792013-01-17T14:49:09.892-05:002013-01-17T14:49:09.892-05:00>> I have a human right to privacy
Really? ...>> I have a human right to privacy<br /><br />Really? How is that a human right?<br />You have a *preference* for privacy.<br /><br />But a right.. I'm not so sure. A right can only be conferred by the community in which you live, as long as everyone else abides by those same standards/rules.<br /><br />I can see many benefits if no one could hide behind an anonymous mask on the internet, if everyone was forced to depend their own opinion as everyone one would know what they truly thought or what actions they'd taken on the 'net.<br /><br />But at the same time, I can see how that would curb people's freedom to express themselves for fear of being judged or persecuted.Daniel Gorenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-52171517099955992112013-01-17T14:48:59.040-05:002013-01-17T14:48:59.040-05:00There are two separate problems here. The first is...There are two separate problems here. The first is that the law as written is ridiculously broad. There are many parts of the statute that refer to intent --- but there is one section that says mere "unauthorized" access of a computer to get information (of any kind, regardless of what you intend to do with it) is a felony. This is a gaping hole in the law which ought to be closed, as many people have argued. If violating the terms of service in any way constitutes "unauthorized access" (one person was allowed to be sued for deleting files on his work laptop after he'd decided to quit, under the theory that he was no longer "authorized" to access the laptop after he *decided* to quit --- not even after he actually quit).<br /><br />The second issue is whether or not Aaron was overcharged, and that is incredibly clearly the case. Prosecutors, as that retired Federal judge said, should never have prosecuted this case. Aaron should have been let off with a diversionary program of some kind. They were trying to ruin his life over doing something that may have been technically illegal but was not something that deserved a felony conviction. That's the real travesty here.Synthetic Zerohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06441687986668803207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-23369657523049588032013-01-17T11:35:17.682-05:002013-01-17T11:35:17.682-05:00Concerning "criminal intent," changing t...Concerning "criminal intent," changing the MAC address is evidence of that (good enough for an indictment), but there are other reasons why one would change your MAC address without "criminal intent." That is the original post's point. <br /><br />I think that a better explanation for changing your MAC address (without criminal intent) is that Aaron was trying to figure out WHY he was kicked off the network. When your computer doesn't connect, you jog it into requesting another IP address. Problem solved! When you can't connect again, you say "hmmm, what is going on." You request another IP address, but that doesn't work. You ask, "is it a wireless policy because I'm hogging wireless bandwidth?" You then change your mac address. You connect. You conclude, "ah, it is a wireless policy, I'm hogging the bandwidth and MIT doesn't want that; I'll just use the wired connection in the closet." You connect in the closet but you don't want people messing with your laptop (or stealing it), so you cover it up. <br /><br />A Wifi MAC address block at worst means you don't have authorization to connect to the wireless network to do what you were doing. It does not mean you do not have authorization to connect to the JSTOR "computer" - which is what the prosecution would have to show. <br /><br />There you have it - changing your IP address and MAC address without criminal intent (in Aaron's case) to access a "computer" (statute term) without "authorization." <br /><br />So the guy complaining about "criminal intent," as a point, which is addressed with the argument above. Simple trouble shooting by Aaron. delafieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17407325972664476027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-25793452862213421802013-01-17T11:18:50.128-05:002013-01-17T11:18:50.128-05:00A MAC address block at worst indicates that you ma...A MAC address block at worst indicates that you may not be "authorized" (statute term) to access the *wireless network*. Wireless networks are managed differently than wired networks, and it naturally follows that one should instead use the (open) *wired* network in an (unlocked) closet to access JSTOR. delafieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17407325972664476027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-7023320197202889972013-01-17T11:05:20.447-05:002013-01-17T11:05:20.447-05:00The real problem is the state "up-converting&...The real problem is the state "up-converting" a violation of terms of service into a federal crime. <br /><br />This is analogous to having a disputed parking ticket with a private parking company turned into a criminal record.dimonichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08376291816780380800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-87520001080879911512013-01-17T10:22:44.707-05:002013-01-17T10:22:44.707-05:00I was going to write a long-winded response praisi...I was going to write a long-winded response praising Aaron and indicting MIT and JSTOR of hypocrisy. But, aren't we all are culpable of sustaining institutions which are more self-serving than the embodiment of the high-ideals envisioned by the founders.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-86617605353954002142013-01-17T10:22:15.446-05:002013-01-17T10:22:15.446-05:00Thanks for writing this, and I felt both your phon...Thanks for writing this, and I felt both your phone and Marcia Hoffman's speed bump analogies were great. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-59104300700669106332013-01-17T08:45:01.733-05:002013-01-17T08:45:01.733-05:00I'm sorry, that is just inane. You haven't...I'm sorry, that is just inane. You haven't even read the statute --- you're just blathering. Read the fricking statute before opining. Mens rea simply refers to whether or not the defendant had specific intent to engage in a prohibited action. The statutes are what define prohibited actions, not some vague, meaningless notion of "criminal" --- what is criminal is what is prohibited by statute, and that's what's partly at issue here. Intent only has to do with intent to violate this or other statutes. The clause I quoted is one of several independent clauses that specify what prohibited actions are. Stop being so lazy (there's nothing worse than someone being simultaneously arrogant and patronizing while not actually knowing what the hell you're talking about in the least).<br /><br />There are quite a few independent points here which you're stupidly and lazily ignoring. First: the law is ridiculously broad. The law as written could be read to criminalize almost any ordinary activity online --- which is what many prosecutors have attempted to foist upon the courts.<br /><br />This is not merely my opinion. It's a widely known issue. For example, take this one of many articles on the subject.<br /><br />http://dawn.com/2013/01/16/anti-hacking-law-questioned-after-death-of-internet-activist/<br /><br />The central point here, however, completely aside from the ludicrously overbroad law, is the fact that Swartz should not have been forced to plead guilty to felonies and to do hard time. For more on this, I give you this interview with retired Federal Judge Nancy Gertner:<br /><br />http://www.wbur.org/2013/01/16/gertner-criticizes-ortiz-swartz<br /><br />'“When that happens the prosecutor has enormous power and has to exercise that with some degree of fairness and judgment at that end,” she added.<br /><br />And this is what Gertner says Ortiz lacked in the case of Aaron Swartz. If the government was willing to recommend four months in prison, Gertner asks, why not two years in a diversion program which would have suspended and dropped charges if he committed no crimes during that period?'Synthetic Zerohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06441687986668803207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-77550176332455448882013-01-17T08:43:11.517-05:002013-01-17T08:43:11.517-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Synthetic Zerohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06441687986668803207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-60568096915529592052013-01-17T07:52:58.994-05:002013-01-17T07:52:58.994-05:00Too much legal ignorance going around here.
"...Too much legal ignorance going around here.<br /><br /><i>"I can buy a million kitchen knives, and consider stabbing people with them and not go to jail, no matter how much I 'think' about doing it. Furthermore I can't be arrested because I bought the knife with the intent to stab someone. I can only be arrested if I take that legally acquired knife and attempt to act on my thoughts and actually try to stab someone, and you can't charge me with buying the knife legally."</i><br /><br />Not true. If you bought a knife <i>with the intent of using it for murder</i> then you have committed an offence. There is a long established precedent in common law that the intent with which you acquire or carry something can make carrying it an offence. See also laws on going equipped for burglary, theft etc, both in common law and statute.<br /><br /><i>That clause has no specification of "intent", criminal or otherwise.</i><br /><br />This is a ludicrous objection. As if every clause of every law must individually define its terms! Not only could the CFAA include a definitions section (it is certain to), the definition of 'intent' in criminal cases has been established for more centuries than I care to count. That you are ignorant of that doesn't make it not so.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16010343369134886771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-87799424450764084882013-01-17T03:37:17.126-05:002013-01-17T03:37:17.126-05:00The man was indicted because the law is too broad ...The man was indicted because the law is too broad and the law is too broad because the copyright Mafia want it so. <br />It has nothing to do with technical aptitude or witchcraft of any form.UngainlyTitannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-65800751387409358202013-01-16T18:10:36.549-05:002013-01-16T18:10:36.549-05:00The US government's reaction to Swartz's t...The US government's reaction to Swartz's theft was absurd. Demanding privacy when using your computer should be the norm not an exception. <br /><br />To add to the OS X MAC spoofing script I added a little hostname spoofer. It just replaces your hostname with a couple random words. It would probably look better if it ended in `s-MacBook-Air` but at least it's a start.<br /><br />http://pastebin.com/HyCASZrvAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-90979668983553510522013-01-16T17:46:26.952-05:002013-01-16T17:46:26.952-05:00In most places it's actually very much legal t...In most places it's actually very much legal to drive around a speed bump. You can be cited for other offenses like driving in an oncoming lane, etc, but the skirting speedbump itself is not illegal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-76235917109223004382013-01-16T17:42:59.425-05:002013-01-16T17:42:59.425-05:00Love the article, it makes an issue of the 'la...Love the article, it makes an issue of the 'law being an ass' quite obvious and how it is applied to users like this is a bad result.<br />But I also have to make the comment, that hiding your intentions is also part of the problem.. This is also happening with photographers. When an officer asks you what your doing you can try to explain it simply or you can start arguing about having the right to be here and doing what your doing and not having to explain yourself.. Which do you think would be more helpful? As you stated you don't have to explain your reasons for being anonymous, I don't have to explain my reasons for being in a street taking a photograph.. If we don't then the officer will investigate the situation (with or without my help) until he finds an explanation or a reason. Without my help he will eventually find a reason that I shouldn't be there, with my help he could quickly accept why I am there, see no issue and move on. Yes you have a right to privacy, and the law has an obligation to determine a result...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-31920561144451797362013-01-16T17:18:48.288-05:002013-01-16T17:18:48.288-05:00"Any sufficiently technical expert is indisti..."Any sufficiently technical expert is indistinguishable from a witch"<br />Quote of the dayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com