back to article Fans of dead data 'liberator' Swartz press Obama to sack prosecutor

A new online petition has called for the firing of US attorney Carmen Ortiz for pursuing Aaron Swartz with charges that could have put him in prison for at least three decades. Meanwhile, Democrat congresswoman Zoe Lofgren has drawn up a new bill called "Aaron's Law" to amend the US Computer Fraud and Abuse Act used to …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Oninoshiko

    what I find bizzare

    is that JSTOR (the aggrieved party) actually urged the prosecutor to drop the charges. I understand why the state has the right to prosecute without the consent of the aggrieved but cases such as this make me wonder for a moment if that shouldn't be changed.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: what I find bizzare

      That prosecutor must have thought that "making an example" of somebody famous, in a Corporate America friendly sort of way, would make for a cracking career move.

    2. Radbruch1929

      Re: what I find bizzare

      I do not know about the situation in the US but in domestic violence cases, victims often retract their support for the prosecution and this is a factor in determining whether to press charges (i.e. if the case is in the public interest). So I agree to your (general) understanding why the authorities may prosecute without the victim's consent but should be careful about their determination.

      In this case however - if the reporting is right -, the prosecution seems not only to have pushed for prosecution of the case but for maximum sentencing. That is odd: El Reg posted a link to the indictment by grand jury and the criminal law cited was wire fraud, computer fraud and unlawfully obtaining Information from a protected computer. In light that the aggrieved asked for the case to be dropped, it seems to have been a first time offender case and it does not involve actions for personal gain, the alleged push for a high sentence seems to be the oddity to be scrutinized.

      1. Suricou Raven

        Re: what I find bizzare

        This is a case where the conspiracy theorists have a good case. He was a first-time offender, but he had a political history likely to have upset those in power. One of his former stunts was to obtain a great number of court records, something officially available to the public anyway but in practice requiring a convoluted procedure for anyone other than a well-paid lawyer to get to in a reasonable time. It it quite plausible he was already known to the prosecution as a troublemaker with anti-government tendencies and a history of activism, and thus someone to go after with a bit more force than the average unremarkable first-time offender.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: what I find bizzare

          PACER is easy. The catch is after a certain # of retrieved pages, you have to pay. He was pulling pages using a way to bypass the fee. That's where the trouble came from, not the fact he made them available.

      2. Oninoshiko

        Re: what I find bizzare

        @ radbruch1929: As I said, I understand why it exists (and even considered mentioning it, but changed my mind because it distracted from the point of the post)

        @Suricou Raven: I don't think I would call his previous action a "stunt." I would making things which are a matter of public record available to the public a "service," although it may not have garnered him friends in the prosecutor's office. If that is the reason for aggressiveness, an example needs made of this prosecutor.

        1. Radbruch1929

          Re: what I find bizzare

          @Oninoshiko: Ah, please excuse me for carrying coals to Newcastle. It was uncalled for.

          @Suricou Raven: Thank you for pointing this out, I missed it. I still hope we are going to see a detailed analysis of the proposed sentence. The blog quoted at the end of the article only reviews (yet) the fact of the indictment but perhaps they carry on and provide more detailed information how the prosecution seemingly pushed for a sentence at the top of the given range. The story seems to be there.

      3. Turtle

        @Radbruch1929: Re: what I find bizzare

        "the prosecution seems not only to have pushed for prosecution of the case but for maximum sentencing."

        The prosecution can "push" for whatever they want but the judge decides on the sentence.

        "In light that the aggrieved asked for the case to be dropped, it seems to have been a first time offender case and it does not involve actions for personal gain, the alleged push for a high sentence seems to be the oddity to be scrutinized."

        This might be apposite or germane if a JUDGE had actually given him a lengthy sentence. But since a judge had not passed sentence, your statement is meaningless.

        1. Radbruch1929

          Re: @Radbruch1929: what I find bizzare

          I politely disagree. While I agree that in a criminal law system, the court (judge, jury) determines the sentence, I doubt that in the US, a prosecutor may push for "whatever sentence". A quick glance here:

          http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/27mcrm.htm

          shows that "pushing for whatever sentence" also in a plea bargaining agreement may be in violation of the prosecutor's guidelines (number 9-27.430 Comments B 1. and 3.). Apparently, this violation is not actionable against the state or the prosecutor (9-27.150) but seems to be a basis for disciplinary action (9-27.130).

          So the push for a maximum sentence in this case may be a reason to scrutinize the handling of this case. Please note that I have no understanding of US law.

          1. Tom 13
            Unhappy

            Re: Please note that I have no understanding of US law.

            These days I doubt most prosecutors and other assorted lawyers do either.

            What they do possess that neither you or I do, is a license to lie about it.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: what I find bizzare

      Its my understanding that the historical reason that the state does not require the consent of the aggrieved is so that the wealthy are not able to "pay off" the victim in order to avoid justice. (It doesn't seem to make sense here, because the wealthy party was also the aggrieved party.)

      1. scarshapedstar
        Headmaster

        Re: what I find bizzare

        Technically, in a criminal case, the aggrieved party IS the state. That's why the cases have names like Massachusetts v. Swartz.

  2. Bruce Ordway

    Copywrite copyrite

    I'm all for giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it....... for a limited time.

    1. Thorne

      Re: Copywrite copyrite

      But JSTOR isn't the creator, just the publisher. JSTOR collected money for access to the journals but none of that money went back to the creators of the journals which was the whole argument.

      JSTOR got given the journals for free and charged for the access for everyone else.

      1. graeme leggett Silver badge

        Re: Copywrite copyrite

        From JSTOR's website

        "Issues and Article Purchases

        Approximately 850 journals also have single articles or issues for sale through JSTOR. Fees for those articles represent a price set by the publisher plus a flat fee to cover JSTOR’s costs for providing the service."

  3. greatfog

    FYI

    From whitehouse.gov:

    WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:

    Remove United States District Attorney Carmen Ortiz from office for overreach in the case of Aaron Swartz.

    [https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-district-attorney-carmen-ortiz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck]

  4. User McUser
    Headmaster

    Solecisms...

    "Now Lofgren has announced her intention to propose Aaron's Law on Reddit [...]"

    I'm sure Reddit will vote for it. Perhaps afterwards she could propose it to Congress too?

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    JSTOR needs to be

    Sent the way of the dinosaur..

    -Anonymous

    1. Ian Johnston Silver badge

      Re: JSTOR needs to be

      JSTOR s a non-profit, owned by a consortium of universities, which exists to make access to journals easier and cheaper for institutions. Destroy it, my masked friend, and you will make scholarly enquiry more difficult and more expensive.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: JSTOR needs to be

        "JSTOR s a non-profit, owned by a consortium of universities, which exists to make access to journals easier and cheaper for institutions"

        Does not seem to be making it any easier and cheaper for *individuals* though, is it?

        / [ A different masked friend of yours. ]

        1. DavCrav

          Re: JSTOR needs to be

          "Does not seem to be making it any easier and cheaper for *individuals* though, is it?"

          Your point is? That universities are only splurging their cash helping their own sector rather than you as well, despite also normally providing free preprint servers for their research, copious free materials, lecture notes, etc., for everyone in the world to access? Yes, that's terrible! Burn them!

          1. scarshapedstar
            Thumb Down

            Re: JSTOR needs to be

            "free preprint servers for their research, copious free materials, lecture notes, etc., for everyone in the world to access?"

            Maybe this would make sense if PloS didn't exist...

            1. DavCrav

              Re: JSTOR needs to be

              " "free preprint servers for their research, copious free materials, lecture notes, etc., for everyone in the world to access?"

              Maybe this would make sense if PloS didn't exist..."

              PloS only seems to be interested in medicine as far as I can tell from looking at it. There are other fields of knowledge. Medicine is perhaps the one where the paywalls are particularly grating as the information inside could potentially be lifesaving, but the battle against commercial publishers is happening in engineering, physics, chemistry, my own branch of mathematics, all over science. Every course I give at university I put the lecture notes on my website, free for anyone to download. All my papers are on there, all slides from any talk I've given, all materials I have produced as part of my job.

  6. Daedalus
    FAIL

    Terminological inexactitude

    "District Attorney" is the title of a public prosecutor in most States in the USA. Some States, like Massachusetts and Kentucky, call the office "Commonwealth Attorney". At the Federal level the office is "United States Attorney". Ms Ortiz is a "US Attorney" not a "DA".

    1. Turtle

      Re: Terminological inexactitude

      I am upvoting your post not merely because of its general content, but also because of your use of Churchill's "terminological inexactitude". Not as, well, "playful" as Churchill's original use but the reference was enjoyable.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Terminological inexactitude

        Masturbator

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Jstor question

    so how come they're non-profit and charge 10 bucks to get access to each article? AND, at the same time, proclaim to be all for spreading the knowledge as wide as possible? :(

    1. Grikath
      Facepalm

      Re: Jstor question

      because storage *still* costs money, and stuff.

      mind, compared to the rates of Serious Magazines $10 a pop is small change..

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Jstor question

        How much does http://xxx.lanl.gov/ charge, again?

      2. Thorne

        Re: Jstor question

        If storage is so expensive that it requires $10 per article per read then how could Swartz release it for free?

    2. Turtle

      Re: Jstor question

      "so how come they're non-profit and charge 10 bucks to get access to each article? AND, at the same time, proclaim to be all for spreading the knowledge as wide as possible?"

      Right. Because IT departments and services have no expenses for personnel, administration, and hardware where you live.

  8. Synja

    Not to speak ill of the dead...

    But he *knew* he was breaking the law. He *knew* what the possible consequences were.

    This is not to say that I am not in favor of sanctions against the prosecutor and overhaul of much of the US criminal code, but let's keep the big picture in mind: he took his own life, and he committed the crimes for which he was charged.

    This wasn't a failure of the US justice system, this was a troubled man finding a way out of bad decisions he had made.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Not to speak ill of the dead...

      troubled man finding a way out of bad decisions he had made

      People who use terms like 'finding a way out' don't have a very good idea what they're talking about. People retain the will to live while being tortured, while imprisoned, during terminal illnesses, and amidst hopeless poverty and misery.

      Suicide is not 'a way out' - it's a response to a situation which is quite literally intolerable. Humans have a primal - for obvious reasons - fear of and aversion to death, one even stronger than the drive for power or sex or anything else. People desperately want to stay alive. It's built in. For someone to commit suicide requires life to be such a waking nightmare that 'easy way out' - or *any* 'way out' - is an absolutely absurd way to describe it. If your hands were being held in a fire, you'd do almost anything to make it stop. If you were pinned under a boulder, you'd do almost anything to get free - but that doesn't mean that sawing your arm off with a pocket knife is 'the easy way out'.

      Those who commit suicide may be incorrect about the impossibility of things being better, but that's in the nature of depression - though it's sometimes also true. But overcoming the instinct to remain alive requires such a terrible alternative that describing suicide as some kind of strategy for improvement is absurd.

    2. Johan Bastiaansen
      Facepalm

      Re: Not to speak ill of the dead...

      "But he *knew* he was breaking the law. He *knew* what the possible consequences were."

      So did Nelson Mandela.

    3. MacGyver
      Unhappy

      Re: Not to speak ill of the dead...

      The reality is that the prosecution pushed for the highest punishment possible, and got it. The death penalty. You can argue all day long about "how he knew the consequences", but clearly he didn't, there is no way that he thought he would be getting more time behind bars than if he robbed a chain of liquor store at gun-point and killed two of the clerks in the process. His crime was non-violent, there is no way that anyone will ever convenience me that on his first offense he should have spent 30-50 years in prison.

      The prosecution killed him.

    4. pdxbrit
      WTF?

      Re: Not to speak ill of the dead...

      Because clearly, if you're caught speeding, it's appropriate that the prosecutor pursues the death penalty against you. After all, you committed the crimes for which you were charged. Oh, you don't think wildly disproportionate punishment would be appropriate here? Well, oddly enough, that's the problem.

      You assert that "he knew what the possible consequences were". Would you care to present some evidence for that? Or perhaps you just made that up on the spot? His "crime" was sufficiently heinous that JSTOR refused to press charges and wanted the case dropped. Do you honestly fail to see a problem with a prosecutor abusing the law to further their career?

  9. Trigun
    Big Brother

    The law should work in both directions

    The trouble is that Aaron was high profile so I suspect someone was trying to send a message to all such hackers. The trouble is that the prosecutors office went way overboard and went utterly overboard,

    In the U.K. we have an offence called "Attempting to pervert the course of justice". It's not designed to be used against prosecutors but I don't see why it shouldn't be. If U.S. has something similar maybe that should be used given the circumstances.

    1. Gannon (J.) Dick

      Re: The law should work in both directions

      My thoughts exactly.

      For what country was the Prosecutor inventing this Enemy of the State ?

    2. Synja

      Re: The law should work in both directions

      There are numerous laws in the US designed to handle legal misconduct in any part of the justice system. More importanly, the *insert jurisdiction here* bar association can revoke an attorney's license to practice law, no matter which table they sit at. Even judges can be sanctioned that way. It may not be a criminal charge, but it's far more devastating to an attorney than minor jail time.

      This of course assumes that malpractice or some sort of ethical violation actually took place and can be proven. Being a dick isn't a crime, and should never be considered as such.

      1. Johan Bastiaansen

        Re: The law should work in both directions

        "Being a dick isn't a crime, and should never be considered as such."

        I don't know. If you're being a dick in an official capacity, that could be a crime. Especially if people get hurt.

    3. vagabondo
      Thumb Down

      Re: The law should work in both directions -- @Trigun

      I agree that he was guilty

      Of what exactly?

    4. Johan Bastiaansen
      Devil

      Re: The law should work in both directions

      I agree. Firing her is a start, but only a start.

      She likes prosecuting? She should be prosecuted!

      These people think they are untouchable. It's about time we cut them down to size.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Time to get real

    People who make poor choices in life suffer the consequences of their choices. The DA is not the reason why Swartz killed himself. Not being man enough to accept the consequences for his actions is why Swartz killed himself. That too was of his own doing just like all the other poor choices he made in the past.

    This should be a lesson to those who think they are above the law. A prison cell awaits you. Blaming other people for your poor personal choices is futile.

    1. MissingSecurity
      Pint

      Re: Time to get real..Yes, why don't we..

      We I guess if you're going to see no fault in the governments actions than you probably have the strings they attached firmly wedge up your...

      First you need to understand that JSTOR database was free accessible to him. In fact, had actually downloaded each individual file, himself, he would have been in complete legal rights. He use a program to do it. His big heat was abusing the MIT network to download the stuff.

      Second, I think you don't understand the wiretap portion of this. In any general definition of the term wire tapping, Aaron was file transferring, not snooping wires. Certainly from MIT's perspective it was a serious breach of security, but the prosecution of such actions don;t have much merit.

      Third, JSOR originally brought charges, but then drop them. Not completely related to the case, but at the same time JSTOR was planning on making much the material public anyways.

      At best, his crime should be trespassing, however do to an over-zealous DA, and broad Computer Crime Act, they abused their Judaical integrity and in the eye of the public they should burn.

      I guess if you want to believe the DA's actually consider cases than by all mean live that dream, but aggressive prosecution is alive an well especially if they think it will advance their career.

    2. Trigun

      Re: Time to get real

      I agree that he was guilty and should have been punished. Perhaps one or several of the following:

      - 6 months to 2 years in jail.

      - A moderate (uncomfortable, but affordable) fine passed to MIT as compensation.

      - Community work - again possibly at MIT as compensation

      The above is reasonable.

      10-30 years in prison and fines/legal fees that would bankrupt J.R. Eweing is utterly disproportionate. Aaron Swartz wasn't a serial rapist, murderer or child molester - any of whch might deserve such punishment. He was a misguided guy who broke the law.

      A witch hunt isn't what is needed here, but a good long hard look at the way the laws are implemented in the U.S. is, perhaps.

      1. Thorne

        Re: Time to get real

        "10-30 years in prison and fines/legal fees that would bankrupt J.R. Eweing is utterly disproportionate. Aaron Swartz wasn't a serial rapist, murderer or child molester - any of whch might deserve such punishment. He was a misguided guy who broke the law."

        But hacking and/or copyright infringment is a far more serious crime than rape, murder or child molestation...

      2. Turtle

        @Trigun: Re: Time to get real

        "I agree that he was guilty and should have been punished. Perhaps one or several of the following: - 6 months to 2 years in jail. - A moderate (uncomfortable, but affordable) fine passed to MIT as compensation.- Community work - again possibly at MIT as compensation The above is reasonable"

        Well how the fuck do *you* know what the sentence would have been had he been found guilty? He could have wound up with a sentence far more lenient that what you are suggesting. And ALL of the prison terms - had any actually been imposed, which is, sadly, doubtful - would have been served concurrently. And *any* fine, no matter how big, could have been (and should have been) paid by Google, as Swartz was basically a Google Tool, and Google is the prime beneficiary of all the sleazy freetard/anti-social causes he promoted.

        "He was a misguided guy who broke the law."

        Discuss that with the people who egged him on.

  11. Nunyabiznes

    MIT

    I agree with Synja and JStor shouldn't be getting the heat they are. MIT wouldn't drop the case even when JStor agreed to.

    So, one of the consortium members was basically overruling the consortium. They need to sort out who should be the predominant voice in these situations. Although, MIT is where the actual "damage" took place so perhaps they should have more say.

    1. T. F. M. Reader

      Re: MIT

      "MIT wouldn't drop the case even when JStor agreed to."

      I can understand, in principle, that MIT thought their infrastructure had been used for illegal purposes and took the matter seriously. I don't know enough details to have an opinion on whether they were in the right to press charges, but it does not seem unreasonable on the face of it and it looks quite independent of JSTOR's decision not to press charges - the latter does not mean the deed was not illegal, just that JSTOR were satisfied with the outcome/redress/etc.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    It does seem that in prosecutions in the US, the maximum penalty is sought when there is little or no "evidence" in an attempt to get a guilty plea and so avoid a failed prosecution. The "guilty" party will cop to a lesser plea rather than go to jail for 30years for jaywalking.

    I believe in the UK, that sentences are either set by statute or at the discretion of the presiding Judge and not by the prosecution (ie the DPP).

    It would seem sentences are political in the US and have nothing to do with justice.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "evidence" in an attempt to get a guilty plea and so avoid a failed prosecution. The "guilty" party will cop to a lesser plea rather than go to jail for 30years for jaywalking.

      Yeah, except supposedly in this case the prosecutor specifically rejected that. The govt didn't WANT a plea - they wanted him to go down for the maximum sentence, which would have suggested that his unauthorized downloads were worse than serial rape, stabbing someone to death, armed robbery, a string of assaults and muggings, embezzling tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, etc etc.

      What he did was, as far as I can tell, an absurd exercise in tilting at windmills. But you shouldn't get 35 years for damaging the windmill.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        > except supposedly in this case the prosecutor specifically rejected that.

        The prosecutor has expressly denied that, but what the hell. It's more fun believing the tabloids than the truth. Can't have a good ole boy rant against the guvmint if we have to believe the truth, hey?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          FAIL

          "The prosecutor has expressly denied that, but what the hell. It's more fun believing the tabloids than the truth."

          That would be a good point, if I'd read the prosecutor's statement when I posted. As it is, I qualified my statement precisely because I wasn't sure it was the case, and I dislike jumping to conclusions. If you'd read any of my other posts, you'd notice that I'm usually flamed for defending the US gov't rather than the opposite - unusual for a "good 'ol boy", as you so confidently term me, particularly one who produces progressive trance and watches Formula One.

          I later even came close to posting a defense of said prosecutor based on the statement you reference, but ironically (and unusually) decided against it in the interest of retaining my recent form with thumbses-upses.

          In the end, despite my disappointment in the failure of my attempted diplomatic writing, I am left more amused than sad due to the delightful irony: a critic assailing me for jumping to conclusions and being a tabloid-reading redneck actually went off half-cocked -himself-, resulting not only in his being wrong but also in accusing a road-racing, dance-music-making, Economist-reading atheist Jewish liberal of being an anti-government hillbilly.

          Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to load mah shotgun. Got a bathtub full a hooch ta look after, and tain't no indoor plumbin' here so the tub's in the yard bah the toy-a-let, an some nasty critters out ther gonna git ya if'n they's had a drink or two, ha ah haw haw haw! ...Hayup.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @A.N Other

      "I believe in the UK, that sentences are either set by statute or at the discretion of the presiding Judge and not by the prosecution (ie the DPP).:

      Oh just like here! Your ignorance prevents you and many other stupid people in this thread from understanding that the judge has statutes and sentencing guidelines that he must follow when handing down sentence, and does not function as a rubber stamp for the USDA. And that anyone who thinks that any judge would have sentenced him to full length of time to which he was liable because the USDA demanded it, is just showing their ignorance.

    3. Tom 13

      Re: It would seem sentences are political in the US

      Sentence in the US are as a-political as sentences in the UK.

      Prosecutors don't set sentences, Judges do, based on both statutory dictates and prevailing attitudes. And that happens only IF a civilian jury finds him guilty. Assuming sentence is passed, there are still multiple paths to appeal the conviction and the sentence. After or concurrent with those appeals you may also request either Executive leniency or pardon. Prosecutors ALWAYS ask for the maximum sentence possible (possible being defined only in the mind of the prosecutor) because the Defense will always be arguing for none.

  13. Toadkiller

    It seems that prosecutors are always more interested in "The Win" than what is right/just.

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      So are defense lawyers, it's what they're paid for after all. The job of a prosecutor is to prosecute, it's up to judge and jury to decide on the right/just issue.

  14. Stevie

    Bah!

    You guys *are* aware that in this case there was a physical breaking and entering part to the crime, aren't you? This wasn't someone sitting at home with a pizza and an open server port.

    The individual was depressed, yes, but it isn't the prosecutors job to make sure they get medical care during a prosecution. That was the job of those who "care" about this man, most of whom discovered they care a lot more now he's dead than when he was alive.

    At first I was outraged by this story, but it has become clear from listening to his own legal representative speak that there was no "hounding" or "stalking" element to this case, merely the routine grinding of the legal wheels.

    The real tragedy here is that yet another individual was brought abruptly into the real world after apparently thinking he could break the law with impunity. For a clever man (and from all accounts he was certainly that) he seems to have had a shockingly distant "consequence horizon".

    1. vagabondo
      Thumb Down

      Re: Bah!

      You guys *are* aware that in this case there was a physical breaking and entering part to the crime, aren't you?

      Where exactly was the breaking and entering? My understanding is that the activity in question took place on an open campus, using an open network. By using a battery powered device he cannot even be accused of stealing electricity.

      What he seems to have done is gone to a library (that he was a member of), and drawn the attention of the security staff by looking at (not taking away) a whole lot more books than is usual. Security called the local police. While he was being questioned, the matter was brought to the attention of the librarians, who on consideration decided that he was being a nuisance, but not causing any harm and should be sent on his way with a request not to do it again. They did not apparently even ask to revoke his library ticket. The cops were annoyed at their time being wasted, so decided that they would charge him with something to justify their existence and have something exciting to put on their time-sheets. Government had created a pile of draconian catch-all anti-terrorist, copyright and computer-crime laws designed to be efficacious in every case. So they used those. The Procurator Fiscal, or whatever the chief jobsworth is called, needs to relegated to a position where she can cause less harm and embarrassment.

      1. John Deeb
        Boffin

        Re: Bah!

        If the library checkout would be the analogy of choice, perhaps it's more accurate to say that a visitor found a way to briefly check out all books in the library (a few million). Since the books were returned immediately and only just ran through a giant xerox copier in the back of a parked truck perhaps, the library didn't press charges. The books are safe and still available, they were checked out and returned again according to their rules. But the security was annoyed because of the how this guy got this big truck to stay on the premises, using stealth techniques and changing locations to outsmart the security who was looking for this truck since it had no business staying there and doing god knows what.

        Now we can discuss if illegal parking and avoiding security people looking for it would be the same as actually breaking and entering. This is all about intention and details of the facilities being actually being abused, warnings ignored or security being breached in some way. But clearly it has been treated as a breach, a conscious attempt to avoid security and any rules they would have set for accepted behavior and transport around the premises. And yes, I think by pressing charges this has been made an example to warn the next adventurer who was planning to hide trucks for whatever reason. And yes, it is overkill like it is overkill to hide laptops and disks in dark corners of buildings you visit to get something downloaded.

        1. Turtle

          @John Deeb

          "If the library checkout would be the analogy of choice, perhaps it's more accurate to say ..."

          If you want to be more accurate, why not just get rid of the analogies. Because attaching your computer to someone else's network is not like borrowing books from a library.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Bah!

        > Where exactly was the breaking and entering? My understanding is that the activity in question took place on an open campus, using an open network.

        Read the indictment. He is alleged to "break into a restricted computer wiring closet at MIT", not to mention repeatedly spoofing the addresses on his PC to work around the MIT attempts to lock him out.

        To take your library analogy, the librarians sent him away and changed the code on the library door, whereupon he climbed back in through a window and continued to remove books.

    2. Vic

      Re: Bah!

      > You guys *are* aware that in this case there was a physical breaking and entering part to the crime, aren't you?

      No, I'm not.

      There was an allegation of same - and quite a bit of evidence to refute that allegation.

      I'm always one to believe in "innocent unless proven guilty"...

      > after apparently thinking he could break the law with impunity

      It's entirely possible he didn't break a single law. He seems generally to have used resources in ways he was explicitly permitted to.

      Vic.

  15. mIRCat
    Linux

    Carmen Ortiz

    That's one way to make a name for yourself.

    1. vagabondo

      Re: Carmen Ortiz

      Well that rather depends on what that name would be.

  16. Jodo Kast
    FAIL

    A Black Hat Hacker...

    ... who couldn't take the heat.

    What a shame! In over his head and what not!

  17. Mahou Saru

    Judge Dreads Ahoy!!!

    Woah when did it become so popular to act like Judge Dread with so many individuals deciding that Swartz is guilty without it going to court? Especially when the law is open to question and does get amended frequently. If it wasn't for individuals like Swart| then maybe our societies would be something out of 2000AD.

    Anyway I think the big issue isn't to do with individuals such as Swartz for doing what he did, or for Ortiz pushing as hard as she did (maybe she did it for what she thought was right, or maybe she did it to further her own agenda/career).

    I think the problem is large organisations abusing the system to erode the rights of the individual, especially then their actions seem so out of proportion.

    Each step we take as a society, it just seems darker then the last. With the media moguls with their copy right actions, the patent trolls acting like gangsters extorting money, and governments (US and UK) taking away our rights to preserve our "freedom", if it wasn't for people like Swartz then this world would be a much darker place then it is imho.

  18. Daniel B.

    So...

    It had to take Swartz offing himself for someone to actually propose limiting the CFAA so that something exaggerated like this doesn't happen. I hope it doesn't take, say, Jammie Thomas suiciding as well for copyright maddness to be fixed as well!

    Something's wrong when distributing files earns 30 in the slammer + millions in fines, and songs cost $10k each.

  19. Robert Masters
    Meh

    Perverting the course of justice...

    Here in Oz it routinely gets used against corrupt police ... usually following a finding by the courts of false imprisonment, decades after the original conviction.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    More info and opinions here on Aaron Swartz case

    Folks,

    In order to hear some more valid viewpoints on Aaron's so called crime, you should probably read some of the articles here: http://boingboing.net/tag/aaronsw particularly those written by Cory Doctorow and here: http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartzs-crime/

    That page is by Alex Stamos who is well known in the cybersecurity business and who was going to testify on Aaron Swartz behalf in his trial.

    In his considered opinion, there was no crime of trespass, nothing was "stolen" and Aaron even returned the documents he had downloaded back to JSTOR who dropped the charges and the Fed's continued the prosecution even though without Jstor pressing charges there can be no further prosecution.

    MIT's network (wired or wireless) was open to all just like free wifi so there was no trespass.

    The Fed's wanted a guilty verdict and the piled on the charges threatening him with sentencing up to 35 years in prison if he did not accept a "guilty" plea of 33 charges but only 6 months in jail.

    This is a common tactic in the US justice system where the cost (both mental and monetary) of fighting such a case will take a toll on the plaintiff to the point where they usually capitulate and take a guilty plea just to be rid of the problem.

    The trouble is that people of principles like Aaron usually don't want to be tagged as guilty when they believe they are not guilty. This wore him down financially and mentally until something broke and he committed suicide.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: More info and opinions here on Aaron Swartz case

      You're quoting Cory Doctorow as an authority?!!! We really do need a ROTFLMAO icon.

    2. Stevie

      Re: More info and opinions here on Aaron Swartz case

      "valid" viewpoints? I note you cite the sacred Doctorow and holy Stamos as if they spoke God's Unalloyed Truth yet dismiss the prosecuting attorney as someone "with an agenda".

      Yes there was an agenda. Cyber crime is a serious business in the US. You can hold that the law is an ass and you can work to change it, but if you break it you should expect to take some heat if you are caught. The prosecutor's job is to pursue that agenda with all dispatch and due diligence.

      Before you scream and leap note that neither Doctorow nor Stamos are defending themselves in court for similar crimes. You might infer that they simply have not been caught, but I venture to suggest that while they hold strong views about the nature of Cyber crime, they also recognize that if you break the law and get caught the prosecutor is going to try and get you called to task for it, so they do not engage in such activity (actually I like to imagine that there is such a thing as a "moral compass" that guides people in their day-to-day activities, but so few here are demonstrating one - including the unfortunate Mr Schwartz - I am beginning to suspect I may be laboring under a delusion).

      Perhaps one might further deduce that a more defensible course is to work to overturn or modify those laws with which one disagrees. In this case it is even simpler. All that was required was a policy change by the e-publisher, something that could probably have been achieved by a large enough petition, possibly one that included the names of those holding copyright on the materials in question.

      Once again, the real issue here, that the individual who was known to be a tad flaky (even his own lawyer referred to him as "young" [for his age] in a radio interview two days ago) did not get the support, guidance and help he so obviously needed.

      No, the fact that he was caught between a rock and a hard place didn't help his state of mind, but no-one in the prosecuting team twisted his arm and forced him to commit a crime known to be a particularly sensitive issue in the US if only because of the widespread reporting surrounding the recent "Aspberger Victim" cybercrime case.

      Not every computer whizz-kid is automatically a victim of society for Azathoth's sake. Sometimes they are simply victims of their own hubris, and of cleaving too strongly to a culture that glorifies illegal activity.

      1. Johan Bastiaansen
        Devil

        Re: More info and opinions here on Aaron Swartz case

        You would be a great character in a Kafka book.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @Johan Bastiaansen

          "You would be a great character in a Kafka book."

          You'd look good in a cartoon.

This topic is closed for new posts.