It's a very interesting read. A couple of points. 1) The discussion on reasonable sentencing Some have argued that criminal prosecution was inappropriate ... d

It's a very interesting read. A couple of points. 1) The discussion on reasonable sentencing Some have argued that criminal prosecution was inappropriate ... did not mention that MIT, as well as JSTOR, did not want a jail sentence imposed. The recent MIT report states that MIT made this known to the prosecutor. That MIT suffered loss was a major reason given to justify jail time. The writer can be excused for not knowing that, at the time, confidential information but it makes moot his arguement of jail time being reasonable. 2) Pointing fingers at media outlets for exaggerating possible jail time is a non-sequitur when, as stated in the link, prosecutor PR releases purposefully seek the exaggeration. 3) No where in the link is it argued that the prosecution took long jail time off the table. Quite the opposite, they left the possibility there on the edges to bully the defendant into accepting a plea that included jail time. This even when JSTOR and MIT both wanted to avoid it. 4) Generally speaking I found the link was predisposed to favor the prosecutors. I say that because in all cases where Aaron Swartz's actions are discussed there is the assumption that his actions were part of a larger pattern of behavior. To me it smacked of justifying prosecutorial overreach based on "future-crimes". On the other hand it easily accepts overreaching prosecutorial actions as just the way the system works. 5) The link, I thought, worked hard to dismiss outrage over the Swartz case by saying it was misplaced. The outrage, it was argued, should instead be at the system. While it is obvious that it is the laws that must be changed, it is instances like the Swartz case that moves public opinion snd enables change.