6 ms·

Sure, but there really doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the law here. Aaron wasn't even convicted of anything.

by jdong 12y ago

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.

Sure, but there really doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the law here. Aaron wasn't even convicted of anything.

by 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.

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.