4 ms·

Hi Thomas, I never claimed that the two cases are the same. Just that Aaron's case reminded me of it. You are right, Randal never had a motive remotely close

Hi Thomas, I never claimed that the two cases are the same. Just that Aaron's case reminded me of it. You are right, Randal never had a motive remotely close to Aaron for any greater good of any sort. [In fact I will go on and argue that there is no reason Aaron should be prosecuted since the plaintiff has decided not to pursue the case against him]. What I meant was that (same as the parent) although Aaron's goals may have been good, I do not agree with the manner he went about achieving it.

tptacek 14y ago
The fact that JSTOR isn't pressing charges against Swartz is not dispositive evidence that JSTOR believes it hasn't been harmed. The DoJ's role in this case isn't simply to right a single wrong done to JSTOR; it's to defend JSTOR and every organization like JSTOR from everybody like Swartz. If Swartz walks from this case because JSTOR --- the victim of a crime --- doesn't put its own reputation on the line to stand up against him, that's a signal that it's OK for other people to liberate documents from other databases. By prosecuting Swartz criminally and regardless of JSTOR's actions, the DoJ is in effect saying that it doesn't fall to JSTOR to "heroically" defend federal law; that's the DoJ's job. Again: while I don't like what Swartz did, I hope he wins his case, because I kind of like him. But that means I need to be more clear-eyed about what's happening here, not --- like many commenters on this thread --- less clear-eyed.