4 ms·

It depends very strongly on your point of view and the context. I do not consider Aaron Swartz to be very special in the legal sense. His case was a simple ha

by rprasad 14y ago

It depends very strongly on your point of view and the context. I do not consider Aaron Swartz to be very special in the legal sense. His case was a simple hacking case (as the crime is defined in federal statutes). There was nothing special about it politically or technologically or procedurally. There was nothing special about the "victim" (JSTOR) or the victim choosing not to press charges. Indeed, even the fact that he killed himself is not unique because the incidence of suicide is higher with white collar crimes. I am aware that my viewpoints on this differ strongly from most of HN, but if you read the comments by the other lawyers on HN, most of them generally agree with my sentiments in this regard. Aaron was apparently very gifted technically (RSS spec, reddit co-founder, etc.), but as I know little about him in this regard, I cannot intelligently discuss this aspect of his person further.

temphn 14y ago
> His case was a simple hacking case (as the crime is defined in federal statutes). There was nothing special about it politically or technologically or procedurally http://goo.gl/CNsfK http://goo.gl/CNsfK The prosecution's case ultimately depended on whether or not breaking a Terms of Service agreement can be deemed a violation of the 1984 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act -- the principal federal anti-hacking statute. While the law was designed to ban hackers from spreading viruses and stealing property, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that such activity includes violating Terms of Service agreements. The Seventh Circuit's decision was widely mocked by internet experts, who noted that nearly anyone could become criminally liable for reading blogs if a blog owner simply set up an outrageous terms of service agreement. In addition, a more recent decision by the Ninth Circuit rejected the Seventh Circuit's reasoning in 2010, and the Obama administration chose not to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

by rprasad 14y ago

temphn 14y ago

> His case was a simple hacking case (as the crime is defined in federal statutes). There was nothing special about it politically or technologically or procedurally http://goo.gl/CNsfK http://goo.gl/CNsfK The prosecution's case ultimately depended on whether or not breaking a Terms of Service agreement can be deemed a violation of the 1984 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act -- the principal federal anti-hacking statute. While the law was designed to ban hackers from spreading viruses and stealing property, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that such activity includes violating Terms of Service agreements. The Seventh Circuit's decision was widely mocked by internet experts, who noted that nearly anyone could become criminally liable for reading blogs if a blog owner simply set up an outrageous terms of service agreement. In addition, a more recent decision by the Ninth Circuit rejected the Seventh Circuit's reasoning in 2010, and the Obama administration chose not to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.