4 ms·

> Have we seen mass prosecutions under the CFAA at the behest of corporate interests? This is a case where a small number of people had a very profitable racke

> Have we seen mass prosecutions under the CFAA at the behest of corporate interests? This is a case where a small number of people had a very profitable racket going, selling access to publicly funded scientific papers, and Swartz posed a threat to their racket.

duxup 5y ago
My point being I think it is unlikely the law was created so long ago ... to account for that.
- GeekyBear 5y ago
  This is more of an explanation of why the law was misused in this particular case. Swartz posed a threat to the ability to privately profit off of publicly funded science.
  - duxup 5y ago
    I can understand that but I was responding to someone who claimed "You mean corporate lobbyists wanting federal enforcement of contract terms and corporate interests".
    - GeekyBear 5y ago
      Isn't protecting the interests of a wealthy few exactly what happened in this case? Look at all the recent Federal activity aimed at shutting down Sci-Hub. >A reminder that Elsevier made $6 BILLION selling your academic journals and articles behind paywalls, and made more profit than Amazon, Google and Apple every year for YEARS... And paid the academics who wrote the articles $0 And paid the reviewers of the articles $0 https://twitter.com/DrJessTaylor/status/1390798132632596488?s=20 https://twitter.com/DrJessTaylor/status/1390798132632596488?...
    - no-s 5y ago
      “I can understand that but I was responding to someone who claimed ''You mean corporate lobbyists wanting federal enforcement of contract terms and corporate interest.''” You left off the "had nothing to do with it?” part, which was a rhetorical assertion of equivalent hyperbole, but not a direct claim. If you want to interpret it that way you should to include the question mark in the consideration of your response....
fmajid 5y ago
Except both MIT and JSTOR did not press charges. It was an ambitious US Attorney, Carmen Ortiz, who wanted a notable scalp to boost her career. That career is now in tatters for completely independent reasons: https://theintercept.com/2021/02/15/marty-walsh-aaron-swartz-carmen-ortiz/ https://theintercept.com/2021/02/15/marty-walsh-aaron-swartz... Prosecutorial malfeasance is a serious problem in the US, probably worse than police shootings in sheer number of lives broken, notably due to the abusive plea deal system where innocent people have a Hobson's choice to accept a plea just to avoid the risk of draconian penalties if they take the chance of a trial and whatever attorney will be assigned to them.

duxup 5y ago

My point being I think it is unlikely the law was created so long ago ... to account for that.

GeekyBear 5y ago
This is more of an explanation of why the law was misused in this particular case. Swartz posed a threat to the ability to privately profit off of publicly funded science.
- duxup 5y ago
  I can understand that but I was responding to someone who claimed "You mean corporate lobbyists wanting federal enforcement of contract terms and corporate interests".
  - GeekyBear 5y ago
    Isn't protecting the interests of a wealthy few exactly what happened in this case? Look at all the recent Federal activity aimed at shutting down Sci-Hub. >A reminder that Elsevier made $6 BILLION selling your academic journals and articles behind paywalls, and made more profit than Amazon, Google and Apple every year for YEARS... And paid the academics who wrote the articles $0 And paid the reviewers of the articles $0 https://twitter.com/DrJessTaylor/status/1390798132632596488?s=20 https://twitter.com/DrJessTaylor/status/1390798132632596488?...
  - no-s 5y ago
    “I can understand that but I was responding to someone who claimed ''You mean corporate lobbyists wanting federal enforcement of contract terms and corporate interest.''” You left off the "had nothing to do with it?” part, which was a rhetorical assertion of equivalent hyperbole, but not a direct claim. If you want to interpret it that way you should to include the question mark in the consideration of your response....

fmajid 5y ago

Except both MIT and JSTOR did not press charges. It was an ambitious US Attorney, Carmen Ortiz, who wanted a notable scalp to boost her career. That career is now in tatters for completely independent reasons: https://theintercept.com/2021/02/15/marty-walsh-aaron-swartz-carmen-ortiz/ https://theintercept.com/2021/02/15/marty-walsh-aaron-swartz... Prosecutorial malfeasance is a serious problem in the US, probably worse than police shootings in sheer number of lives broken, notably due to the abusive plea deal system where innocent people have a Hobson's choice to accept a plea just to avoid the risk of draconian penalties if they take the chance of a trial and whatever attorney will be assigned to them.