The cutesy Beatles inspired “revolutionary” stance of passive resistance was never designed to work. This is where I do not jive with the hipsters. ANd thanks to a estranged relationship with a parent who is a big Lennon fan- the bottom line is always going to be:

“money talks, bullshit walks.”

We have to beat these issues in the exact same way the Japanese beat out any abuse by their socialized healthcare system. Basically they took such good care of themselves that their healthcare was not considered a money maker, therefore they have no lobby monies to provoke the people with corruption with.

The Force is not with tools for bartering, but with a sharp mind over matter. I can tell you, with cultural influences screwing up my own personal affairs (on an individual level)- PERSPECTIVE, patience and self control is power; and this is the most difficult to master.

Hack on.

Your comment is so ridiculous it could just be pure sarcasm on your part, but I’ll explain just in case you really didn’t understand.

Aaron did have access to the database, he did not hack his way in, nor did he break into any building.

The resources were openly available to him, so it is not stealing, moreover, he return what he took which in itself is ridiculous, since such data is not “taken”, it is copied, the original data remained there.

The denial of access to others, was simply 2 computers crashing under the load of data being passed. Surely not done with any malicious intent, after all, Aaron was probably going to put that knowledge in a public domain, to be made available for all.
The computers crushing was an accidental side-effect, no-doubt taken care off fairly quickly.

JSTOR, did indeed, forgive him, because they did not mind.
They did not perceive such actions as unlawful.

As for your comment on “good intentions justifying the needs”, No sacrifice was made, non of the “victims” was hurt, nor even cared about what “the awful burglar” did. Such a dramatic claim is simply out of place here.

It is also not appropriate to “attack” him as you did, something a person claiming to have the morals you do, should already know.

ziv.

Ed : glad to hear it!

Sam : I can not speak to the accuracy of the claims made against Aaron. But even if all of them were accurate, I see obvious problems with associating them with the top-tier federal crimes of which he stands accused.

That makes a mockery of our legal system, which I agree should recognize criminal behavior and react to it appropriately.

Given JSTOR’s response, it would seem he very likely could have ASKED for access to these documents and received such access, especially since he was ostensibly a faculty member at Harvard.

I won’t argue that he may have good intentions. But good intentions don’t justify the means. Isn’t that something we are supposed to hold dear? Couldn’t he have tried to ask first? If denied, couldn’t he have tried to lobby publicly for such access?

Why did he have to steal network access from MIT, break into one of their buildings and crash JSTOR’s servers in the process?

That’s criminal behavior. It should be recognized as such.

There was a better way to go about doing what he wanted to do. Just because he’s a self-entitled kid, doesn’t mean the world should give him everything he wants. Sometimes, just asking is all it takes.