7 ms·

Aaron Swartz Died Innocent — Here Is the Evidence

146 points by Libertatea 14y ago

ck2 14y ago
Oh come on. He was an activist, he purposely broke outrageous laws to protest the laws themselves. The fact there is only innocent or guilty in a court of law forces to defend actions as innocent where instead it should be the law itself on trial, not Aaron. US law codes, public scientific journals, should openly available to all who are subject to them or could benefit from them. That's what he was protesting and the amazing thing about Aaron was instead of sitting on his couch like most of us do, he actually did something in protest and risked his personal freedom. There is practically nothing we can do for Aaron now, perhaps instead we should focus our efforts on someone who might benefit from the outrage like Bradley Manning.
askimto 14y ago
United States Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz said, “Stealing is stealing whether you use a computer command or a crowbar, and whether you take documents, data or dollars. It is equally harmful to the victim whether you sell what you have stolen or give it away.” Ortiz is an idiot. Unfortunately she is also a US Attorney.
- denzil_correa 14y ago
  It is equally harmful to the victim whether you sell what you have stolen or give it away. I would like to ask Ms. Ortiz if AaronSw indeed did "give away" or "steal" from the victim (JSTOR in this case)? If not, can we ask her to stop riding the high horse?
  - Kim_Bruning 14y ago
    He did not. He returned the data to JSTOR. Later JSTOR gave away much of the data themselves
    - FSEA 14y ago
      Could you stop shilling for JSTOR? They are trickling a limited number of articles to users. You keep stating "much," what are you defining this by? Aaaron was reported to of downloaded files 24/7 for a few days. JSTOR is giving away how many articles per two weeks? Your definition of "much" seems to be a .005% or less, yet you keep stating it like JSTOR has valiantly decided to keep other users from having to go the same route by 'freeing' up the data themselves? Stop.
  - codingblues 14y ago
    am i the only one who thinks this is not at all like stealing... if some one stole your car you'll not have it any more... you will be devoid of it... not the same in this case
- jrogers65 14y ago
  We need a public education campaign on the difference between copying and stealing. All the media lobbying has tainted the terms.
lifeguard 14y ago
In the US justice system, one is technically always innocent until judged guilty. He had only just begun the legal process. Sadly, the American system has evolved into an administrative model where confessing to something is mandatory to avoid a pernicious experience. My sincere condolences to his friends and family.
- rdl 14y ago
  Indeed. This leads to weird things like the R. Budd Dwyer incident. He was a Pennsylvania Treasurer who was accused of a crime. He called a press conference and shot himself on stage. Hence, he died without being sentenced (and before being fired), and thus his family got a full pension. The band Filter's song "Hey Man, Nice Shot" is about the incident.
  - tokipin 14y ago
    well, that's one way to do it i suppose
  - philwelch 14y ago
    Wikipedia says Dwyer was convicted, but not sentenced, when he committed suicide. However, he was not yet removed from office, which is what allowed his family to receive the pension.
    - rdl 14y ago
      Yeah (I edited it based on wikipedia a while ago...). I'd still say "accused", even though he was convicted, because subsequent evidence (and the fact that he shot himself in the head) largely points to him actually having been innocent. The "criminal lawyer" Smith was to blame here.
- mtgx 14y ago
  Having good defense can also be very expensive in US, right?
  - 14y ago
nightpool 14y ago
Repost: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5048820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5048820
mpyne 14y ago
Although I am deeply saddened by Aaron taking his life, I feel that part of the article is intellectually dishonest. I.e., it recites synopses of the charges and then states that the charges are not true because: - "MIT runs an open network" But this is irrelevant, if Aaron used my public Wifi it wouldn't be my job to police his actions even if I had the resources for that. - "MIT could have locked the network down, but didn't." This is a poor excuse as well. "I could have locked my car doors, but I didn't, so I guess it's my fault." Or better yet, "I could have worn my hijab, but I didn't, so I suppose it's my fault I was punished in a Sharia court". - "MIT doesn't specifically tell its users not to do dickwad things to its network." This is the same logic that gets those "stupid warning labels" put on everything! - "JSTOR didn't have technical facilities in place to stop people like Aaron." But the only reason such technical facilities would be needed is if Aaron's behavior on the network were unacceptable in the first place. - "Aaron did not 'hack' the JSTOR website for all reasonable definitions of 'hack'". But this is kind of a strawman, go back and read the article's own description of the charges if you don't believe me, they claim only generic things like "unauthorized access" or "deceptively appearing as if he were from MIT". - "He didn't try to hide his behavior". Who CARES? If I steal something in broad daylight in the real world people would say I was an idiot, not that I was "innocent". - "Other people use fake identities too". Which is the same argument every parent of a 5-year-old has heard and taken care of... - "If JSTOR had properly responded to the DoS/unauthorized access it wouldn't have been such a big deal". See above about victim blaming. - "But he wasn't trespassing!". And in the next sentence, "the Federal government isn't charging him with such". Uh, OK? Now, did he deserve even the possibility of 35 years in prison? No. Is it right to prevent him (as Lessig claims) from forming a proper legal defense fund? Absolutely not. In fact, that would be an area that needs to be properly "witch hunted" over because it's obvious from the outpouring of support now that Aaron's dead that he could have found help if he were able to ask... so why wasn't he able? What did the district court judge order that led Aaron to kill himself rather than risking the ire of a district judge? I wonder also why Aaron was so worried about being termed a 'felon'. I've worked with a felon, it was a similarly stupid charge (let's just say he later married his "victim"), and absolutely no one cared. Roman Polanski is still making movies; Aaron would have been just fine. But that was his choice to make. :( But I worry about articles like this that have popped up in the aftermath, especially when they are so full of inaccuracies as this.
hhjj 14y ago
No need for an article : he died innocent since he wasn't proven (yet?) guilty.
gte910h 14y ago
I think the matter of his guilt or innocence here isn't the matter: The system in which systemic overcharging is used to coerce a plea bargain out of everyone needs to be reformed. It FUNDAMENTALLY perverts our right to a trial. The difference between 30 year sentence and 1-5 is HUGE and is exploitative to charge a person for 20 crimes to generate that perspective 30 year sentence just to get them to agree to 1-5. Especially with the high 90s conviction rate of federal prosecutors (which is in part generated by the plea bargaining system, in which witnesses had 5-10x sentences thrown at them if they do not testify). Additionally, we should reinstate a functional golden platter rule (right now expenses for illegal activity are non deductible, so people can't really pay taxes on illegal activity, paying taxes on the full sale price of say, Pot) and make many drug related criminals stop money laundering. This would garner more taxes, and take a LARGE burden off the courts and prisons. Plea bargaining is illegal most places. We should very much tone down the overcharging (throwing the book at them, charging them for every violation, etc), especially at the federal level. Additionally, parole requires acceptance of guilt in most places, even if sent to prison via a coercive plea bargain. Maintaining one's innocence is a no go if you want out "on time".
- lifeguard 14y ago
  "The system in which systemic overcharging is used to coerce a plea bargain out of everyone needs to be reformed" That is much easier to type that the effect. Any ideas on moving forward? #OWS taught me social change takes a decade. I am not trolling, I would like to see change. I hope you spread the word.
  - gte910h 14y ago
    I honestly see the end of some prohibition fixing many of these issues, so I think supporting that will neuter some of the drug prosecutions. As it becomes more "good" that prohibition ends, prosecutors who are still fighting for it to not will look worse then will become more easy to reform. Also, the president can change policy on this pretty quickly. Overcharging isn't required by law, merely enforcing the law.
andylei 14y ago
> In the spirit of the MIT ethos, the Institute runs this open, unmonitored and unrestricted network on purpose. Their head of network security admitted as much to us. irrelevant. the computers aaron gained unlawful access to were JSTOR's, not MIT's furthermore, dishonest. MIT tried banning his computer from the network multiple times > Aaron did not "hack" the JSTOR website for all reasonable definitions of "hack". Aaron wrote a handful of basic python scripts that first discovered the URLs of journal articles and then used curl to request them just because JSTOR's website sucks doesn't mean its okay to abuse it. JSTOR's terms of service limit the amount of downloads individuals can make. if you forget to lock your door, does it make it okay for someone to take things from your house? > Aaron did nothing to cover his tracks or hide his activity just not true. they put a security camera in the closet where his computer was. when he came in to grab his laptop, he used his bike helmet as a mask so he couldn't be identified. also, they banned his computer multiple times from the network.
- jasonzemos 14y ago
  It's dishonest to apply the word 'unlawful' with the implication that statutory law (federal penal code) was violated. Service abuse is a civil matter, it doesn't concern the state.
  - mpyne 14y ago
    This depends highly on where you live. In the U.S. service abuse that is judged as a denial-of-service attack is illegal under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in some situations (I'm not sure if Aaron was charged under those sections or not though).
  - andylei 14y ago
    except its not dishonest. one of the charges was wire fraud. from the article: > Wire Fraud. The Wire Fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. 1343, prohibits a scheme to gain “property” by false pretenses. This strikes me as a pretty strong charge here. The false pretenses are provided by the false identification and spoofing of Swartz’ IP address and MAC address. Swartz was trying to trick JSTOR into giving him access to their database after they had specifically tried their best to ban him from doing so. And the “property” was the contents of the JSTOR database itself. do people on HN even read the articles anymore?

146 points by Libertatea 14y ago

ck2 14y ago

Oh come on. He was an activist, he purposely broke outrageous laws to protest the laws themselves. The fact there is only innocent or guilty in a court of law forces to defend actions as innocent where instead it should be the law itself on trial, not Aaron. US law codes, public scientific journals, should openly available to all who are subject to them or could benefit from them. That's what he was protesting and the amazing thing about Aaron was instead of sitting on his couch like most of us do, he actually did something in protest and risked his personal freedom. There is practically nothing we can do for Aaron now, perhaps instead we should focus our efforts on someone who might benefit from the outrage like Bradley Manning.

askimto 14y ago

United States Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz said, “Stealing is stealing whether you use a computer command or a crowbar, and whether you take documents, data or dollars. It is equally harmful to the victim whether you sell what you have stolen or give it away.” Ortiz is an idiot. Unfortunately she is also a US Attorney.

denzil_correa 14y ago
It is equally harmful to the victim whether you sell what you have stolen or give it away. I would like to ask Ms. Ortiz if AaronSw indeed did "give away" or "steal" from the victim (JSTOR in this case)? If not, can we ask her to stop riding the high horse?
- Kim_Bruning 14y ago
  He did not. He returned the data to JSTOR. Later JSTOR gave away much of the data themselves
  - FSEA 14y ago
    Could you stop shilling for JSTOR? They are trickling a limited number of articles to users. You keep stating "much," what are you defining this by? Aaaron was reported to of downloaded files 24/7 for a few days. JSTOR is giving away how many articles per two weeks? Your definition of "much" seems to be a .005% or less, yet you keep stating it like JSTOR has valiantly decided to keep other users from having to go the same route by 'freeing' up the data themselves? Stop.
- codingblues 14y ago
  am i the only one who thinks this is not at all like stealing... if some one stole your car you'll not have it any more... you will be devoid of it... not the same in this case
jrogers65 14y ago
We need a public education campaign on the difference between copying and stealing. All the media lobbying has tainted the terms.

lifeguard 14y ago

In the US justice system, one is technically always innocent until judged guilty. He had only just begun the legal process. Sadly, the American system has evolved into an administrative model where confessing to something is mandatory to avoid a pernicious experience. My sincere condolences to his friends and family.

rdl 14y ago
Indeed. This leads to weird things like the R. Budd Dwyer incident. He was a Pennsylvania Treasurer who was accused of a crime. He called a press conference and shot himself on stage. Hence, he died without being sentenced (and before being fired), and thus his family got a full pension. The band Filter's song "Hey Man, Nice Shot" is about the incident.
- tokipin 14y ago
  well, that's one way to do it i suppose
- philwelch 14y ago
  Wikipedia says Dwyer was convicted, but not sentenced, when he committed suicide. However, he was not yet removed from office, which is what allowed his family to receive the pension.
  - rdl 14y ago
    Yeah (I edited it based on wikipedia a while ago...). I'd still say "accused", even though he was convicted, because subsequent evidence (and the fact that he shot himself in the head) largely points to him actually having been innocent. The "criminal lawyer" Smith was to blame here.
mtgx 14y ago
Having good defense can also be very expensive in US, right?
- 14y ago

nightpool 14y ago

Repost: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5048820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5048820

mpyne 14y ago

Although I am deeply saddened by Aaron taking his life, I feel that part of the article is intellectually dishonest. I.e., it recites synopses of the charges and then states that the charges are not true because: - "MIT runs an open network" But this is irrelevant, if Aaron used my public Wifi it wouldn't be my job to police his actions even if I had the resources for that. - "MIT could have locked the network down, but didn't." This is a poor excuse as well. "I could have locked my car doors, but I didn't, so I guess it's my fault." Or better yet, "I could have worn my hijab, but I didn't, so I suppose it's my fault I was punished in a Sharia court". - "MIT doesn't specifically tell its users not to do dickwad things to its network." This is the same logic that gets those "stupid warning labels" put on everything! - "JSTOR didn't have technical facilities in place to stop people like Aaron." But the only reason such technical facilities would be needed is if Aaron's behavior on the network were unacceptable in the first place. - "Aaron did not 'hack' the JSTOR website for all reasonable definitions of 'hack'". But this is kind of a strawman, go back and read the article's own description of the charges if you don't believe me, they claim only generic things like "unauthorized access" or "deceptively appearing as if he were from MIT". - "He didn't try to hide his behavior". Who CARES? If I steal something in broad daylight in the real world people would say I was an idiot, not that I was "innocent". - "Other people use fake identities too". Which is the same argument every parent of a 5-year-old has heard and taken care of... - "If JSTOR had properly responded to the DoS/unauthorized access it wouldn't have been such a big deal". See above about victim blaming. - "But he wasn't trespassing!". And in the next sentence, "the Federal government isn't charging him with such". Uh, OK? Now, did he deserve even the possibility of 35 years in prison? No. Is it right to prevent him (as Lessig claims) from forming a proper legal defense fund? Absolutely not. In fact, that would be an area that needs to be properly "witch hunted" over because it's obvious from the outpouring of support now that Aaron's dead that he could have found help if he were able to ask... so why wasn't he able? What did the district court judge order that led Aaron to kill himself rather than risking the ire of a district judge? I wonder also why Aaron was so worried about being termed a 'felon'. I've worked with a felon, it was a similarly stupid charge (let's just say he later married his "victim"), and absolutely no one cared. Roman Polanski is still making movies; Aaron would have been just fine. But that was his choice to make. :( But I worry about articles like this that have popped up in the aftermath, especially when they are so full of inaccuracies as this.

hhjj 14y ago

No need for an article : he died innocent since he wasn't proven (yet?) guilty.

gte910h 14y ago

I think the matter of his guilt or innocence here isn't the matter: The system in which systemic overcharging is used to coerce a plea bargain out of everyone needs to be reformed. It FUNDAMENTALLY perverts our right to a trial. The difference between 30 year sentence and 1-5 is HUGE and is exploitative to charge a person for 20 crimes to generate that perspective 30 year sentence just to get them to agree to 1-5. Especially with the high 90s conviction rate of federal prosecutors (which is in part generated by the plea bargaining system, in which witnesses had 5-10x sentences thrown at them if they do not testify). Additionally, we should reinstate a functional golden platter rule (right now expenses for illegal activity are non deductible, so people can't really pay taxes on illegal activity, paying taxes on the full sale price of say, Pot) and make many drug related criminals stop money laundering. This would garner more taxes, and take a LARGE burden off the courts and prisons. Plea bargaining is illegal most places. We should very much tone down the overcharging (throwing the book at them, charging them for every violation, etc), especially at the federal level. Additionally, parole requires acceptance of guilt in most places, even if sent to prison via a coercive plea bargain. Maintaining one's innocence is a no go if you want out "on time".

lifeguard 14y ago
"The system in which systemic overcharging is used to coerce a plea bargain out of everyone needs to be reformed" That is much easier to type that the effect. Any ideas on moving forward? #OWS taught me social change takes a decade. I am not trolling, I would like to see change. I hope you spread the word.
- gte910h 14y ago
  I honestly see the end of some prohibition fixing many of these issues, so I think supporting that will neuter some of the drug prosecutions. As it becomes more "good" that prohibition ends, prosecutors who are still fighting for it to not will look worse then will become more easy to reform. Also, the president can change policy on this pretty quickly. Overcharging isn't required by law, merely enforcing the law.

andylei 14y ago

> In the spirit of the MIT ethos, the Institute runs this open, unmonitored and unrestricted network on purpose. Their head of network security admitted as much to us. irrelevant. the computers aaron gained unlawful access to were JSTOR's, not MIT's furthermore, dishonest. MIT tried banning his computer from the network multiple times > Aaron did not "hack" the JSTOR website for all reasonable definitions of "hack". Aaron wrote a handful of basic python scripts that first discovered the URLs of journal articles and then used curl to request them just because JSTOR's website sucks doesn't mean its okay to abuse it. JSTOR's terms of service limit the amount of downloads individuals can make. if you forget to lock your door, does it make it okay for someone to take things from your house? > Aaron did nothing to cover his tracks or hide his activity just not true. they put a security camera in the closet where his computer was. when he came in to grab his laptop, he used his bike helmet as a mask so he couldn't be identified. also, they banned his computer multiple times from the network.

jasonzemos 14y ago
It's dishonest to apply the word 'unlawful' with the implication that statutory law (federal penal code) was violated. Service abuse is a civil matter, it doesn't concern the state.
- mpyne 14y ago
  This depends highly on where you live. In the U.S. service abuse that is judged as a denial-of-service attack is illegal under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in some situations (I'm not sure if Aaron was charged under those sections or not though).
- andylei 14y ago
  except its not dishonest. one of the charges was wire fraud. from the article: > Wire Fraud. The Wire Fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. 1343, prohibits a scheme to gain “property” by false pretenses. This strikes me as a pretty strong charge here. The false pretenses are provided by the false identification and spoofing of Swartz’ IP address and MAC address. Swartz was trying to trick JSTOR into giving him access to their database after they had specifically tried their best to ban him from doing so. And the “property” was the contents of the JSTOR database itself. do people on HN even read the articles anymore?