4 ms·

This is bullshit. Establishing intent is not "targeting" someone. Of all the things to get upset about in this case, this has got to be the least worthy. It is

by GHFigs 14y ago

This is bullshit. Establishing intent is not "targeting" someone. Of all the things to get upset about in this case, this has got to be the least worthy. It is the wrongest of wrong trees to be barking up. He was caught doing 'A'. He had previously written a manifesto that describes it as a moral imperative[1] to do 'A then B'. The prosecution believed that this established his intent[2] to do 'B'. This is not an unreasonable conclusion. You don't have to respect or agree with any part of the prosecution to understand this. You don't have to believe that it was his actual intent to understand that it's not out of line to draw that conclusion from those facts. Please, if you care about this case, don't waste energy on linkbait and bent truth. [1] http://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamjuly2008_djvu.txt http://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamju... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law) (I link to this because some people seem to be unaware that intent has a legal meaning.)

mycroftiv 14y ago
I believe your answer, while correct as to matters of law, is actually missing the essential point. The fundamental issue is the morality of the prosecution of Aaron Swartz, not whether the legal team conducting the prosecution was following the rules of law. It is undoubtedly true that they were. The reason people care so much about this issue is that many of us feel it shows that the current method of applying the rule of law produces bad and immoral consequences. Yes, it is true that Mr. Swartz's previous writings may establish intent in a way that is relevant to criminal prosecution. It is also true - and I believe an ultimately more significant matter - that this case demonstrates that "writing about what you believe" may indeed place you in greater criminal jeopardy, and that consequence of the "rule of law" as it was enforced in this case may cause more harm to society than the "evils" the laws were intended to prevent. In other words, the significance of this case is that it shows our current methods of applying the laws may have negative consequences. Saying "the prosecution was applying the law correctly" is not relevant to the question: does this case show that we should change the laws, and how they are applied?
- rayiner 14y ago
  If I write about doing A then B, and I do A, and it's a crime to do A with intent to do B, then the only moral issue is whether it should be a a crime to do A then B. Using the writing as evidence of intent to do B isn't just "our current method of applying the law" or a bit of hyper-technical lawyering--it's obvious and common sense. Even a child will infer your intent from the things you say you are going to do.
  - jhaglund 14y ago
    Except A without B isn't a felony worthy of federal charges. Our legal system's standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" not what a child would infer from the evidence. The fact that Aaron had not committed B despite having the time and ability to should have left the prosecutor with a reasonable doubt that such a violation was imminent.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      In this case, A without B is a federal misdemeanor. However, A in furtherance of B is a federal felony. The standard for bringing charges is not "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's the standard for conviction. It's up to the jury to decide whether such a violation was imminent or not. In any case, that's not what I was getting at. I was talking about the validity of the reasoning method, not what it proves or does not prove in this specific case. If it is a crime to do A in furtherance of B, that is to say with intent to also do B, it is totally valid and common-sense to use someone's past writings as evidence of what their intent after doing A was. There are layers here that you're collapsing together. You can believe that Swartz's writings were insufficient to show intent to distribute the copyright works while agreeing as a general principle that it is valid to use someone's writings to establish what someone's intent might have been.
alan_cx 14y ago
I'd suggest that its the law that is bent.
pms 14y ago
The stuff you write is bullshit. If we treat the law the way you treat it then we violate the rule of proportion again. How can you talk about "criminal intent" when we are talking about copyrights protection? It's extremely different to murder somebody, than to violate copyrights. The first is widely perceived as morally wrong among all nations. What about the second? How can you, therefore, talk about "criminal intent" in case of copyright protection? The intent here is quite obvious, the intent is to CHANGE THE LAW. This is "criminal intent" for you? If intent to change the law were "criminal intent", because it hurts some specific businesses, then the law would never change for the good of nations, instead it would change for the good of people with power. Or, it would change, but like it has happened historically, with a bloodshed. This is right for you? Think about it, use your brain, please!
- sigzero 14y ago
  No, what you write is bullshit. There are LEGAL ways to try and change a law. That isn't what happened. There was "criminal intent" whether or not you AGREE with the law or now.
  - mpyne 14y ago
    A notable case study in subverting the law to change its effect is actually Richard M. Stallman. His GNU campaign was (and is) built on strong IP rights, which is how he managed to bootstrap a strong Free and open source software ecosystem that could survive being in competition with well-funded closed-source companies. RMS was careful the whole time to comply with the law as written since he understood that you can't force change to the legal code by simply imposing it on other people like some kind of 'benevolent dictator'. His quest is not at all finished by I'd like to think we'll at least solve the issue of software patents in my lifetime thanks to his hard work and the work of hundreds of others (including like-minded legislators!). Say what you want about aaronsw but the fact is that he jumped the shark when he broke into a computer network (repeatedly) in order to advance his aims, however benevolent they are.
  - metaphorm 14y ago
    civil disobedience means deliberately breaking immoral laws because the legal means for changing those laws are not available or are corrupted and not functional. an act of civil disobedience must be evaluated on moral grounds, not legal ones.
Peaker 14y ago
According to the article, didn't the manifesto claim to legally purchase non-copyrighted material and then distribute it legally? If what Aaron did is legally get non-copyrighted material with the legal intent of distributing it, then there's no legal case to be made at all. If what he did is illegal, or getting of copyrighted material, then it mismatches what the manifesto said, so is problematic at establishing intent.
- tptacek 14y ago
  What the hell? You could just Google it to read it in its entirety. Do you really need to argue about what Mashable says Techdirt says the Huffington Post says an anonymous staffer says Carmen Ortiz says her AUSA says Aaron Swartz says? Short answer: no, you're wrong about the "manifesto".
Lagged2Death 14y ago
He was caught doing 'A'. He had previously written a manifesto that describes it as a moral imperative[1] to do 'A then B'. The prosecution believed that this established his intent[2] to do 'B'. The exact word being tossed around here isn't "established," but "proved." The claim is that a document Swartz didn't even write on his own "proved" his intentions in a questionably related situation years after he wrote it. This is not an unreasonable conclusion. Have you been on the internet long? Have you ever written anything on the internet that a stranger could misinterpret or that could similarly "prove" you had bad intentions in some unrelated situation years from now? No? Are you sure? How could you even know? Since when are we prosecuting relatively minor civil offenses like copyright infringement based on intentions rather than actions anyway? Will we start prosecuting people who plan to jaywalk? Bear in mind the prosecution's goal was apparently to put Swartz in prison, to label him a felon for life, for an act even the prosecutors admit that he hadn't actually yet committed, without a trail. And your "not unreasonable conclusion" is essentially their entire argument for justifying this. If this is different from prosecuting a thought crime, I'd sure like to know how.
- waps 14y ago
  Wasn't a not-insignificant part of the prosecution established to be him breaking and entering into a secured room and then proceeding to force access to a network port ? The same goes for the manifesto he wrote. It's not like "A" was "riding ponies", "A" in your text is using violence to force access to documents, because he believed them to be public domain, and then republishing them. As the prosecution claims, that document was not used to establish criminal intent, nor to prove that he committed a crime, but was merely used to establish motive. Needless to say, the criminal part came from the breaking and entering and hacking someone else's computer system.
  - Lagged2Death 14y ago
    Wasn't a not-insignificant part of the prosecution established to be him breaking and entering into a secured room and then proceeding to force access to a network port ? MIT and JSTOR declined to press such charges. The government's charges were fraud charges - more or less, they claimed that Swartz would later do something illegal with the data he had copied, and that warranted imprisonment now, before the fact. "A" in your text is using violence to force access to documents, because he believed them to be public domain, and then republishing them. That's not my text you're referring to. No one has ever claimed there was any violence or force involved in any part of this. No republishing actually occurred; the government is claiming that Swartz's prior writings prove that such republishing was his goal, and that he therefore belonged in federal prison - because of his intent to commit a civil offense.

by GHFigs 14y ago

mycroftiv 14y ago

I believe your answer, while correct as to matters of law, is actually missing the essential point. The fundamental issue is the morality of the prosecution of Aaron Swartz, not whether the legal team conducting the prosecution was following the rules of law. It is undoubtedly true that they were. The reason people care so much about this issue is that many of us feel it shows that the current method of applying the rule of law produces bad and immoral consequences. Yes, it is true that Mr. Swartz's previous writings may establish intent in a way that is relevant to criminal prosecution. It is also true - and I believe an ultimately more significant matter - that this case demonstrates that "writing about what you believe" may indeed place you in greater criminal jeopardy, and that consequence of the "rule of law" as it was enforced in this case may cause more harm to society than the "evils" the laws were intended to prevent. In other words, the significance of this case is that it shows our current methods of applying the laws may have negative consequences. Saying "the prosecution was applying the law correctly" is not relevant to the question: does this case show that we should change the laws, and how they are applied?

rayiner 14y ago
If I write about doing A then B, and I do A, and it's a crime to do A with intent to do B, then the only moral issue is whether it should be a a crime to do A then B. Using the writing as evidence of intent to do B isn't just "our current method of applying the law" or a bit of hyper-technical lawyering--it's obvious and common sense. Even a child will infer your intent from the things you say you are going to do.
- jhaglund 14y ago
  Except A without B isn't a felony worthy of federal charges. Our legal system's standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" not what a child would infer from the evidence. The fact that Aaron had not committed B despite having the time and ability to should have left the prosecutor with a reasonable doubt that such a violation was imminent.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    In this case, A without B is a federal misdemeanor. However, A in furtherance of B is a federal felony. The standard for bringing charges is not "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's the standard for conviction. It's up to the jury to decide whether such a violation was imminent or not. In any case, that's not what I was getting at. I was talking about the validity of the reasoning method, not what it proves or does not prove in this specific case. If it is a crime to do A in furtherance of B, that is to say with intent to also do B, it is totally valid and common-sense to use someone's past writings as evidence of what their intent after doing A was. There are layers here that you're collapsing together. You can believe that Swartz's writings were insufficient to show intent to distribute the copyright works while agreeing as a general principle that it is valid to use someone's writings to establish what someone's intent might have been.

alan_cx 14y ago

I'd suggest that its the law that is bent.

pms 14y ago

The stuff you write is bullshit. If we treat the law the way you treat it then we violate the rule of proportion again. How can you talk about "criminal intent" when we are talking about copyrights protection? It's extremely different to murder somebody, than to violate copyrights. The first is widely perceived as morally wrong among all nations. What about the second? How can you, therefore, talk about "criminal intent" in case of copyright protection? The intent here is quite obvious, the intent is to CHANGE THE LAW. This is "criminal intent" for you? If intent to change the law were "criminal intent", because it hurts some specific businesses, then the law would never change for the good of nations, instead it would change for the good of people with power. Or, it would change, but like it has happened historically, with a bloodshed. This is right for you? Think about it, use your brain, please!

sigzero 14y ago
No, what you write is bullshit. There are LEGAL ways to try and change a law. That isn't what happened. There was "criminal intent" whether or not you AGREE with the law or now.
- mpyne 14y ago
  A notable case study in subverting the law to change its effect is actually Richard M. Stallman. His GNU campaign was (and is) built on strong IP rights, which is how he managed to bootstrap a strong Free and open source software ecosystem that could survive being in competition with well-funded closed-source companies. RMS was careful the whole time to comply with the law as written since he understood that you can't force change to the legal code by simply imposing it on other people like some kind of 'benevolent dictator'. His quest is not at all finished by I'd like to think we'll at least solve the issue of software patents in my lifetime thanks to his hard work and the work of hundreds of others (including like-minded legislators!). Say what you want about aaronsw but the fact is that he jumped the shark when he broke into a computer network (repeatedly) in order to advance his aims, however benevolent they are.
- metaphorm 14y ago
  civil disobedience means deliberately breaking immoral laws because the legal means for changing those laws are not available or are corrupted and not functional. an act of civil disobedience must be evaluated on moral grounds, not legal ones.

Peaker 14y ago

According to the article, didn't the manifesto claim to legally purchase non-copyrighted material and then distribute it legally? If what Aaron did is legally get non-copyrighted material with the legal intent of distributing it, then there's no legal case to be made at all. If what he did is illegal, or getting of copyrighted material, then it mismatches what the manifesto said, so is problematic at establishing intent.

tptacek 14y ago
What the hell? You could just Google it to read it in its entirety. Do you really need to argue about what Mashable says Techdirt says the Huffington Post says an anonymous staffer says Carmen Ortiz says her AUSA says Aaron Swartz says? Short answer: no, you're wrong about the "manifesto".

Lagged2Death 14y ago

He was caught doing 'A'. He had previously written a manifesto that describes it as a moral imperative[1] to do 'A then B'. The prosecution believed that this established his intent[2] to do 'B'. The exact word being tossed around here isn't "established," but "proved." The claim is that a document Swartz didn't even write on his own "proved" his intentions in a questionably related situation years after he wrote it. This is not an unreasonable conclusion. Have you been on the internet long? Have you ever written anything on the internet that a stranger could misinterpret or that could similarly "prove" you had bad intentions in some unrelated situation years from now? No? Are you sure? How could you even know? Since when are we prosecuting relatively minor civil offenses like copyright infringement based on intentions rather than actions anyway? Will we start prosecuting people who plan to jaywalk? Bear in mind the prosecution's goal was apparently to put Swartz in prison, to label him a felon for life, for an act even the prosecutors admit that he hadn't actually yet committed, without a trail. And your "not unreasonable conclusion" is essentially their entire argument for justifying this. If this is different from prosecuting a thought crime, I'd sure like to know how.

waps 14y ago
Wasn't a not-insignificant part of the prosecution established to be him breaking and entering into a secured room and then proceeding to force access to a network port ? The same goes for the manifesto he wrote. It's not like "A" was "riding ponies", "A" in your text is using violence to force access to documents, because he believed them to be public domain, and then republishing them. As the prosecution claims, that document was not used to establish criminal intent, nor to prove that he committed a crime, but was merely used to establish motive. Needless to say, the criminal part came from the breaking and entering and hacking someone else's computer system.
- Lagged2Death 14y ago
  Wasn't a not-insignificant part of the prosecution established to be him breaking and entering into a secured room and then proceeding to force access to a network port ? MIT and JSTOR declined to press such charges. The government's charges were fraud charges - more or less, they claimed that Swartz would later do something illegal with the data he had copied, and that warranted imprisonment now, before the fact. "A" in your text is using violence to force access to documents, because he believed them to be public domain, and then republishing them. That's not my text you're referring to. No one has ever claimed there was any violence or force involved in any part of this. No republishing actually occurred; the government is claiming that Swartz's prior writings prove that such republishing was his goal, and that he therefore belonged in federal prison - because of his intent to commit a civil offense.