5 ms·

Who was the victim?

by edsu 14y ago

Who was the victim?

tptacek 14y ago
MIT, JSTOR, and publishers with JSTOR contracts. Not liking the victim doesn't make them not a victim. I strongly disagree with the grandparent comment, for what it's worth.
- TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
  Then justify the distinction of Trespass: up to 30 days in jail and/or 100$ fine !!!COMPUTER!!! trespass: Years and years in jail, hundreds of thousands of dollars fine, Federal felony. Yeah. SOUNDS LEGIT.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Your comment has nothing to do with mine.
- edsu 14y ago
  JSTOR settled, and so were no longer a victim. http://about.jstor.org/statement-swartz http://about.jstor.org/statement-swartz just sayin'.
- gruseom 14y ago
  > I strongly disagree with the grandparent comment, for what it's worth. I'd be interested to hear why, if you haven't burned out on the subject... which presumably you haven't, since you just commented on it.
sociotech 14y ago
I agree that that's the right question. The intended "victims" were journals and JSTOR. I'm glad JSTOR didn't lean heavily on the prosecution, but they're not the only party who has a stake in this, and it's routine for government not to be simply a "victim's rights" organization that lets private people tell them what to do. Many small journals depend on subscription fees from services like JSTOR. But look, I'm not saying the law is perfect. There are whole encyclopedias written on legal theory about people's responsibilities to follow arguable but imperfect laws, and that is a big debate. The essence of the case here is that a "long ranger" activist who acts to publicize a massive database does threaten a significant financial disruption to many parties, and that is "harm" even under JS Mill's "harm principle." It's not like possessing drugs (which of course people go to harder jails for 20 years for possessing). If I am recalling correctly, a key point in the government's case was that Aaron was going to distribute the documents to the world had he succeeded. If so, they would have had to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. If Aaron had a good case that he was just downloading the documents for his own personally curiosity, he would probably have won, and it would be easier to say the prosecution was overblown. But all that seems to have happened here is that the government offered 6 low-security months to someone who the government believed it could prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, was intending to undermine the revenue model of a significant part of the world's academic infrastructure. That doesn't mean that revenue model is praiseworthy, but the law doesn't let you take matters into your own hands. I don't want to sound dismissive, but the conspiracy theory stuff - that they targeted him because of SOPA or whatnot - is not something that anyone I know takes seriously. I am trying to say that mildly and respectively. (There are many harsher ways to say it.)
- mcantelon 14y ago
  >I don't want to sound dismissive, but the conspiracy theory stuff - that they targeted him because of SOPA or whatnot - is not something that anyone I know takes seriously. Interesting that the Secret Service ECTF took over the investigation into Swartz despite the fact his crime doesn't meet any of their stated criteria for involvement ("Significant economic or community impact", "Participation of organized criminal groups involving multiple districts or transnational organizations", or "Use of schemes involving new technology"). http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/13/two-days-before-cambridge-cops-arrested-aaron-swartz-secret-service-took-over-the-investigation/ http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/13/two-days-before-cambrid...
  - sociotech 14y ago
    I haven't looked into the details, but "new technology" means something different to the public than it means to us. Publicizing a valuable database sounds like it's in their mandate.
    - mcantelon 14y ago
      >"new technology" means something different to the public than it means to us. Good point. Would be interesting to see with what frequency they get involved in these kinds of cases.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    The Secret Service was brought in before MIT knew who the intruder was. Thinking they were brought in to get revenge against Swartz is serious tin-foil hat territory.
- ScottBurson 14y ago
  My understanding is that the articles Aaron downloaded and intended to distribute were in the public domain. I suppose one could make a case that the scans of those articles that JSTOR had prepared at its own expense were not in the public domain, but even if copyright law supports such a distinction, which I'm not sure it does, it seems to me that the worst crime Aaron would have commmitted would have been copyright violation -- a civil matter, and not one, AFAIK, that the US Secret Service routinely gets involved in. In short, if Aaron had scanned the same articles and made them available on his own server, he would have been in the clear. Here's an interesting analysis from well before Aaron's death: http://www.theawl.com/2011/08/was-aaron-swartz-stealing http://www.theawl.com/2011/08/was-aaron-swartz-stealing

Who was the victim?

by edsu 14y ago

Who was the victim?

MIT, JSTOR, and publishers with JSTOR contracts. Not liking the victim doesn't make them not a victim. I strongly disagree with the grandparent comment, for what it's worth.

TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
Then justify the distinction of Trespass: up to 30 days in jail and/or 100$ fine !!!COMPUTER!!! trespass: Years and years in jail, hundreds of thousands of dollars fine, Federal felony. Yeah. SOUNDS LEGIT.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Your comment has nothing to do with mine.
edsu 14y ago
JSTOR settled, and so were no longer a victim. http://about.jstor.org/statement-swartz http://about.jstor.org/statement-swartz just sayin'.
gruseom 14y ago
> I strongly disagree with the grandparent comment, for what it's worth. I'd be interested to hear why, if you haven't burned out on the subject... which presumably you haven't, since you just commented on it.

sociotech 14y ago

I agree that that's the right question. The intended "victims" were journals and JSTOR. I'm glad JSTOR didn't lean heavily on the prosecution, but they're not the only party who has a stake in this, and it's routine for government not to be simply a "victim's rights" organization that lets private people tell them what to do. Many small journals depend on subscription fees from services like JSTOR. But look, I'm not saying the law is perfect. There are whole encyclopedias written on legal theory about people's responsibilities to follow arguable but imperfect laws, and that is a big debate. The essence of the case here is that a "long ranger" activist who acts to publicize a massive database does threaten a significant financial disruption to many parties, and that is "harm" even under JS Mill's "harm principle." It's not like possessing drugs (which of course people go to harder jails for 20 years for possessing). If I am recalling correctly, a key point in the government's case was that Aaron was going to distribute the documents to the world had he succeeded. If so, they would have had to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. If Aaron had a good case that he was just downloading the documents for his own personally curiosity, he would probably have won, and it would be easier to say the prosecution was overblown. But all that seems to have happened here is that the government offered 6 low-security months to someone who the government believed it could prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, was intending to undermine the revenue model of a significant part of the world's academic infrastructure. That doesn't mean that revenue model is praiseworthy, but the law doesn't let you take matters into your own hands. I don't want to sound dismissive, but the conspiracy theory stuff - that they targeted him because of SOPA or whatnot - is not something that anyone I know takes seriously. I am trying to say that mildly and respectively. (There are many harsher ways to say it.)

mcantelon 14y ago
>I don't want to sound dismissive, but the conspiracy theory stuff - that they targeted him because of SOPA or whatnot - is not something that anyone I know takes seriously. Interesting that the Secret Service ECTF took over the investigation into Swartz despite the fact his crime doesn't meet any of their stated criteria for involvement ("Significant economic or community impact", "Participation of organized criminal groups involving multiple districts or transnational organizations", or "Use of schemes involving new technology"). http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/13/two-days-before-cambridge-cops-arrested-aaron-swartz-secret-service-took-over-the-investigation/ http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/13/two-days-before-cambrid...
- sociotech 14y ago
  I haven't looked into the details, but "new technology" means something different to the public than it means to us. Publicizing a valuable database sounds like it's in their mandate.
  - mcantelon 14y ago
    >"new technology" means something different to the public than it means to us. Good point. Would be interesting to see with what frequency they get involved in these kinds of cases.
- danielweber 14y ago
  The Secret Service was brought in before MIT knew who the intruder was. Thinking they were brought in to get revenge against Swartz is serious tin-foil hat territory.
ScottBurson 14y ago
My understanding is that the articles Aaron downloaded and intended to distribute were in the public domain. I suppose one could make a case that the scans of those articles that JSTOR had prepared at its own expense were not in the public domain, but even if copyright law supports such a distinction, which I'm not sure it does, it seems to me that the worst crime Aaron would have commmitted would have been copyright violation -- a civil matter, and not one, AFAIK, that the US Secret Service routinely gets involved in. In short, if Aaron had scanned the same articles and made them available on his own server, he would have been in the clear. Here's an interesting analysis from well before Aaron's death: http://www.theawl.com/2011/08/was-aaron-swartz-stealing http://www.theawl.com/2011/08/was-aaron-swartz-stealing