If the students have failed to vehemently distance themselves and protest to the administration, or even quit MIT for somewhere else, then they are just as guilty. Their attendance abets the status quo. Especially since it's a private university.
That's insane. There's no way an individual student can possibly vet and approve every decision made by the school administration. If the U.S. president engages is an immoral action do I bear the guilt of his actions because I voted for him? Should I renounce my U.S. citizenship whenever my congress-critter misbehaves? Of course not. That is the worst thing I could do. I would be far more effective if I stuck around and campaigned against an immoral leader and tried to get a replacement elected.
I imagine the point of this attack is to effect/inconvenience students so they complain to the MIT administration. The school bureaucracy won't listen to random strangers on the internet, but they will listen to students.
I imagine the point of this attack is to effect/inconvenience students so they complain to the MIT administration.
If that's the objective, it's not a very well chosen one IMO. As I and others have posted elsewhere in this thread, MIT is already conducting an investigation, and I expect that students who are at all likely to complain to the administration already know about this and are already watching what happens, and will make their displeasure known if the appropriate action isn't taken once the investigation is complete. I doubt that this DDoS attack will have a significant effect on that.
Plus, as has also been posted elsewhere in this thread, investigations take time. Is this DDoS attack going to continue until it's finished? How does that help? Or is the objective to get students to demand heads before all the facts are known? How does that help?
What, do you think people have no social responsibility towards the institutions they support?
If you belonged to the Westboro Baptist Church or some other group it'd be legit to claim you're responsible for their actions to a certain degree.
Why do MIT students get a special exemption from the chain of responsibility that applies to everyone else?
If you are a member of a collectivist institution it's also your responsibility to take what action you can to shape its moral aspect. And to be silent is to abet.
What makes you think students at MIT aren't trying to make a difference? Do you expect something to happen within days of a tragedy? This takes organization, and outrage, and discussion. People searching for solutions. The wrong message would be to attack students, who are also ultimately victims of information monopoly.
I fear you're cutting off the nose to spite the face.
And these frequent DDoS attacks are partly to blame for Aaron's death, it's the reason why prosecutors are so hardcore about "hacking" or anything vaguely similar to it.
I am not associated with MIT. However I consider Abelson's forthcoming report as being more representative of the organization, than whatever random administrator was dealing with the prosecutor. Abelson was undoubtably there before the administrator in question, will be there after, and is far more widely known than the currently faceless administrator.
You lost me at Westboro Baptist Church, which isn't comparable. WBC is a voluntary group, which I assume you can enter and exit without penalty.
Imagine you're a student, halfway through your 4 year program at MIT... You don't know Aaron, or anything about his situation. Yes, you get an exemption from blame, because it has nothing to do with you and it's not your business. You cannot just exit and go elsewhere without seriously hurting yourself.
When you're enrolled at a University, you are not part of a collectivist institution, you are a customer at a business. If you choose to go elsewhere, that's on you, but who is anyone else to tell you what you should do? You're starting to sound like the WBC...
And your tuition money is so entirely different than tithing how?
Likewise, customers have social responsibility in their purchasing decisions, and transferring credits to another school isn't all that huge of a deal, either, so I'm kind of finding your take a little overblown. Obviously every student at MIT volunteered to come there, too.
That's like saying that if your father raped someone, you raped that person too. It's the same logic that was applied to Jews, Gypsies, and slaves for centuries (and is still applied in the Middle East today). It has no place in modern discourse.
No, It's more like your 18th cousin 6 times removed raped someone... You don't know the guy, never met him, and some troll on the internet is blaming you for murder because you haven't publicly denounced him.
What an excellent way to win the hearts and minds of the MIT student body. Congratulations you've managed to belittle and alienate the same people you'd want on your side!
A murderous anti-freedom organization that was apparently OK with a six-month plea deal[1] that Swartz's legal team rejected. So I guess if you want to go that route you can call them "anti-freedom", though I too am against the freedom to crack into other people's networks too. But murderous? Hyperbolic silliness.
You do not help the cause you claim to support by screaming, spittle-flecked, at passers-by.
Does this mean Americans that haven't protested or denounced their citizenship are just as guilty for the sometimes awful things the American government does?
Fortunately protesting at the ballot box allows Americans some measure of escape from culpability for the actions of the US government, however most are still responsible having voted for Democrats or Republicans, the very ones who have put into place many of the policies that are ostensibly so objectionable.
The fact that people find it impossible to keep their hands clean is a fact of life and of human nature, but that shouldn't just excuse everyone. It should be a reason to try for better.
Quit whining.