Hacker News Reader

Comment by jamra | Hacker News Reader

You really are speaking ill of the dead. Calling him a self-promoter and a loose cannon isn't appropriate.

As far as the MIT incident... I don't really think he burglarized MIT. He tried to bring documents that were hidden behind a paywall to the general public. He didn't rob anyone seeing as how the documents were submitted without compensation by the people who created them. Whether or not it's hacker culture, it's a culture of social disruption aimed at the betterment of us all.

There will always be shakers, people who raise their voices loud to stand for what they believe in. Unfortunately, they will all be followed by people like you and your parent poster who will attempt to defame their character and negate their contributions.

View on HN

>I don't really think he burglarized MIT

I think Mr. Swartz's actions at MIT are admirable, but I don't know how you can deny that what he did was burglary.

Burglary is theft of valuables. What was stolen? Data was copied, not erased. The moral ownership of that data is by the many authors who were never reimbursed. JSTOR is a scam.

Burglary isn't theft. Burglary is breaking into a place you don't have permission to enter, with the intent to commit a crime. If you then commit that crime (whether it's theft, vandalism, destruction of property, etc.) you are usually charged with that other crime alongside the burglary charge.

Ok so lets focus on the act of breaking in, though there was no financial loss. Lets ignore the fact that he could have obtained everything without "breaking in" if he did so at Stanford. It's clear to me that in Aaron's mind, he was not breaking in. A laptop in an unlocked cabinet is not really breaking in.

It seems as though there is some kind of personal hatred towards Aaron that compels people to try and vilify him as if he was some sort of criminal.

> It seems as though there is some kind of personal hatred towards Aaron that compels people to try and vilify him as if he was some sort of criminal.

Not on my part, I've always thought highly of him. I was just correcting your misconception about burglary laws.

> A laptop in an unlocked cabinet is not really breaking in.

Burglary, again, is gaining entry to a place you're not authorized to be, with the intent to commit a criminal act. Whether the cabinet was locked or not has no bearing on that charge. In many places, entering an unlocked car or house that doesn't belong to you constitutes burglary, even if you don't do anything while you're there. It's up to the court to prove whether you had intent to commit a crime, but the simple act of gaining unauthorized entry is usually enough to be charged with burglary.

One more thing: I agree with you in that I don't think Aaron felt what he was doing was wrong. Given my background in law enforcement, I simply felt compelled to correct a misconception.

You can read more about the charge of burglary in general here, though you may wish to read about Massachusetts's specific laws as well:

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/burglary-overvi...

Copyings is not equal to taking.

If someone steals something from me, it isn't that they now have it that is the big problem. It is that I no longer have it that makes it so bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com