Comments on: The State Should Not Pardon Aaron Swartz

By: James

James — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:30:51 +0000

“House lawmakers blasted federal prosecutors on Tuesday for pushing aggressive hacking charges against Internet activist Aaron Swartz, who killed himself on Friday.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) says his Oversight panel will look into whether federal prosecutors acted inappropriately.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/277353-lawmakers-blast-trumped-up-doj-prosecution-of-internet-activist

By: Tim Wilkinson

Tim Wilkinson — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:31:57 +0000

There’s a range of possible reasons To add another, I'd have thought that to any person or organisation that regards internet freedom as a major threat, AS's various achievements in that area, and the prospect of much more to come, would have made him appear a very dangerous person, worth going to some lengths to stop.

By: Cian

Cian — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:59:47 +0000

@14 Is it possible that there is some aspect of what Schwartz did that has not been made public which might explain the zeal with which the prosecution and/or MIT has pursued the matter? It may not even have been something he meant to do, but some area he accessed, perhaps classified, that might have engendered the response.

No. There’s absolutely no way given what was described. There’s a range of possible reasons for the response. People trying to build their careers on a ‘cyber-crime’. The deputy DA clearly has daddy issues, and so felt the need to prove himself. Possibly pay back for Aaron’s previous actions liberating the PACER records. Or maybe this was just an everyday example of prosecutor overreach which this time happened to touch a ‘famous’ person.

One point that’s got a little lost here is that the tactics used by the prosecutors are VERY common. You pile up the maximum charges possible, in the most aggressive way possible – thus creating maximum pressure for a plea bargain. It’s a despicable tactic, that uses the disparities in power to avoid a jury trial on the prosecution’s terms.

By: Tim Wilkinson

Tim Wilkinson — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:46:01 +0000

Trader Joe, 13 Is it possible that there is some aspect of what Schwartz did that has not been made public which might explain the zeal with which the prosecution and/or MIT has pursued the matter? It's possible, yes, and quite a promising line for apologists to take. I'd not be surprised if key media figures were being fed largely confidential, and entirely unattributable, look-but-don't-copy briefings along some such lines. once all the facts are on the table Or: once the official narrative has been finalised.

By: rf

rf — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:13:21 +0000

Js
Yeah I see your point. Personally, I don’t know what my position is on it as I don’t know enough about the case, but I’m generally sympathetic to Granicks perspective. I can see what you mean by it being potentially useful/justified to remove the prosecutor in this specific case, though I’d need to know more about it than I do at the minute

By: Harald Korneliussen

Harald Korneliussen — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:04:23 +0000

From twitter I see that Zoe Lofgren (D, California) has launched a concrete proposal reining in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act so that simple TOS violations would no longer be criminal, calling it "Aaron's law". Lawrence Lessig endorses this. This seems doable.

By: Both Sides Do It

Both Sides Do It — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 09:10:25 +0000

There are a few more Whitehouse.gov petitions that avoid the OP criticisms and start to address the concerns in the Granick posts. Reform the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Create an independent investigation into the possible abuse of power and prosecutorial excess by US District Attorney Carmen Ortiz and others in the Aaron Swartz case

By: Harold

Harold — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:24:41 +0000

44 finds it “baffling” “that the DOJ was so intent of prosecuting Swartz for the crime of downloading millions of academic papers, but not at all interested in prosecuting those who created innovative techniques that … cooked the books.”

Baffling? Those who cooked the books have deep pockets and can defend themselves. It is so much easier and more convenient to go after relatively defenseless teenaged or twenty-year old hackers and grind them into the dust as an example to the others.

By: Walt

Walt — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:06:52 +0000

Daniel, do you think history began today? People did demand they immediately back off suing the scores of petty malefactors — probably literally the exact same people both times. Surprise! Those with power sometimes ignore your demands.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 02:48:57 +0000

Pardoning Swartz, empty symbolism. Time better spent: devote one’s efforts to shaming the RIAA, MPA and their corporate sponsors. Demand that they immediately back off suing the scores of petty malefactors who did nothing more than download a few songs or films off the net.

Individuals and families have been financially ruined by the unremitting zeal of the RIAA and MPAA. Others will be ruined shortly. Ahh, but the RIAA and MPAA and, more importantly, their money lean left liberal. Hmm, problem.

By: Main Street Muse

Main Street Muse — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 02:26:35 +0000

Though I very much liked both of Jennifer Grannick’s posts, I do not necessarily agree with her conclusion quoted above via RF in @36. Just as I do not believe “corporations are people,” I do not believe “systems” are solely responsible for prosecutorial malfeasance and overreach. Corporations and systems are upheld by people who should be held accountable for their actions.

I continue to find it baffling that the DOJ was so intent of prosecuting Swartz for the crime of downloading millions of academic papers, but not at all interested in prosecuting those who created innovative techniques that obfuscated the truth – i.e. cooked the books (like Lehman’s Repo 105 – http://bit.ly/11y8kcw.)

By: PJW

PJW — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 02:09:52 +0000

Interesting insight Matt @35.

By: Timothy Scriven

Timothy Scriven — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 02:05:13 +0000

Absolutely agree with this post. I think calls for a pardon are symptomatic of the way the Liberal left orients it’s thinking around what the state child do, rather thanwhat we should do.

By: Harold

Harold — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 01:56:53 +0000

I mean “once” not one.

By: Harold

Harold — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 01:56:32 +0000

37, yes, excellent, because plea bargaining has replaced jury trials all over the USA and millions are probably unjustly imprisoned because of this. One people get caught up in the prison /parole system it really does become like Jean Valjean in Les Miserables.