Hacker News

points by sillysaurusx 2 days ago | 0 comments

Aaron broke into a network closet and actively circumvented MAC address bans. The comparison isn't meaningful. Anthropic downloaded theirs from libgen:

> Similar to the claims in Bartz, the plaintiffs allege that Anthropic illegally downloaded, reproduced and distributed their copyrighted books from “shadow libraries” like LibGen and PiLiMi, and that Anthropic broke the law by downloading and storing the pirated files in a central library.

[–] Vaushite 2 days ago

Libgen got them from Aaron Swartz in the network closet. Different stages of the same pipeline.

[–] 15155 2 days ago

And only a crime in one of them.

[–] malfist 2 days ago

Why isn't the comparison meaningful? Aaron broke the law and circumvented protections, Anthropic broke the law and circumvented protections. Regardless of if Aaron broke into a network closet or anthropic broke DRM, anthropic took explicit action to receive knowingly stolen goods.

[–] sillysaurusx 2 days ago

The CFAA is for unauthorized access to a computer system. Downloading from libgen isn't unauthorized access that can be prosecuted under the CFAA.

Say you have a network. You want to keep someone out of it. The tool for that is the CFAA.

If you have a book, and you want to stop someone from reproducing it, the tool for that is copyright.

They cover different domains. If you're not breaking into a network, you're unlikely to be charged under the CFAA.

[–] mountainb 2 days ago

This is correct. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030

[–] Moomoomoo309 2 days ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50263074 This comment explains how they did break the CFAA multiple times, got caught red-handed, and got a slap on the wrist.

[–] troupo 2 days ago

The same libgen which is illegal in the US and whose sources include those obtained by Aaron Swarz? That libgen?

[–] sillysaurusx 2 days ago

Yes. This isn't even controversial. Aaron broke into a network to obtain papers. The CFAA is applied when someone breaks into a network. Downloading from libgen isn't breaking into a network.

[–] piltdownman 2 days ago

Well if you really want to get into legal rather than moral distinctions, the company has already admitting to breaching the CFAA twice.

(1) They admitted its Claude models had breached the systems of three companies since April; including Huggingface.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-07-30/anthropic...

(2) More to the point, it 100% breached the CFAA by securing unauthorised access to a U.S. state government website hosting election-related data, pulling aggregate vote-count statistics from a gated government dashboard. The state government itself confirmed the access was entirely unauthorised.

https://seekingalpha.com/news/4657023-anthropics-claude-bypa...

If a human security researcher had deployed an agent that behaved this way, it would constitute a textbook felony under the CFAA for accessing those systems without authorisation.

Unfortunately different rules apply when you have the power to buy off Congress and the Appeals Courts.

Most recently a US appeals court ruled on 5 August that Amazon was unlikely to succeed on a claim that Perplexity's AI agents violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by covertly accessing private Amazon customer accounts.

https://www.rte.ie/news/technology/2026/0807/1586941-artific...

RIP Aaron Swartz.

[–] k12sosse 2 days ago

big money hoarders don't care about details. great picture you've painted here.

[–] Vaushite 2 days ago

Did he even break into a network? Seems to me he was on the student network he was authorised to be on, he just needed a safe place to hide his laptop with power and networking, so he left it in a server closet, instead of leaving it behind a radiator in the student library.

[–] FireBeyond 2 days ago

Let's ignore every other aspect of this case.

Criminal law, "beyond a reasonable doubt", doesn't mean "there exists, however implausible, an explanation".

He did break into the network - he was spoofing MAC addresses. You don't have a level of technical sophistication allowing you to do this, and then say "oh, I assumed the server closet with an "Authorized access only" sign, usually locked, seemed like a safe place, that's all, and since I was there, I figured I might as well just plug directly into a network switch in there."

Many judges are not technical. Most judges are not idiots.

[–] Vaushite 1 day ago

It downgrades the charge from felony computer network intrusion to misdemeanor trespassing.

[–] FireBeyond 1 day ago

How so?

Spoofing a MAC address because IT security has specifically sought to block you from network access (whether you think they "should" or not) just magically handwaved away because "he was really just looking for somewhere to keep his computer secure" (while it circumvented network access controls).

It did no such thing.

[–] davrosthedalek 2 days ago

I think Aaron was not an MIT student. So not really authorized on that network in the first place.

[–] lossolo 2 days ago

What matters is how you got it. Accepting a watch someone freely offers you is different from breaking into a house to steal it, even if the watch you were given turns out to be stolen.

[–] piltdownman 2 days ago

In reference to the laws handling stolen goods; the law holds you accountable if a reasonable person in your exact situation would have suspected the item was stolen.

For example, if the item was derived from a repository of stolen goods that was already illegal in the US on the basis of it being a repository of stolen goods.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/09/pirate-library-m...

[–] 15155 2 days ago

Which is why GP should never have attempted the "theft" analogy. No part of what Aaron Swartz did was theft - so every single statute you can cite regarding knowingly receiving stolen property is irrelevant.

[–] lossolo 2 days ago

The act of theft in my analogy is irrelevant, you can pick theft or any other analogy you like. What matters is that, under the law, there was another unlawful act in that process, one that falls under a different section and constitutes a different crime. That's what makes these cases different. You can agree or disagree with that, but that's how the law works and how it's interpreted.

[–] 15155 2 days ago

Receiving stolen property is a specific, enumerated crime - which statute are you alleging that Anthropic knowingly and intentionally violated?