5 ms·

What makes this case such a big deal? Swartz did something that was obviously illegal and got caught.

by jdong 12y ago

McDoku 12y ago
Because our law is made by the hands of ultimately fallible beings. We are inevitably going to make mistakes. This is the reason we have legislative bodies. They are a guard against our own lack of omnipotence.
- jdong 12y ago
  Sure, but there really doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the law here. Aaron wasn't even convicted of anything.
  - McDoku 12y ago
    I think it was highlighting the gaps in legislation and prosecution brought about by technological illiteracy. This has been a crucial ongoing debate.
    - jdong 12y ago
      I don't think technological illiteracy plays a large part here, Aaron exploited a flaw in JSTORs ratelimiting system and continued doing so after being blocked several times by JSTOR administration. After that didn't work out he broke into a server cabinet at MIT. Does that sound 100% OK to you?
      - DanBC 12y ago
        It doesn't sound like something I'd send someone to jail for.
        jdong 12y ago
        Thing is, you have to draw a line somewhere. Essentially he was exploiting a vulnerability in JSTOR to mass download court documents, what if he was downloading credit cards instead? Or some sort of corporate secrets? (Sure, credit cards and court documents are very very different. But the act here is the crime, not what he gains from it)
        ScottBurson 12y ago
        Wow. You claim to know a lot about the case, but you don't even realize that JSTOR holds scientific papers, not court documents. Swartz had previously downloaded court documents from a service called PACER. An FBI investigation was opened, but closed with no charges being filed; he was not prosecuted for that.
        AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        > what if he was downloading credit cards instead? Or some sort of corporate secrets? What if he was raping women? Or committing genocide? > But the act here is the crime, not what he gains from it Downloading scientific journals is not the same "act" as committing credit card fraud. It is an outrageous defect in the law that it doesn't adequately distinguish them.
        nemo 12y ago
        > Essentially he was exploiting a vulnerability in JSTOR to mass download court documents He was downloading academic articles, not court documents. You're mixing up the JSTOR download and the time he pulled down PACER documents. He did have legitimate access to the JSTOR documents, but was bypassing rate limiting. In the process, he did do some things that were illegal, but nothing that honestly justified the Feds charging him with CFAA or wire fraud charges filed, nor anything that justified a felony conviction. What he was doing wasn't the sort of crime those laws were written to address and that they were intended to stop. The Feds. abused the ambiguities in poorly written laws to charge him.
      - McDoku 12y ago
        My issue is not the crime but the intention of the individual and whether or not his behaviour was fundamentally prosocial and/or in the national interest. We have constitutions and laws specifically to product/advance those interests. If that is the standard by which we judge actions, then it change how we should view the case. This debate has fueled technological literacy among the general population/legislative/judicial. Much like the fappening is doing for crypto/personal_security (Re: Android/Apple announcements). It further underlines the critical role that technology plays in our civil life.
      - smsm42 12y ago
        The choice between "100% OK" and 30 years in jail is a false dichotomy. Nobody says Aaron Swartz was a saint without any flaw, and one can easily find many ways in which in hindsight one could suggest better action, especially if one doesn't actually have to act on their own advice. But that he was a fallible human being is not the same as accepting the treatment he's got from the US government. He was trying to fix an injustice and he was not harming anyone. Prosecutors have enough power and discretion to accommodate that if they wanted. They didn't want.
        res0nat0r 12y ago
        30 years in jail is a false dichotomy and people need to quit parroting that in relation to this case, it was never ever in any way going to be close to that.
        smsm42 12y ago
        Well, 30 years maybe a bit exaggerated, but multiple years in jail were well on the agenda if Swartz would not take the plea agreement, as the facts of the case were against him and the jury probably would not (and would be instructed not to) relate to his motives and why he did it. Then it would come to the sentencing and as the feds were determined to make an example of him... it would be hard to expect much leniency, especially given the fact that Swartz probably didn't think what he did was wrong (even if how he did it may be against he law) so he would not get the "regret" leniency too. So maybe not 30 years, but multiple years still, which is very harsh and can ruin one's life. P.S. btw, please look up what "dichotomy" is. You can not have dichotomy of one thing, at least in the meaning of the word we're dealing with here.
        res0nat0r 12y ago
        He was given 6 months and should have taken it. Many people who violate the law think what they did wasn't wrong, but this has no bearing in the matter when it comes to sentencing.
        12y ago
  - hluska 12y ago
    Have you actually read anything about this case? Some facts include: a) He was threatened with 35 years in prison for downloading journal articles from MIT. Both MIT and JStor (the wronged parties) were against this heavy handed prosecution. b) Aaron was not convicted because he chose to kill himself while the prosecution was ongoing. The prosecution wanted him to serve six months in a federal prison; Swartz refused this plea deal. Aaron killed himself shortly after the prosecution declined his offer. c) This style of prosecution (ie - go to court and risk 35 years in prison vs plead guilty and spend six months) goes against justice.
    - jdong 12y ago
      Aaron was a good friend of mine, I know quite a bit about this case. a) No he wasn't, this is a common misconception by people who don't understand how the US court system works. b) Aaron had a good deal, the indisputable breaking-and-entering charge would probably have gotten him more than 6 months. (Clarification: Aarons state charges were dropped to make way for the more serious federal charges, so in the end he didn't even get charged for the breaking-and-entering.) c) Again, read up on the US court system. You're disrespecting his memory by using him as a weapon for your misguided crusade. Here's a good article written by Orin Kerr regarding Aarons charges http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/
      - mindslight 12y ago
        a) Even if we want to bicker about the exact time, can we agree that he was facing a possible 5 years? That's ten times longer than what the prosecutors thought an appropriate punishment (the 6 month offered plea). b) Not for a college-class first time offender into an unlocked network closet, especially given the institution. That would have been handled at the local level, and would have most likely ended up in probation. c) Yes, this case was business as usual for the US "justice" system. That doesn't make it right. If Aaron was a good friend of yours, then you probably do have some different insight. Please share it here instead of repeating the same tired he-got-what-he-deserved FUD.
  - scarmig 12y ago
    The law was going to give him prison time and mark him as a felon for life for the crime of downloading academic papers with the intent of making them available to the public. It continued to pursue this even after JSTOR had asked the attorneys to back down, hounding him incessantly even after informed that he was psychologically ill.
    - jdong 12y ago
      You're ignoring the other charges he had, the prosecution offered him an AMAZING deal. You can't just not prosecute people because they're depressed.
      - vdaniuk 12y ago
        Wow, I am extremely surprised to see such attitude from a friend of Aaron. Amazing deal? Really? Do you think that serving 6 months or more for his "crimes" is justice?
        jdong 12y ago
        You probably mean 6 months or less, because that was the prosecution offer. And yeah, I think that was actually a pretty good deal. Although I would agree that in a perfect world the material he took would already have been public.
        shiven 12y ago
        I think you are grossly underplaying the consequences of that plea deal. Six months (or less) in federal prison would still have him labeled as a "convict" and he would have lost numerous civil rights (voting being one) as a result. Needless to say, he would have to carry that label for the rest of his days as a US citizen. From what I understand, Aaron did not want to carry that cross, more so since he considered himself innocent. Hence, in protest, he took his own life. I am neither condoning nor criticizing his action and his final decision, as I am in no position to do that. However, I strongly doubt it was as simple or straightforward as you'd like it to appear. If you are a friend of Aaron's and you have come out publicly (on HN) as one, perhaps you could explain the reasoning and motivations better than most of us. Why not do that, instead of oversimplifying the whole situation?
  - nemo 12y ago
    There are some serious problems with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which was seriously abused in this case. Members of Congress have recognized this and tried to reform the law because of the abuse.
drivers99 12y ago
Your question made me want to find out more for myself. I ended watching The Internet's Own Boy[1]. I'm glad I did and I recommend it for anyone who hasn't seen it yet. It will answer your question of why people care. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXr-2hwTk58 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXr-2hwTk58
ScottBurson 12y ago
It's famous for several reasons, which you are surely aware of. The most obvious is that the suicide of a well-known, brilliant, and promising young activist gets people's attention. It's natural for people to mourn, to some extent, and to wonder what he could have done with the rest of his life had he not ended it. It is a very sad thing. Also, it brought to a lot of people's attention, including mine, some of the problems with both the CFAA specifically and with the way that federal prosecutors routinely abuse their discretion generally. Orin Kerr discusses both of these points in the second part of the piece you linked to [0]. I'll quote one passage: On the third question, the issue of who was to blame if the prosecution was too severe, I think it’s important to realize that what happened in the Swartz case happens it lots and lots of federal criminal cases. Yes, the prosecutors tried to force a plea deal by scaring the defendant with arguments that he would be locked away for a long time if he was convicted at trial. Yes, the prosecutors filed a superseding indictment designed to scare Swartz evem more in to pleading guilty (it actually had no effect on the likely sentence, but it’s a powerful scare tactic). Yes, the prosecutors insisted on jail time and a felony conviction as part of a plea. But it is not particularly surprising for federal prosecutors to use those tactics. What’s unusual about the Swartz case is that it involved a highly charismatic defendant with very powerful friends in a position to object to these common practices. That’s not to excuse what happened, but rather to direct the energy that is angry about what happened. If you want to end these tactics, don’t just complain about the Swartz case. Don’t just complain when the defendant happens to be a brilliant guy who went to Stanford and hangs out with Larry Lessig. Instead, complain that this is business as usual in federal criminal cases around the country — mostly with defendants who no one has ever heard of and who get locked up for years without anyone else much caring. I agree wholeheartedly. But for many of us, it was the Swartz case that brought this issue to our attention in a big way. I think it is natural for us to associate the issue with Swartz even if we agree with Kerr that the problem is hardly confined to this one instance. As for the CFAA itself, Kerr argues, and I again agree, that the provision triggering felony liability is much too broad. Had the statute been reformed as Kerr suggests, Swartz might not have been looking at a felony charge. I agree that Swartz should have faced some punishment, even if just a misdemeanor conviction and probation. It's really the looming felony conviction that Swartz was unable to swallow, and I am too. It highlights how the federal criminal law has grown into a monster. If you want another case that shows the same thing and should also be famous, the George Norris felony orchid smuggling case [1] would be a great choice. [0] http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aaron-swartz-part-2-prosecutorial-discretion/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-agains... [1] http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/07/the-unlikely-orchid-smuggler-a-case-study-in-overcriminalization http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/07/the-unlikel...

What makes this case such a big deal? Swartz did something that was obviously illegal and got caught.

by jdong 12y ago

What makes this case such a big deal? Swartz did something that was obviously illegal and got caught.

Because our law is made by the hands of ultimately fallible beings. We are inevitably going to make mistakes. This is the reason we have legislative bodies. They are a guard against our own lack of omnipotence.

jdong 12y ago
Sure, but there really doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the law here. Aaron wasn't even convicted of anything.
- McDoku 12y ago
  I think it was highlighting the gaps in legislation and prosecution brought about by technological illiteracy. This has been a crucial ongoing debate.
  - jdong 12y ago
    I don't think technological illiteracy plays a large part here, Aaron exploited a flaw in JSTORs ratelimiting system and continued doing so after being blocked several times by JSTOR administration. After that didn't work out he broke into a server cabinet at MIT. Does that sound 100% OK to you?
    - DanBC 12y ago
      It doesn't sound like something I'd send someone to jail for.
      - jdong 12y ago
        Thing is, you have to draw a line somewhere. Essentially he was exploiting a vulnerability in JSTOR to mass download court documents, what if he was downloading credit cards instead? Or some sort of corporate secrets? (Sure, credit cards and court documents are very very different. But the act here is the crime, not what he gains from it)
        ScottBurson 12y ago
        Wow. You claim to know a lot about the case, but you don't even realize that JSTOR holds scientific papers, not court documents. Swartz had previously downloaded court documents from a service called PACER. An FBI investigation was opened, but closed with no charges being filed; he was not prosecuted for that.
        AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        > what if he was downloading credit cards instead? Or some sort of corporate secrets? What if he was raping women? Or committing genocide? > But the act here is the crime, not what he gains from it Downloading scientific journals is not the same "act" as committing credit card fraud. It is an outrageous defect in the law that it doesn't adequately distinguish them.
        nemo 12y ago
        > Essentially he was exploiting a vulnerability in JSTOR to mass download court documents He was downloading academic articles, not court documents. You're mixing up the JSTOR download and the time he pulled down PACER documents. He did have legitimate access to the JSTOR documents, but was bypassing rate limiting. In the process, he did do some things that were illegal, but nothing that honestly justified the Feds charging him with CFAA or wire fraud charges filed, nor anything that justified a felony conviction. What he was doing wasn't the sort of crime those laws were written to address and that they were intended to stop. The Feds. abused the ambiguities in poorly written laws to charge him.
    - McDoku 12y ago
      My issue is not the crime but the intention of the individual and whether or not his behaviour was fundamentally prosocial and/or in the national interest. We have constitutions and laws specifically to product/advance those interests. If that is the standard by which we judge actions, then it change how we should view the case. This debate has fueled technological literacy among the general population/legislative/judicial. Much like the fappening is doing for crypto/personal_security (Re: Android/Apple announcements). It further underlines the critical role that technology plays in our civil life.
    - smsm42 12y ago
      The choice between "100% OK" and 30 years in jail is a false dichotomy. Nobody says Aaron Swartz was a saint without any flaw, and one can easily find many ways in which in hindsight one could suggest better action, especially if one doesn't actually have to act on their own advice. But that he was a fallible human being is not the same as accepting the treatment he's got from the US government. He was trying to fix an injustice and he was not harming anyone. Prosecutors have enough power and discretion to accommodate that if they wanted. They didn't want.
      - res0nat0r 12y ago
        30 years in jail is a false dichotomy and people need to quit parroting that in relation to this case, it was never ever in any way going to be close to that.
        smsm42 12y ago
        Well, 30 years maybe a bit exaggerated, but multiple years in jail were well on the agenda if Swartz would not take the plea agreement, as the facts of the case were against him and the jury probably would not (and would be instructed not to) relate to his motives and why he did it. Then it would come to the sentencing and as the feds were determined to make an example of him... it would be hard to expect much leniency, especially given the fact that Swartz probably didn't think what he did was wrong (even if how he did it may be against he law) so he would not get the "regret" leniency too. So maybe not 30 years, but multiple years still, which is very harsh and can ruin one's life. P.S. btw, please look up what "dichotomy" is. You can not have dichotomy of one thing, at least in the meaning of the word we're dealing with here.
        res0nat0r 12y ago
        He was given 6 months and should have taken it. Many people who violate the law think what they did wasn't wrong, but this has no bearing in the matter when it comes to sentencing.
        12y ago
- hluska 12y ago
  Have you actually read anything about this case? Some facts include: a) He was threatened with 35 years in prison for downloading journal articles from MIT. Both MIT and JStor (the wronged parties) were against this heavy handed prosecution. b) Aaron was not convicted because he chose to kill himself while the prosecution was ongoing. The prosecution wanted him to serve six months in a federal prison; Swartz refused this plea deal. Aaron killed himself shortly after the prosecution declined his offer. c) This style of prosecution (ie - go to court and risk 35 years in prison vs plead guilty and spend six months) goes against justice.
  - jdong 12y ago
    Aaron was a good friend of mine, I know quite a bit about this case. a) No he wasn't, this is a common misconception by people who don't understand how the US court system works. b) Aaron had a good deal, the indisputable breaking-and-entering charge would probably have gotten him more than 6 months. (Clarification: Aarons state charges were dropped to make way for the more serious federal charges, so in the end he didn't even get charged for the breaking-and-entering.) c) Again, read up on the US court system. You're disrespecting his memory by using him as a weapon for your misguided crusade. Here's a good article written by Orin Kerr regarding Aarons charges http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/
    - mindslight 12y ago
      a) Even if we want to bicker about the exact time, can we agree that he was facing a possible 5 years? That's ten times longer than what the prosecutors thought an appropriate punishment (the 6 month offered plea). b) Not for a college-class first time offender into an unlocked network closet, especially given the institution. That would have been handled at the local level, and would have most likely ended up in probation. c) Yes, this case was business as usual for the US "justice" system. That doesn't make it right. If Aaron was a good friend of yours, then you probably do have some different insight. Please share it here instead of repeating the same tired he-got-what-he-deserved FUD.
- scarmig 12y ago
  The law was going to give him prison time and mark him as a felon for life for the crime of downloading academic papers with the intent of making them available to the public. It continued to pursue this even after JSTOR had asked the attorneys to back down, hounding him incessantly even after informed that he was psychologically ill.
  - jdong 12y ago
    You're ignoring the other charges he had, the prosecution offered him an AMAZING deal. You can't just not prosecute people because they're depressed.
    - vdaniuk 12y ago
      Wow, I am extremely surprised to see such attitude from a friend of Aaron. Amazing deal? Really? Do you think that serving 6 months or more for his "crimes" is justice?
      - jdong 12y ago
        You probably mean 6 months or less, because that was the prosecution offer. And yeah, I think that was actually a pretty good deal. Although I would agree that in a perfect world the material he took would already have been public.
        shiven 12y ago
        I think you are grossly underplaying the consequences of that plea deal. Six months (or less) in federal prison would still have him labeled as a "convict" and he would have lost numerous civil rights (voting being one) as a result. Needless to say, he would have to carry that label for the rest of his days as a US citizen. From what I understand, Aaron did not want to carry that cross, more so since he considered himself innocent. Hence, in protest, he took his own life. I am neither condoning nor criticizing his action and his final decision, as I am in no position to do that. However, I strongly doubt it was as simple or straightforward as you'd like it to appear. If you are a friend of Aaron's and you have come out publicly (on HN) as one, perhaps you could explain the reasoning and motivations better than most of us. Why not do that, instead of oversimplifying the whole situation?
- nemo 12y ago
  There are some serious problems with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which was seriously abused in this case. Members of Congress have recognized this and tried to reform the law because of the abuse.

drivers99 12y ago

Your question made me want to find out more for myself. I ended watching The Internet's Own Boy[1]. I'm glad I did and I recommend it for anyone who hasn't seen it yet. It will answer your question of why people care. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXr-2hwTk58 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXr-2hwTk58

ScottBurson 12y ago

It's famous for several reasons, which you are surely aware of. The most obvious is that the suicide of a well-known, brilliant, and promising young activist gets people's attention. It's natural for people to mourn, to some extent, and to wonder what he could have done with the rest of his life had he not ended it. It is a very sad thing. Also, it brought to a lot of people's attention, including mine, some of the problems with both the CFAA specifically and with the way that federal prosecutors routinely abuse their discretion generally. Orin Kerr discusses both of these points in the second part of the piece you linked to [0]. I'll quote one passage: On the third question, the issue of who was to blame if the prosecution was too severe, I think it’s important to realize that what happened in the Swartz case happens it lots and lots of federal criminal cases. Yes, the prosecutors tried to force a plea deal by scaring the defendant with arguments that he would be locked away for a long time if he was convicted at trial. Yes, the prosecutors filed a superseding indictment designed to scare Swartz evem more in to pleading guilty (it actually had no effect on the likely sentence, but it’s a powerful scare tactic). Yes, the prosecutors insisted on jail time and a felony conviction as part of a plea. But it is not particularly surprising for federal prosecutors to use those tactics. What’s unusual about the Swartz case is that it involved a highly charismatic defendant with very powerful friends in a position to object to these common practices. That’s not to excuse what happened, but rather to direct the energy that is angry about what happened. If you want to end these tactics, don’t just complain about the Swartz case. Don’t just complain when the defendant happens to be a brilliant guy who went to Stanford and hangs out with Larry Lessig. Instead, complain that this is business as usual in federal criminal cases around the country — mostly with defendants who no one has ever heard of and who get locked up for years without anyone else much caring. I agree wholeheartedly. But for many of us, it was the Swartz case that brought this issue to our attention in a big way. I think it is natural for us to associate the issue with Swartz even if we agree with Kerr that the problem is hardly confined to this one instance. As for the CFAA itself, Kerr argues, and I again agree, that the provision triggering felony liability is much too broad. Had the statute been reformed as Kerr suggests, Swartz might not have been looking at a felony charge. I agree that Swartz should have faced some punishment, even if just a misdemeanor conviction and probation. It's really the looming felony conviction that Swartz was unable to swallow, and I am too. It highlights how the federal criminal law has grown into a monster. If you want another case that shows the same thing and should also be famous, the George Norris felony orchid smuggling case [1] would be a great choice. [0] http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aaron-swartz-part-2-prosecutorial-discretion/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-agains... [1] http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/07/the-unlikely-orchid-smuggler-a-case-study-in-overcriminalization http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/07/the-unlikel...