TYB
[JSTOR] (1/6)
JSTOR and private control of publicly-funded information - DIG
https://www.jstor.org/
"JSTOR is a digital library for the intellectually curious. We help everyone discover, share, and connect valuable ideas."
[JSTOR] (2/6)
If JSTOR exists to "provide independent researchers with free and low-cost access to scholarship", then why was Aaron Swartz accused of felony charges for downloading "too many" scholarly articles?
What is JSTOR hiding?
"We collaborate with the academic community to help libraries connect students and faculty to vital content while lowering costs and increasing shelf space, provide independent researchers with free and low-cost access to scholarship, and help publishers reach new audiences and preserve their content for future generations."
[JSTOR] (3/6)
From 2013: Aaron Swartz Internet Activist Dies at Age 26 (1/2)
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/technology/aaron-swartz-internet-activist-dies-at-26.html
(Article is pay-walled; full article given here in screenshots.)
[JSTOR] (4/6)
From 2013: Aaron Swartz Internet Activist Dies at Age 26 (2/2)
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/technology/aaron-swartz-internet-activist-dies-at-26.html
(Article is pay-walled; full article given here in screenshots.)
[JSTOR] (5/6)
Miss you, Aaron. Best of the best. Forever in our hearts.
From 2013: Why Did the Justice System Target Aaron Swartz?
Swartz was well-known in technology circles for helping develop the RSS web feed format and the popular site Reddit, among other accomplishments. At the time of his death, he was facing 13 felony charges and up to 50 years in prison: Prosecutors had accused him of using MIT’s network to download too many scholarly articles from an academic database called JSTOR.
Swartz’s friends and family have said they believe he was driven to his death by a justice system that hounded him needlessly over an alleged crime with no real victims. “[He was] forced by the government to spend every fiber of his being on this damnable, senseless trial,” his partner Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman said at the memorial, “with no guarantee that he could exonerate himself at the end of it.”
Swartz’s tragic death has already begun forcing lawmakers to start rethinking our draconian computer laws. And House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-California) even promised an investigation of the Justice Department prosecutors who did their best to send a young Internet pioneer to prison.
Two zealous federal prosecutors handled Swartz’s case: U.S. district attorney Carmen Ortiz and assistant attorney Stephen Heymann. In the days after his death, writers, tech experts, and many of Swartz’s friends have called out Heymann and Ortiz for prosecutorial overreach. A White House petition demanding the removal of Ortiz garnered well over 25,000 signatures, reaching the level which guarantees an eventual response from the Obama administration.
Some of Swartz’s advocates believe the prosecution sought excessive punishment to set an example in the age of Wikileaks and Anonymous.
“This was, in my opinion, part of a coordinated campaign to scare young Internet activists,” says Roy Singham, ThoughtWorks chairman and a friend of Swartz.
It’s worth reviewing the so-called crime which put Swartz in the government’s crosshairs. From September 24th, 2010 to January 6th, 2011, he accessed MIT’s network to scrape an “extraordinary volume of articles” from the academic database JSTOR. Initially, he used the university’s open wireless network to grab the files. But after several attempts by JSTOR and MIT to block him, Swartz gained access to a restricted closet and directly hardwired his laptop to the network, leaving it there to pull data.
MIT personnel found Swartz’s laptop on the morning of January 4th, 2011, and connected a second computer to the network switch to monitor Swartz’s activity. They also fingerprinted Swartz’s device and installed a camera in the closet to identify their culprit.
On the same day, the U.S. Secret Service took over the investigation. Court documents reveal that Secret Service agent Michael Prickett recommended MIT personnel leave Swartz’s laptop in the closet for monitoring. All acquired data was eventually disclosed to the Secret Service.
On January 6th, 2011, MIT and Cambridge police, with the help of special agent Prickett, arrested Swartz on charges of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. As blogger Marcy Wheeler suggests, the early involvement of the Secret Service “makes it clear that this was a nationally directed effort to take down Swartz.”
Full article:
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/why-did-the-justice-system-target-aaron-swartz-106848/
[JSTOR] (6/6)
Was Aaron Swartz targetted because of what he found on JSTOR?
Why would academic research (often publicly funded) be hidden behind paywalls?
Who was desperate to silence Aaron?
Who colluded in his persecution?
What would meta-analysis of academic papers reveal?
What would linguistic analysis of individual academics reveal?
Secret networks deliberately shaping linguistic trends and creating cognitive bias?
Large scale academic fraud?
Evil is hiding in plain sight.
Where does evil hide?
An aside: patterns through time.
The cult often makes big moves on significant dates, including religious holidays.
>On January 6th, 2011, MIT and Cambridge police, with the help of special agent Prickett, arrested Swartz on charges of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony.
January 6th = Epiphany
>The purported suicide of Ian Murdock the founder of Debian seems equally dubious
Sounds very suspicious.
It's quite strange how many of those who oppose powerful plans end up dead and authorities conclude that they took their own lives.
It's almost like we live under an authoritarian regime that commits extra-judicial killings against citizens who speak up, with a media wing ready to spin the cover-up story.
Thank you for presenting the deathcult propaganda version of reality!
Who defines "mentally ill"?
Who defines "criminal"?
The sick, criminal system that is committing genocide worldwide, that's who.
These terms are smear tactics used against those brave enough to take a stand, anyone who can think for themselves, anyone who can create real solutions.
In this society, the best of the best are smeared, criminalised, imprisoned and murdered.
Keep repeating [their] propaganda, if that's the world you want.
Seriously though, that's some timing.
Allegedly killed himself one month after joining the company?
Makes me wonder what he found out while he was working there.
I guess some work environments are more hazardous than others.
https://fortune.com/2015/12/30/linux-guru-ian-murdock-dead/
https://www.theregister.com/2015/11/17/ian_murdock_joins_docker/
Sounds fun.
Right, the ones with the "gawd" complex aren't the powerful elites, it's the free internet campaigners who oppose systems of censorship and control. Sure…
Keep repeating [their] propaganda if you want everyone to remain slaves.
You have a right to free speech, even if you choose to use it to repeat stale smear campaigns.
Missions forward.
Stay safe out there, Anons.
The good guys win.