3 ms·
I love the EFF but they've got to stop this misleading, sensationalized crap if they want any money or support from me. They didn't nail Aaron because he violat
by duaneb 14y ago
I love the EFF but they've got to stop this misleading, sensationalized crap if they want any money or support from me. They didn't nail Aaron because he violated the terms of service, they nailed him for STEALING FROM JSTOR. Just because the charges were related to a violation of TOS doesn't mean anything aside from the fact that a TOS violation may be a criminal offense. So say that!
- betterunix 14y ago"They didn't nail Aaron because he violated the terms of service, they nailed him for STEALING FROM JSTOR" Nothing was stolen, he destroyed or returned all copies of the scientific articles he downloaded, and JSTOR decline to press charges. He was then charged with computer crime for violating MIT's terms of service, which is a dubious legal standard that was already shot down by the courts years ago. Aaron Swartz was the victim of an overzealous prosecutor with a history of civil rights abuses and who had previously driven another alleged hacker to suicide. The CFAA is shockingly broad and puts the public in legal danger by its very existence. There is no defense of the government's actions in the Aaron Swartz case.
- duaneb 14y agoSorry, I should have made this clear: the reason he was focused on by the attorneys general is because of the theft, not the TOS violation. I am perfectly aware Aaron resolved the case with JSTOR amicably. And I agree with everything you said.
- dannyobrien 14y agoThe article doesn't say that he did. It's a discussion of one of the worst aspects of the CFAA, which is currently being considered for reform.
- duaneb 14y agoFair enough, but I feel that Aaron's prosecution is the reason why this is a major issue.