[FORUM] What do you think of the case of Aaron Swartz?

[rfmcdpei]

The events leading to the death of computer programmer an activist Aaron Swartz were succinctly described in an obituary in The Economist.

Small, dark, cluttered places were important in the life of Aaron Swartz. His days were spent hunched in his bedroom over his MacBook Pro, his short-sighted eyes nearly grazing the screen (why, he asked himself

Comments

[suitablyemoname]

I think it's absurd that he was being brought up on such serious charges for what amounts to a fairly innocent--and easily-prevented--act, especially considering how reluctant the justice system is to bring others up on any sort of charges. (I'm thinking specifically of the extent of white-collar crime in the United States. You can embezzle a few million dollars, destroy the livelihoods of thousands of employees, exit the organization in a puff of fraud, and get away with it all, but this kid gets halfway to breaking the law [let's not forget that he was caught before any of the information he obtained was disseminated] and is staring down 36 years in prison and a lifetime ban on owning a computer or using the internet? This does not seem proportionate.)

[houseboatonstyx]

undermining the potential economic viability of JSTOR's model, resting on its expertise in digitizing and organizing very large amounts of data

Wait a minute. How could Swartz "undermine" anyone's "expertise" here? What exactly is JSTOR providing for the money it charges? "Digitizing" data? -- the authors of the papers have already digitized it. "Organizing" it? -- by keywords? Google and other search engines can already find anything that's webbed in a normal way.

Who gave JSTOR this monopoly on data paid for by tax money? If JSTOR's services are still relevant, why aren't other companies allowed to compete with them? Let the market decide who is best offering the service at the best price.

[autopope]

+1.

Also: the prosecution behaved odiously -- if not exceptionally so by DoJ standards -- by splitting the downloads into a bunch of separate charges rather than a single charge, in the expectation that something would stick in the jury room. After all, why prosecute for just one thing when you can prosecute fifteen times?

It's also worth noting that the computer crime statutes in the US are so over-broad that people have been prosecuted under them for minor terms-of-service violations with their ISP; potentially all Americans' on-line behaviour is criminal in some way, and the mandatory 5 (or is it 6?) year sentence per infraction is massively, disproportionately harsh in most cases (given that the average convicted rapist served 5-6 years, IIRC) ...

[houseboatonstyx]

Charlie, I am connected to one of the prosecutors in this case. Keep in mind that there was no intent to send it to trial; the offer on the table was six months in a federal minimum security jail. (I have seen such jails. They are not country clubs, but nor are they dangerous.) Swartz's lawyers argued it down to time-served. MIT refused to sign off on the deal

[autopope]

Bringing multiple charges in order to overwhelm a defendant's resources is odious and an affront to natural justice; it's about turning prosecution into an oppressive game of cat and mouse, rather than an attempt to prove that the defendant broke a specific law.

This seems to be endemic in the US system, and I submit that it's a side-effect of making prosecutors elected officials -- the election platform of any prosecutor is built on the basis of convictions secured rather than justice being served.

[fengi]

What I find interesting is that more than one person who told me Lori Drew "deserved" to have her life wrecked by years of radical, grandstanding Federal prosecution are now crying fowl over Swartz. Apparently excess only counts when the person is likeable.