7 ms·

Yes, it is disproportionate. Anything beyond confiscating the laptop from the closet would have been disproportionate. Aaron did not harm any systems, posed t

Yes, it is disproportionate. Anything beyond confiscating the laptop from the closet would have been disproportionate. Aaron did not harm any systems, posed to no threat, and deprived nobody of anything.

res0nat0r 13y ago
Well, except: On January 6, 2011, Swartz was arrested near the Harvard campus by two MIT police officers and a U.S. Secret Service agent. He was arraigned in Cambridge District Court on two state charges of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. On July 11, 2011, Swartz was indicted in Federal District Court on four felony counts: wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer and recklessly damaging a protected computer. On November 17, 2011, Swartz was indicted by a Middlesex County Superior Court grand jury on state charges of breaking and entering with intent, grand larceny and unauthorized access to a computer network. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Aaron_Swartz#Arrest.2C_charges_and_indictments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Aaron_Swartz#A...
- chaostheory 13y ago
  So where exactly does it state that Aaron caused damage to systems, posed a threat, and deprived people of something? What you posted is a fancy way of saying that Aaron logged into JTSTOR using his own credentials and downloaded publicly funded research papers onto a computer hidden in an MIT supply closet. Who's the victim in his crime?
  - danielweber 13y ago
    > Aaron logged into JTSTOR using his own credentials Huh? This is new.
    - chaostheory 13y ago
      Ok correction "Swartz used a Perl computer script running on Amazon cloud servers to download the documents, using credentials belonging to a Sacramento library." Again, who actually got hurt aside from Aaron?
      - pyre 13y ago
        That sounds more like the PACER incident. MIT pays for a site-license for JSTOR, so everyone on campus can access it for 'free.' This is why Aaron was trying to use MIT's network.

res0nat0r 13y ago

Well, except: On January 6, 2011, Swartz was arrested near the Harvard campus by two MIT police officers and a U.S. Secret Service agent. He was arraigned in Cambridge District Court on two state charges of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. On July 11, 2011, Swartz was indicted in Federal District Court on four felony counts: wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer and recklessly damaging a protected computer. On November 17, 2011, Swartz was indicted by a Middlesex County Superior Court grand jury on state charges of breaking and entering with intent, grand larceny and unauthorized access to a computer network. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Aaron_Swartz#Arrest.2C_charges_and_indictments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Aaron_Swartz#A...

chaostheory 13y ago
So where exactly does it state that Aaron caused damage to systems, posed a threat, and deprived people of something? What you posted is a fancy way of saying that Aaron logged into JTSTOR using his own credentials and downloaded publicly funded research papers onto a computer hidden in an MIT supply closet. Who's the victim in his crime?
- danielweber 13y ago
  > Aaron logged into JTSTOR using his own credentials Huh? This is new.
  - chaostheory 13y ago
    Ok correction "Swartz used a Perl computer script running on Amazon cloud servers to download the documents, using credentials belonging to a Sacramento library." Again, who actually got hurt aside from Aaron?
    - pyre 13y ago
      That sounds more like the PACER incident. MIT pays for a site-license for JSTOR, so everyone on campus can access it for 'free.' This is why Aaron was trying to use MIT's network.