5 ms·

Thats 6 months plus a felony on his record right? For downloading a few files. Its disgusting.

Alterlife 14y ago
It's much less than 35, and less than death... and it and probably indicates that in Aaron Swartz's case, the accused never entertained the idea of pleading guilty.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Getting kicked in the shins is better than a bat to the skull. Would you be surprised when people start looking for alternatives when offered that "choice"?
  - Alterlife 14y ago
    ??? The options were to spend 35 years in jail or to spend 6 months + plead guilty. Are you saying that he chose to kill himself rather than spend 6 months in jail? I don't know what went through his mind... but I think it's unlikely that he considered the plea bargain an option. From what I've read, he seems like an idealist and in his mind it was probably more black and white - he had to plead plead innocent and accept 35 years or at minimum the financial and emotional damage that goes with fighting it... and he was getting little or no help from the world he was trying to change.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      Huh? I am not saying I would commit suicide, nor that anybody should. I am saying that plea bargains for absurd sentences are coercive and should not be considered "choice".
    - gknoy 14y ago
      I believe the sticking point was being labeled a felon, not the jail time. Being a felon in the US is a Big Deal, and pretty much relegates you to permanent lower-classes [0]. Aaron also seemed big on moral integrity, and it's probably hard to reconcile admitting guilt to something you don't believe is morally wrong. "Live free or die" is a phrase with deep roots in our nation's history, for example. 0: from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony#United_States): The consequences convicted felons face in most states include: Disenfranchisement (which the Supreme Court interpreted to be permitted by the Fourteenth Amendment) Exclusion from obtaining certain licenses, such as a visa, or professional licenses required in order to legally operate (making many vocations off-limits to felons) Exclusion from purchase and possession of firearms, ammunition and body armor Ineligibility for serving on a jury Ineligibility for government assistance or welfare, including being barred from federally funded housing
- rohansingh 14y ago
  > less than death How is this relevant? I wasn't aware that "wire fraud" was a capital crime now.
  - lawnchair_larry 14y ago
    Not only that, but apparently putting a fake name into a guest registration page is "wire fraud".
    - tripzilch 14y ago
      ... but that's the way I was taught to do it when I first got onto the Internet.
  - Alterlife 14y ago
    It's relevant because it's the fate he chose.
tzs 14y ago
That's a rather gross mischaracterization of what he was accused of. There's a good description here: http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/
- lawnchair_larry 14y ago
  Doesn't look like it is to me. The charges are absurd. What is wrong with you people?
  - tzs 14y ago
    Got any actual reasoning to offer? All you've done so far is make an unsupported assertion.
    - maxerickson 14y ago
      The expert witness that was working with the defense states that JSTOR did not require passwords from computers on MITs network: http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartzs-crime/ http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartz... Attaching serious criminal charges to the act of feeding an automated system input that the automated system does nothing to verify is crazy (that is, it isn't wire fraud to use a variety of email addresses on a system that does nothing other than note the address that was input). The indictment uses language like "Although a MAC address is intended to be a permanent and globally unique identification". And yet nobody serious about security has any expectation that a MAC address is permanent or globally unique (it is well understood that they aren't particularly useful for authentication). If the government wants to attach serious charges to accessing computer systems, there should at least be some sort of notification that the provider of the system considers the system to be protected under federal law, not this running backwards to say that accepting an email address or having the capability to block a MAC address somehow makes a network 'protected'. To be perfectly clear, I'd be entirely fine with a broadly applicable lesser charge that applied more generally to computer tampering, for cases where the prosecutor wanted to argue that a user exceeded intended access and such.

It's much less than 35, and less than death... and it and probably indicates that in Aaron Swartz's case, the accused never entertained the idea of pleading guilty.

jlgreco 14y ago
Getting kicked in the shins is better than a bat to the skull. Would you be surprised when people start looking for alternatives when offered that "choice"?
- Alterlife 14y ago
  ??? The options were to spend 35 years in jail or to spend 6 months + plead guilty. Are you saying that he chose to kill himself rather than spend 6 months in jail? I don't know what went through his mind... but I think it's unlikely that he considered the plea bargain an option. From what I've read, he seems like an idealist and in his mind it was probably more black and white - he had to plead plead innocent and accept 35 years or at minimum the financial and emotional damage that goes with fighting it... and he was getting little or no help from the world he was trying to change.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Huh? I am not saying I would commit suicide, nor that anybody should. I am saying that plea bargains for absurd sentences are coercive and should not be considered "choice".
  - gknoy 14y ago
    I believe the sticking point was being labeled a felon, not the jail time. Being a felon in the US is a Big Deal, and pretty much relegates you to permanent lower-classes [0]. Aaron also seemed big on moral integrity, and it's probably hard to reconcile admitting guilt to something you don't believe is morally wrong. "Live free or die" is a phrase with deep roots in our nation's history, for example. 0: from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony#United_States): The consequences convicted felons face in most states include: Disenfranchisement (which the Supreme Court interpreted to be permitted by the Fourteenth Amendment) Exclusion from obtaining certain licenses, such as a visa, or professional licenses required in order to legally operate (making many vocations off-limits to felons) Exclusion from purchase and possession of firearms, ammunition and body armor Ineligibility for serving on a jury Ineligibility for government assistance or welfare, including being barred from federally funded housing
rohansingh 14y ago
> less than death How is this relevant? I wasn't aware that "wire fraud" was a capital crime now.
- lawnchair_larry 14y ago
  Not only that, but apparently putting a fake name into a guest registration page is "wire fraud".
  - tripzilch 14y ago
    ... but that's the way I was taught to do it when I first got onto the Internet.
- Alterlife 14y ago
  It's relevant because it's the fate he chose.

tzs 14y ago

That's a rather gross mischaracterization of what he was accused of. There's a good description here: http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/

lawnchair_larry 14y ago
Doesn't look like it is to me. The charges are absurd. What is wrong with you people?
- tzs 14y ago
  Got any actual reasoning to offer? All you've done so far is make an unsupported assertion.
  - maxerickson 14y ago
    The expert witness that was working with the defense states that JSTOR did not require passwords from computers on MITs network: http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartzs-crime/ http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartz... Attaching serious criminal charges to the act of feeding an automated system input that the automated system does nothing to verify is crazy (that is, it isn't wire fraud to use a variety of email addresses on a system that does nothing other than note the address that was input). The indictment uses language like "Although a MAC address is intended to be a permanent and globally unique identification". And yet nobody serious about security has any expectation that a MAC address is permanent or globally unique (it is well understood that they aren't particularly useful for authentication). If the government wants to attach serious charges to accessing computer systems, there should at least be some sort of notification that the provider of the system considers the system to be protected under federal law, not this running backwards to say that accepting an email address or having the capability to block a MAC address somehow makes a network 'protected'. To be perfectly clear, I'd be entirely fine with a broadly applicable lesser charge that applied more generally to computer tampering, for cases where the prosecutor wanted to argue that a user exceeded intended access and such.