DOJ Admits It Had To Put Aaron Swartz In Jail To Save Face Over The Arrest

from the it's-all-about-the-public-perception dept

Mon, Feb 25th 2013 8:45am — Mike Masnick

As the Congressional investigation into the DOJ's prosecution of Aaron Swartz has continued, apparently a DOJ representative has admitted that part of the reason it insisted on having Swartz plead guilty to a felony and go to jail, no matter what, was that it feared the public backlash for the original arrest if they couldn't then show a felony conviction and jailtime. According to a Huffington Post article, quoting various sources:

Some congressional staffers left the briefing with the impression that prosecutors believed they needed to convict Swartz of a felony that would put him in jail for a short sentence in order to justify bringing the charges in the first place, according to two aides with knowledge of the briefing.

The odd thing is this little tidbit comes at the very, very end of a longer article, most of which focuses on the DOJ telling Congressional staffers that part of the reason they went after Swartz with such zeal was because of his infamous Guerilla Open Access Manifesto. That might explain why they were so eager to arrest him, but it seems like the much bigger deal, considering all the concern about prosecutor discretion, that after they arrested him, they then didn't want to look bad, which is why they continued to demand jailtime and felony convictions.

Many people have assumed all along that the Manifesto played a big role in the case -- and the Manifesto has certainly been a lightening rod concerning Swartz's activities. If you read the actual "manifesto" it's not quite as extreme as some make it out to be -- with much of it talking about taking stuff that is public domain, but still hidden behind walls, and making that available again. The controversial bit really is this paragraph, which starts out with legal activities, but gets much more ambiguous at the end:

We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world. We need to take stuff that's out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open Access.

Note that initially he's talking about stuff that is out of copyright. When he's talking about databases, note that he talks about buying them for the sake of putting them online, not infringing on the works. It's just that bit about scientific journals. And, yes, if those works are covered by copyright, there's likely infringement there, but it's not entirely clear. Especially in an age where many professors post up free copies of their research any way, and where it looks like we're moving to an age where more and more research is open access anyway. In that context, is what he said really so bad?

Apparently the DOJ thought it was a reason to throw the book at Swartz, even if he hadn't actually made any such works available.

The "Manifesto," Justice Department representatives told congressional staffers, demonstrated Swartz's malicious intent in downloading documents on a massive scale.

Some may agree with that, but it seems like a jump towards "thoughtcrime" since he hadn't actually made any move towards making the JSTOR data available. It's possible that he planned to only make the public domain works (of which there are many) available. It's also possible he planned to leak the whole thing. But, really, you would think that there should be a bit more evidence of that before prosecutors throw the book at him.

More importantly, it suggests that Swartz was arrested and prosecuted for expressing his opinion on how to solve a particular problem. You may or may not agree with it, but I thought the US was supposed to be a place where we were free to express ideas. There's even some famous part of our Constitution about that...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: aaron swartz, congressional investigation, doj, jail

263 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

silverscarcat (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 8:23am

Man...
This makes me ashamed to be an American.

I'd rather deal with 100 psychos with guns, 1000 terrorists and the crappy health care system than the DoJ/NSA/FBI.

How sad is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 8:55am
  
  Re: Man...
  That's not so sad.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation
  
  In criminal law, Blackstone's formulation (also known as Blackstone's ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle:
  
  "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",
  
  ...expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MrWilson, 26 Feb 2013 @ 1:07pm
    
    IP Maximalist's Formulation
    "Better that 100 loyal customers are falsely accused of copyright violation and bullied into settlement payments than one alleged pirate goes free."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:19am
  
  Re: Man...
  Most of us were already ashamed, but this really sucks too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- art guerrilla (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:18am
  
  Re: Man...
  "I'd rather deal with 100 psychos with guns, 1000 terrorists and the crappy health care system than the DoJ/NSA/FBI."
  
  um, you do realize The They (tm) are one and the same these days, richtig ? ? ?
  unka sam has just cut out the middleman and does all the terrorizing themselves...
  
  based on a true story...
  art guerrilla
  aka ann archy
  eof
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Oblate (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:44am
  
  Re: Man...
  Ashamed to be an American? Never. Don't let the enormous number of good deeds done by uncountable Americans be negated by the acts of these few morally bankrupt idiots.
  
  Ashamed that these jackasses masquerading as public servants are? Deeply.
  
  IANAL, but how is such a wanton display of a lack of morals, a blatant disregard for justice (and the law by reference), and brazen dereliction of their duty as prosecutors not sufficient for review for disbarment or criminal charges?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ted Lemon, 25 Feb 2013 @ 8:07pm
  
  Re: Man...
  Don't be ashamed of something you didn't do. Be ashamed of the people who did it, and shame them. We've got to stop wringing our hands when evil is done in our names, and start working seriously to put a stop to it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jeremy2020 (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 10:51am
    
    Re: Re: Man...
    be ashamed at all the rest of us for continually not being more involved and content to live the world of Wall-E
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 8:56am

Right, because finding a charge worthy enough to toss him in jail - suicide or otherwise - would completely absolve the DOJ of all scrutiny and criticism.

It's as sad and pathetic as the case of the medium in Britain, World War II who passed on messages from dead sailors who were on a military-classified ship, and got herself imprisoned under 17th-century witchcraft laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:05am

this shows not only the lengths law enforcement agencies will go to to be 'right' but also shows how 'justice' is the last thing on the agenda. how can 'saving face' be so important that a person's life has to be ruined, let alone be taken completely. this behaviour is disgraceful! those involved in this case, from the DoJ to the prosecutors should now be charged with facilitating the killing of Swartz, then locked up for a long time, just as they were trying to do to him!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 12:31pm
  
  Re:
  I want to see people in prison over this one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:09am

You go from "DOJ Admits" to "impression" and "suggests".
That's just plain LYING in your title, Mike. You don't show any such actual admission, just characterize it strongly in your title, then tone it down to your usual weak whining.

THIS is exactly why I LIKE to come here. It'd be awful of me to nag someone who doesn't make obvious errors -- frequent and egregious -- on the basics.

AND WHY YOU DO THAT INTRIGUES ME. You may have the facts right here, but your daffy focus and characterization then undermine credibility to the point of reversal.

ANYWAY. Thanks for the distraction, Mike. Now on to topic:

Even though we're living under tyranny from a "Justice Department" it STILL doesn't excuse Swartz for STEALING data that JSTOR paid to put into its library! That's the basic fact of what he DID,and went to a deal of trouble for it too, dodging their security measures. AT BEST that was dicey. As turned out, FOOLISH.

As I said back when that story came out: People, DON'T TEMPT AN INSANE GOV'T! Just let data stay locked up, NOT YOU. Pick your battles. -- Don't get distracted by Mike's wrong focus, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:18am
  
  Re: You go from "DOJ Admits" to "impression" and "suggests".
  There was no theft. Data, like energy, can't be stolen or lost - Merely converted to less 'useful' forms.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:38am
    
    Re: Re: You go from "DOJ Admits" to "impression" and "suggests".
    The power company disagrees.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re: You go from "DOJ Admits" to "impression" and "suggests".
      My power company disagrees with me on a lot of things. For example, they think that burning coal to produce electricity is 100% clean. Just because they disagree doesn't make them right.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: You go from "DOJ Admits" to "impression" and "suggests".
        OK. Go bypass the meter and assert that you're not stealing. Make sure to post when visiting day is so I can come and say "I told you so".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You go from "DOJ Admits" to "impression" and "suggests".
        That's still converting it to a less 'useful' form - only for the power company. You can't really steal intangibles, such as numbers and words. Now, the law permits the power company to attempt to get their money back if you route past their barriers, but that's still not theft, per se.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You go from "DOJ Admits" to "impression" and "suggests".
        Besides wanting to tarnish someone as a criminal, your implication that Chronno is a criminal is because...why? Is that all you have to say?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Alana (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You go from "DOJ Admits" to "impression" and "suggests".
        if he were a thief, the punishment would be far less severe.
        
        Quit talkin out of yer ass as if the laws are justified.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ltlw0lf (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 12:24pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: You go from "DOJ Admits" to "impression" and "suggests".
      The power company disagrees.
      
      The power company routinely disagrees with the laws of physics, but when has that stopped them?
      
      Here, they are upset with all the folks switching over to solar that they have been trying to lobby the government to allow them to collect money from all the folks using solar for not using their electricity. I don't have a problem with capitalism (I love capitalism,) but this isn't capitalism...it is cronyism. They blew up a perfectly working power-plant in order to increase the cost of electricity, and now they are complaining to the government that they aren't getting enough money from the folks setting up solar.
      
      Just because the power company disagrees doesn't make it wrong.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:54pm
    
    Re: Re: You go from "DOJ Admits" to "impression" and "suggests".
    "Data, like energy, can't be stolen or lost - Merely converted to less 'useful' forms."
    
    To funny, I read that and immediately pictured a politician speaking.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:18am
  
  Re: You go from "DOJ Admits" to "impression" and "suggests".
  Don't feed the troll
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:21am
  
  Re: You go from "DOJ Admits" to "impression" and "suggests".
  People, DON'T TEMPT AN INSANE GOV'T!
  
  That's right. Just bend over and be nice. If you're nice enough, they might deign to use lube.
  
  Pick your battles.
  
  That's what's happening.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Colin, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:37am
  
  Re: You go from "DOJ Admits" to "impression" and "suggests".
  You forgot your sig linking to Techdirt.
  
  You're welcome.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 1:30pm
  
  Re: You go from "DOJ Admits" to "impression" and "suggests".
  "THIS is exactly why I LIKE to come here. It'd be awful of me to nag someone who doesn't make obvious errors -- frequent and egregious -- on the basics."
  
  Your "obvious errors -- frequent and egregious -- on the basics" are why WE continually jump down your throat, boy.
  
  Keep up the inept work!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 5:06am
  
  Re: You go from "DOJ Admits" to "impression" and "suggests".
  That's just plain LYING in your title, Mike. You don't show any such actual admission, just characterize it strongly in your title, then tone it down to your usual weak whining.
  
  In one form or another, Masnick lies every day on this blog. Reading through the archives, it is obvious he was ok with that from day 1.
  
  Truth is clearly nothing but a nuisance to him.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DeeP, 3 Mar 2013 @ 3:30am
  
  Re: You go from "DOJ Admits" to "impression" and "suggests".
  "THIS is exactly why I LIKE to come here".....REALLY? You actually LIKE something? Well, glory be, my son! Your posts always sound to me like something from a bitter and twisted grumpy old man who hasn't got a life and has no intention of finding one. Mental picture coming up of a decrepit individual, skulking in some dingy basement in a seedy side-street, just waiting for the slightest chance to impose their bigoted views on the wide world. Have we nothing else to do in life?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nigel (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:16am

"People, DON'T TEMPT AN INSANE GOV'T! Just let data stay locked up, NOT YOU. Pick your battles. -- Don't get distracted by Mike's wrong focus, either."

You sir, are a complete pussy. But hey, don't sweat it. We will continue to fight for what is right in spite of your mental absence.

Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AnotherPassingShip, 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:55am
  
  Re: "Pick your battles"
  Freedom isn't free. It's very expensive. Pick your battles yes, but be prepared to personally sacrifice. Sometimes its necessary.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:17am

Just wow...
What I find the most amazing able this admission is how much this applies to any journalist our any that speaks out against corrupt institutions.

Recently, the DOJ decided that going against the HBC couldn't happen because thru were too big to fail. Huge charges against Blackwater were dropped down to misdemeanors.

Yet there is a grand jury out on Julian Assange for exposing government secrets and Aaron was facing 50 years.

So if you speak out against the status quo, if you decide that our government is corrupt, if you think about exposing how much of a lie our government had become, then prepare to face huge charges.

Amazing... So much time wasted in covering up crimes, that I fail to see how our government isn't a criminal cartel which needs more public input instead of private interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:24am
  
  Re: Just wow...
  Like I said before...
  
  The only difference between the DoJ/FBI and a criminal is the badge they wear.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:03am
    
    Re: Re: Just wow...
    The criminals without the badges also tend to be a lot more honest too, in that they don't try to claim their actions are being done to help their victims.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:37am
  
  Re: Just wow...
  Yet there is a grand jury out on Julian Assange for exposing government secrets and Aaron was facing 50 years.
  
  Except it was less than six months, not fifty years. But don't let the facts impede your goofy narrative.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:49am
    
    Re: Re: Just wow...
    Hmmm... Overcharging him for civil disobedience to force him to comply with a law even though no one was harmed, no data was taken (since he gave it back), and the "victim" didn't want to press charges.
    
    I love how you shoot the forest for the trees. Particularly the point where no one thinks he sought to profit from putting academic journals into the public domain to be discussed and help others attain knowledge except for the DOJ and other people in positions of power.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:49am
    
    Re: Re: Just wow...
    That's after the plea deal, which was unacceptable, from what I could understand.
    
    Without the deal, it kinda depends on the math you want to do. IANAL, but the number people were throwing around was 50 years maximum, so Jay is about right.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:52am
    
    Re: Re: Just wow...
    Six months if he agreed to the terms of allowing himself to be thrown in prison. Fifty years (maximum) if he fought the charges in court.
    
    What's that you were saying about goofy narratives?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:56am
    
    Re: Re: Just wow...
    Actually, he was overtly being threatened with 35 years, not six months. If he got the maximum (very unlikely), it could have been 50 years.
    
    But don't let the facts impede your goofy narrative.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mr. Applegate, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:05am
    
    Re: Re: Just wow...
    "Except it was less than six months, not fifty years. But don't let the facts impede your goofy narrative.
    Which facts are those?
    
    The FACT that Swartz would have to plead GUILTY to a FELONY in order to get less than six months.
    
    The FACT that Swartz was not willing to plead guilty to a felony. Perhaps because he didn't think he was guilty of the charges.
    
    The FACT that the potential total sentence if convicted on all charges WAS 50 + years.
    
    You meant THOSE FACTS?
    
    Don't let those FACTS stop you from telling half truths either.
    
    Oh, wait; You didn't.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ophelia Millais (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 3:52pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Just wow...
      More facts:
      
      Regardless of the amount of incarceration time, pleading guilty would also have resulted in additional punishment that the "he was only facing six months" crowd completely ignores.
      
      There would be forfeiture, which is surrendering all the equipment, money and property that the government says had something to do with his crime. You can rest assured that the government would have sought everything he had acquired since the earliest days of his open-access advocacy.
      
      There would be restitution, where he would be forced to pay a very unpleasant amount of money to MIT and JSTOR, even though JSTOR had already settled with him, and even though MIT hadn't suffered any harm not attributable to the institution's own overreactions.
      
      His release would be supervised, meaning that once he served six months, he'd be out of jail but not as free as the rest of us. He'd be subject to harsh restrictions on his life out in the world, as was done in the wire fraud/"hacking" case of Kevin Mitnick, who was forbidden from even touching a computer or talking about his case for 10 years after his release. Swartz would almost certainly be subject to similar restrictions. He would be forbidden from using the Internet except as a casual, passive user. He wouldn't be allowed to engage in any activism of any kind, not even publicly expressing his opinions about injustices, be they related to open access or not. He'd be under a gag order, forbidden from talking about his admitted crime or doing anything that might garner publicity or result in profit related to it. He'd be putting himself at great risk of reincarceration if he were to become "Internet famous" for any new accomplishment whatsoever. He'd be under travel restrictions, would have to keep the government informed of his whereabouts, and would have to regularly check in with a probation officer. Anyplace he goes, he'd find that there are all sorts of laws on the books, as well as unwritten policies of employers, to make life harder for felons.
      
      And finally, by admitting that his actions did in fact constitute the exact crimes with which he was charged, he would give the DOJ license to pursue further convictions of people with just as little�or even less�evidence against them; there government would concoct ever-more egregious stretches of the definitions of wire fraud and computer damage, in the name of protecting businesses from "hackers".
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 4:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Just wow...
        Ophelia: You are either privvy to details of the proposed plea agreement that (to the best of my knowledge) aren't public or this is pure speculation. How much was the fine or restitution? What limitations were imposed on his activities during probation? I never heard anything about no activism or restricted internet use. A citation would be helpful- if there is one. Finally, the DOJ doesn't rely of "precedent". Courts do, but not the DOJ. Even if he pled out and got no time the precedent you cite would still be intact. If that truly was a concern, seems like he'd have insisted on a trial.
        
        Personally, I think it looks like a fanciful parade of horribles that you have conjured up without any basis in reality.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 5:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Just wow...
        so he killed himself because he could not stand the idea of not being allowed on the internet ?? or because of something THAT MIGHT OF BEEN, also in a plea, you are giving what the punishments of that plea will be, they do not and can not add any other 'bits' to that agreement.
        
        so what you are saying is total bullshit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just wow...
        You're just mad, darryl, that engineering solar panels with the English standards of elephant poop can't get you more respect.
        
        Don't worry; at the rate you're digging yourself soon you'll have the amount of respect that two truckloads of elephant poop receives.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 2:43pm
    
    Re: Re: Just wow...
    Speaking of facts, 6 months? They were pushing for 35 years!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 2:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Just wow...
      He was offered six months. Ask Fenderson to explain to you what the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are so you'll understand what a dope you are.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jay (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 3:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Just wow...
        Look at what Ophelia wrote then realize that there was additional punishment besides just six months in jail.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 4:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just wow...
        Yeah, but everyone seems to be saying that he killed himself over the jail part- not the checking in with his probation officer once-a-week part. Again, he brought this on himself. He knew he was doing wrong. Maybe he didn't fully understand how serious a matter it would be but that's on him.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 4:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just wow...
        The fact that you persistently blame the victim of systematic abuse is stunning...
        
        He brought on the potential for 35-50 years of imprisonment for supposed criminal activity for doing nothing but downloading journals.
        
        Let's make this clear here...
        
        The DoJ could have looked into actual money laundering from the big banks. They could have looked into fraud. There was even possible hacking from China. Yet, they decided that it was easier to go after someone for making a political statement about how open access to knowledge and research shouldbe .
        
        They ignored any sense of proportion because to them, they get to play judge, jury, and executioner through the very corrupt concept of plea bargaining. They played around with the idea of making him a felon, where his life was essentially ruined. After an expensive trial, he could be found innocent but destitute. If he was found guilty, then there is a very real chance that he could still get seven years for doing something that comes naturally on a computer.l
        
        You're unbelievable. Out of all that, you can't admit that the federal sentencingguidelines are vague because then you would have to admit that the 4000+ statutes can be used in ways unintended by Congress to punish the public far more than it punishes those who bought the government in the first place.
        
        What a despicable moral standpoint...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 7:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just wow...
        They played around with the idea of making him a felon, where his life was essentially ruined.
        
        This is bullshit. He was an extraordinarily gifted individual and successful entrepreneur. No way this "ruins" his life. Sounds dramatic when you say it, though.
        
        After an expensive trial, he could be found innocent but destitute. If he was found guilty, then there is a very real chance that he could still get seven years for doing something that comes naturally on a computer.
        
        He dodged similar charges in 2008. He knew what he was doing, and did it anyway. Swartz set this chain of events into motion, no one else. That it "comes naturally on a computer" is utterly absurd and an incredibly weak argument even by your flaccid standards.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 12:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just wow...
        No way this "ruins" his life. Sounds dramatic when you say it, though.
        
        It is dramatic. Have you looked at how this country treats felons? Want to be employed by most companies? Not likely. Want to start a company and need funding - you don't think they'll be doing background checks?
        
        And he was a political activist. Check out how many states don't let felons vote after they've "served their debt to society." How many political organizations would want to work with him after that? Meetings with lawmakers or policy wonks?
        
        He dodged similar charges in 2008.
        
        Dodged, as in - he did nothing wrong.
        
        He knew what he was doing, and did it anyway.
        
        Of course he knew what he was doing. He was doing nothing wrong. He knew he was allowed to connect to the MIT network (everyone is). He knew those on the MIT network could access the journals. Not seeing where he did anything wrong. I fail to see where he did anything wrong. Oh, he went into a wiring closet - yet he wasn't charged with trespassing, so I guess that wasn't wrong or enough for anyone to get worked up about, either.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 1:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just wow...
        "No way this "ruins" his life. Sounds dramatic when you say it, though."
        
        It is dramatic. Have you looked at how this country treats felons? Want to be employed by most companies? Not likely. Want to start a company and need funding - you don't think they'll be doing background checks?
        
        Are you seriously suggesting that one of the finest computer minds in the world would have a hard time finding a job after this? And I have obtained numerous loans and mortgages. The only thing they checked were my credit report, financial statements and tax returns.
        
        And he was a political activist. Check out how many states don't let felons vote after they've "served their debt to society." How many political organizations would want to work with him after that? Meetings with lawmakers or policy wonks?
        
        Massachusetts isn't one of them. Neither is NY. I can imagine the political organization he founded would welcome him. And you can bet Wyden, Lofgren and Issa would all have had a parade for him. Others? Who knows.
        
        "He dodged similar charges in 2008."
        
        Dodged, as in - he did nothing wrong.
        
        Or the government had insufficient proof.
        
        "He knew what he was doing, and did it anyway."
        
        Of course he knew what he was doing. He was doing nothing wrong. He knew he was allowed to connect to the MIT network (everyone is). He knew those on the MIT network could access the journals. Not seeing where he did anything wrong. I fail to see where he did anything wrong. Oh, he went into a wiring closet - yet he wasn't charged with trespassing, so I guess that wasn't wrong or enough for anyone to get worked up about, either.
        
        If his pal Larry Lessig acknowledged his wrongdoing. He's an actual lawyer and was his personal friend. Maybe that should tell you something. I've seen plenty of car chases on reality tv, where the driver is charged with serious offenses. Yet those prosecutors never seem to file charges for failing to use a turn signal, speeding, reckless driving, etc. Hard to believe you're this stupid. I'll chalk it up to desperation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just wow...
        You know what? It is desperation. Desperation and anger.
        
        Desperation and anger at a seriously fucked up legal system. Desperation and anger at a seriously disfunctional political system. Desperation and anger that these system are used by the rich and powerful to prey on those without power. Desperation and anger that those without power have no recourse.
        
        And yet, the powerless aren't completely powerless. They have the numbers. And at some point, enough of them will realize that they aren't powerless. And when that desperation and anger bubble over, the results will not be pretty.
        
        You think I'm some anarchist pirate. I don't want anarchy. I don't want society to break down and collapse. I don't want the inevitable chaos and destruction that revolution brings. But it will if we stay on this path. This country isn't immune to the same forces that have brought down other empires and civilizations.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 7:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just wow...
        No.
        
        He was going to be charged with espionage. That's why he offed himself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 8:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just wow...
        He was going to be charged with espionage.
        
        what???????
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 4:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Just wow...
        That six months was just for "hacking"....if he pleaded guilty to a crime he never committed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 4:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just wow...
        Ummm, the US Criminal Code lists no charge called "hacking".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 5:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just wow...
        Yet that is what the DOJ listed in charges against Aaon Swartz....the CFA is only meant to prevent computer fraud.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ffff, 11 Mar 2013 @ 5:18am
    
    Re: Re: Just wow...
    six months was only the deal if he plea bargained guilty -before- trial. If he dared for trial, the max could have been 30+ if found guilty of all charges.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:02am
  
  Re: Just wow... ('Tis easy to forget...)
  Since the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the citizens of This Great Nation have become habituated to ignoring the permission-required/context-specificity embodied in the First Amendment, and the Zero-Tolerance Clause of the Eighth (which, in recent years, has become one of the more frequently-exercised components of constitutional law, as inflicted upon the citizens by their federal government). If the late Mr. Swartz's manifesto had merely been cribbed from the screed of an established dissident, rather than springing, uninfringing, from his own hand and lips, he might have been looking at a mere US$150,000 slap on the wrist, rather than being pilloried and publicly flogged by functionaries...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 2:03pm
  
  Re: Just wow...
  This is exactly why anonymity is a big part of the foundation of freedom.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DOlz, 25 Feb 2013 @ 2:22pm
  
  Re: Just wow...
  Can we get the inJustice Department to bring RICO charges against themselves?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:19am

Saving face
When you're in the wrong, the way to save face is to admit your mistake, apologize, and work to remedy any damages done. Digging in or covering up will only worsen the situation and your reputation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:20am
  
  Re: Saving face
  Charles Carreon disagrees.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:57am
    
    Re: Re: Saving face
    Indeed, he's working with Righthaven as we speak, and any day now they'll make their triumphant return, vanquishing all those that doubted their innocence.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Saving face
      You mean Pretenda Law, right?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 2:25am
    
    Re: Re: Saving face
    Teri Buhl disagrees.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:40pm
  
  Re: Saving face
  Your talking about the Department of Justice that had to publish a guideline telling its lawyers to turn over all evidence to the defense and stop trying to hide anything that screwed with their narrative.
  
  The top lawyers in the land need a rule to tell them to turn over all evidence, not just the parts that help them. Fair trial anyone?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:20am

So instead of recognizing they were wrong they went after the guy and destroyed his life to the point he suicided. Yes, makes total sense to do that.

I wonder why humans in general are so damn afraid to admit they committed errors, that they failed. And it's even more puzzling when you think that the DOJ usually don't suffer any type of punishment for anything they've done wrong..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:25am
  
  Re:
  "I wonder why humans in general are so damn afraid to admit they committed errors, that they failed."
  
  Pride, mostly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:43am
  
  Response to: Ninja on Feb 25th, 2013 @ 9:20am
  People don't think, don't think about the consequences of their actions, don't think about the lives they ruin. To them its a game, a police drama. They don't think about if their actions are right or wrong, in fact they are paid not to. At the end of the day its a fat check from the MAFFIA and another successful prosecution to put on their resume, that's all they care about.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Stan (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:14am
    
    Re: Response to: Ninja on Feb 25th, 2013 @ 9:20am
    People don't think, because people don't care about anyone but themselves.
    
    Think about that.....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 1:03pm
      
      Re: Re: Response to: Ninja on Feb 25th, 2013 @ 9:20am
      At the end of the day, we are all at least a little selfish. Most working for the DOJ and their ilk are normal, otherwise respectable people. There are also some truly evil and corrupt persons there as well, just as there are in any walk of life. However when you put such people into the position of power the DOJ holds, trouble soon follows. Someone needs to step up and provide some real leadership, in the right direction, before another innocent person has to pay the price.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mike, 25 Feb 2013 @ 2:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Response to: Ninja on Feb 25th, 2013 @ 9:20am
        ///By the way, I don't fear admitting mistakes. It's the nature of truth to me. I cannot fear truth enough to evade it. As it is said: "It is what it is". Often I take pride in acknowledging that I recognized the mistake and have learned from it and have passed (and am past) that lesson.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike, 25 Feb 2013 @ 2:09pm
  
  Re: Wonder why..
  "I wonder why humans in general are so damn afraid to admit they committed errors, that they failed."
  
  Respectable, moral, and confident people admit their mistakes when necessary. Cowardly (n*ardly - afraid to use the acceptable "n" word in a society of illiterates) people live in fear and self-doubt (whether conscious of their fear or not).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:53pm
  
  Response to: Ninja on Feb 25th, 2013 @ 9:20am
  Who is going to punish them? The Department of Justice? Oh, right.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:22am

When he's talking about databases, note that he talks about buying them for the sake of putting them online, not infringing on the works.

I doubt he could "buy" (as in own the rights) to databases. What he was talking about was subscribing and then downloading and distributing which violate both the law and TOS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:29am
  
  Re:
  Well, we could ask him what his actual stance is.
  
  Oh wait, no we can't. The guy is dead because he was bullied by a few assholes that were too afraid to admit to their bosses that they screwed up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    Could a few assholes bully you into committing suicide?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Cases of bullying leading to suicide of the victim are very well documented and not entirely rare.
      
      I am amazed - but not surprised - that you need to ask that question.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I was asking about you. Would you take your own life over facing six months?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mr. Applegate, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        First of all it was only 6 months if he plead guilty to a felony. A felony he didn't think he was guilty of. If he didn't accept the plea then it was more like 35 - 50 years.
        
        Second, had he plead guilty of a felony it would have ruined his chances at a carrier for the rest of his life.
        
        Third, who cares what the AC, me or anyone else would do. It is what Aaron Swartz did.
        
        Fourth, some people actually have a backbone and will not plead guilty to something they don't think they are guilty of.
        
        Fifth, people have been screwed by pleading guilty and then getting harsher sentences than promised. After all the prosecutor only gets to recommend the sentence, it is up to the judge to determine the sentence.
        
        Sixth, since JSTOR got their data back and didn't want to press charges, you have to ask why was the DOJ proceeding and ratcheting up the pressure. Hmmmm.
        
        Seventh, Unless you have faced those circumstances you can't really say what you would do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        First of all it was only 6 months if he plead guilty to a felony. A felony he didn't think he was guilty of. If he didn't accept the plea then it was more like 35 - 50 years.
        
        Read the sentencing guidelines. Then you'd know how laughable your statement is.
        
        Second, had he plead guilty of a felony it would have ruined his chances at a carrier for the rest of his life.
        
        I assume you meant "career". Total bullshit. He was a genius and entrepreneur. There were tons of people who would have hired him.
        
        Third, who cares what the AC, me or anyone else would do. It is what Aaron Swartz did.
        
        Fine. But stop exploiting his mental illness for political purposes. It makes you look like an even bigger asshole. If that's possible.
        
        Fourth, some people actually have a backbone and will not plead guilty to something they don't think they are guilty of.
        
        I guess you are saying he had no backbone?
        
        Fifth, people have been screwed by pleading guilty and then getting harsher sentences than promised. After all the prosecutor only gets to recommend the sentence, it is up to the judge to determine the sentence.
        
        All sentences are governed by sentencing guidelines. Plea deals are routinely approved by judges because who'd enter into an agreement if the other side wasn't bound by it?
        
        Sixth, since JSTOR got their data back and didn't want to press charges, you have to ask why was the DOJ proceeding and ratcheting up the pressure. Hmmmm.
        
        Maybe because JSTOR doesn't have any discretion in the matter. The prosecutor, not the crime victim decides on what charges to bring.
        
        Seventh, Unless you have faced those circumstances you can't really say what you would do.
        
        Oh yes I can. I'd shut up, do my time and carry on with my life six months down the road. I'll bet you would too.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I guess you are saying he had no backbone *and took his own life instead of fighting*?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mr. Applegate, 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Read the sentencing guidelines. Then you'd know how laughable your statement is."
        So, you are telling me, with a straight face, had he plead not guilty and the case gone to trial he would have ended up with a 6 month sentence? Do you think that is what the prosecutors were telling him?
        
        "Fine. But stop exploiting his mental illness for political purposes. It makes you look like an even bigger asshole. If that's possible."
        Um, I am not exploiting anyone.
        
        "Maybe because JSTOR doesn't have any discretion in the matter. The prosecutor, not the crime victim decides on what charges to bring."
        I understand that the prosecutor determines the charges. It is still highly questionable when there was no real harm done and charges are piled on like that. In reality, he didn't break the rules. MIT had virtually zero security, and JStor had an agreement that did not prevent the download. The fact that it wasn't a foreseen act for someone to "download it all" doesn't make it illegal.
        
        "Oh yes I can. I'd shut up, do my time and carry on with my life six months down the road. I'll bet you would too."
        Well you would probably be wrong, I am very bull headed and would never plead guilty if I didn't think I was guilty. (If I thought I was guilty, then damn straight I would shut up and do my time).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm telling you that the sentencing guidelines call for FAR less than the theoretical statutory maximum.
        
        I understand that the prosecutor determines the charges. It is still highly questionable when there was no real harm done and charges are piled on like that. In reality, he didn't break the rules. MIT had virtually zero security, and JStor had an agreement that did not prevent the download. The fact that it wasn't a foreseen act for someone to "download it all" doesn't make it illegal.
        
        Please. He knew he was doing wrong. He concealed his identity, ran from the cops, played cat-and-mouse with the security guys.
        
        Well you would probably be wrong, I am very bull headed and would never plead guilty if I didn't think I was guilty. (If I thought I was guilty, then damn straight I would shut up and do my time).
        
        Better calculation would be likelihood of conviction and resulting penalty versus the plea deal.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "He concealed his identity, ran from the cops, played cat-and-mouse with the security guys. "
        
        All of which are meaningless when it comes to court. At most then (if its true he ran from cops, I haven't heard that he did, so please provide a source), he would have gotten "Resisting Arrest" charges.
        So how did he conceal his identity? Was it something as simple as concealing his face in a hoodie? Last I heard, that's not illegal. And again, running from cops doesn't automatically mean that the guy running is guilty of whatever. Is it a good idea to run? No, but it doesn't mean he is automatically guilty!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 12:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Look it up yourself. He concealed his face with his bicycle helmet as he accessed the server cabinet. And he tried to elude the cop on his bike. Finally, the court does consider the defendant's state of mind. It is hardly meaningless.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 4:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Moron. Ever considered he just entered the facility with his helmet out of pure laziness to take it off? Also, a bicycle helmet hides next to nothing of your goddamn face. Also, if you were already arrested for no goddamn reason you'd become wary of the police. Running does not mean he did anything wrong. As it's proven by now he did nothing wrong. Also, we are waiting the citations. I haven't seen such claims (that he ran or anything) other than from clearly biased places.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 7:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Moron. Ever considered he just entered the facility with his helmet out of pure laziness to take it off? Also, a bicycle helmet hides next to nothing of your goddamn face. Also, if you were already arrested for no goddamn reason you'd become wary of the police. Running does not mean he did anything wrong. As it's proven by now he did nothing wrong. Also, we are waiting the citations. I haven't seen such claims (that he ran or anything) other than from clearly biased places.
        
        I'll await your lavish apology:
        
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261840/Aaron-Swartz-MIT-surveillance-shot-ruine d-tragic-Reddit-founders-life.html
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mr. Applegate, 25 Feb 2013 @ 12:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Concealed his identity? How?? by changing his MAC Address??? If I recall he switched from wireless to a wired connection, located in an unlocked closet, when the WIFI refused to connect. That will use a different MAC Address because it is a different interface, there is no concealment. From what I read he thought the WIFI ban was due to a bandwidth cap (which would be a reasonable assumption). It was only later that he changed his MAC address on his WIFI to regain access. By the way there is no law against changing a MAC Address either. I always change my MAC Addresses, it makes it easier for me to identify my traffic on the network.
        
        So, he connected to an unsecured network, to which he had authorized access (first wirelessly, then wired).
        
        He accessed information using normal login methods to a service which had an agreement with MIT. Still hasn't crossed any lines. Now I suppose there could have been something in the TOS for JSTOR precluding the use of scripts to download the information, but I am betting there wasn't.
        
        Bottom line they were just pissed off because he wasn't playing by their rules. That is my take on it.
        
        Who hasn't 'run from the cops' and / or 'played cat and mouse with security' at some point in their life (guilty or not)? There is certainly nothing illegal with a game of cat and mouse. Possibly a charge for evading arrest, but that is weak at best. As I said, he wasn't using the service 'as intended' but that doesn't make it illegal use, so evading arrest for what exactly?
        
        Hell if the same laws were in place back in the day (a distant day to be sure) I would probably have been shot. I hacked many a BBS (This was long before the Internet). It was certainly a game of cat and mouse between me and the SYSOPS. Most of them I became friends with, a couple got upset, and I said, OK I will play elsewhere. No cops, no jail.
        
        "Better calculation would be likelihood of conviction and resulting penalty versus the plea deal."
        That is your opinion. I have too much self respect to confess to something I don't think I am guilty of.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 12:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Concealed his identity? How??
        
        By hiding his face with his bicycle helmet as he accessed the server closet. And he did try to elude police and got tackled and handcuffed. It all reflects upon his state of mind.
        
        That is your opinion. I have too much self respect to confess to something I don't think I am guilty of.
        
        You'd probably lose that self respect quickly as you were made to wear Koolaid lipstick and doing God-knows-what while serving a long sentence at a real prison.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mr. Applegate, 25 Feb 2013 @ 1:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry, I missed the part where state of mind (and I do understand what you are saying about state of mind influencing sentencing) proves that he knew what he was doing was illegal.
        
        It may show, he thought his action of putting a laptop in the closet might be frowned upon. That is hardly conclusive proof he knew he was being a master thief and could spend the next 5-50 years in jail.
        
        He could have thought what he was doing was no more wrong than sneaking an extra person into a hotel room without paying for the extra person. In other words worth about $10.
        
        Later, he didn't wan't to be caught. Big surprise there.
        
        There is no way any reasonable person could conclude that what he did warranted multiple felony convictions. Had the DOJ gone with some misdemeanor charges, which would have more closely fit the situation, I would have far less of a problem with this. But they were looking for that one big, look what we did for cyber crime case. Oddly enough, it seems that the DOJ has pretty much admitted they felt compelled to go after a felony even with a lack of evidence to make their actions seem just.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 1:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He'd been down this road before, in 2008 I believe. And he beat the rap. Every indication is that he knew exactly what he was doing- except to those in denial.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mr. Applegate, 25 Feb 2013 @ 1:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "He'd been down this road before, in 2008 I believe. And he beat the rap. Every indication is that he knew exactly what he was doing- except to those in denial."
        
        So now your claim is: "He had done this before, and was found not guilty that time, so he knew he was breaking the law this time." Is that what you are saying?
        
        That sounds like rather obtuse way to reach a conclusion.
        
        It would seem much more likely, if he had done it before and been acquitted that he would have felt more comfortable that his acts were within the law. Even if he felt he was breaking the law, was he facing 35-50 years in 2008? I am betting the answer to that question is no. But I don't know anything about the 2008 case.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 1:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There is no way any reasonable person could conclude that what he did warranted multiple felony convictions. Had the DOJ gone with some misdemeanor charges, which would have more closely fit the situation, I would have far less of a problem with this. But they were looking for that one big, look what we did for cyber crime case. Oddly enough, it seems that the DOJ has pretty much admitted they felt compelled to go after a felony even with a lack of evidence to make their actions seem just.
        
        You can still be sentenced for up to a year for a misdemeanor.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mr. Applegate, 25 Feb 2013 @ 1:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes you can. But you don't generally end up in prison and you don't end up with a felony on your record that could well destroy the rest of your life. You can still vote...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 1:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I fail to see how a felony conviction would have ruined Swartz life. He could have voted the day he walked out of prison. I'll grant you that someone without his intellect and contacts could have been adversely affected, but not him. About the only tangible restriction would have been gun ownership. Though he didn't strike me as the gun owner type.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mr. Applegate, 25 Feb 2013 @ 2:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Might I suggest you talk to some felons. Perhaps they can enlighten you.
        
        I actually know a few. At least one I know for a fact was wrongly convicted. (Well probably better stated, had the charges 'pumped up')
        
        Good people overall, but their earning capacity is shit.
        
        The deck is already stacked against the average person from succeeding, a felony conviction just makes it that much harder. It might still be possible but it is a lot less likely.
        
        And life looks a lot different at 20 something than it does at 50 something or even 30 something.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 2:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't dispute that. But I do believe that Swartz was an extraordinary individual who would not have been hindered in earning a living by such a conviction.
        
        Do you seriously think he would not have been able to make a very good living because of this?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mr. Applegate, 25 Feb 2013 @ 3:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, what I think really doesn't matter.
        
        I believe the evidence shows that is what he believed.
        
        It really doesn't matter if it was true or not.
        
        To answer your question, yes I think he would have had a rough time. Not as rough as most, but it would have been a stigma he would have always had. There would have probably been a number of doors that were permanently closed, and one or to that might have been unlocked.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 4:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Read the sentencing guidelines.'
        
        If you had done that, you would have noticed that the DOJ executed a severely egregious act of prosecutional over-reach to come up with the charges that Aaron Swartz got in the first place.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 4:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Where in the sentencing guidelines did you get that from? The sentencing guidelines I've seen are a matrix of sentence ranges for different offenses and different offender background characteristics.
        
        This is you talking out of your ass again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 5:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Tell me...since when does changing you Network Interface Card from a wireless format to a Wired format (anybody can switch out a PC Card format NIC device in a laptop or a PCI..or PCIe..NIC device, which changes the Machine Access Code address, constitute millions of dollars in fines and 30 to 50 years in prison??
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 7:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        To serve time so you can let a public official retain a clean prosecution record. IF you let the wrong, bad, or evil things happen, If you allow a petty official to get away with "saving FACE". Sound like you must take down the sign that says U.S.A. and put up the Sign "19th Century China".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Once you have a criminal conviction, 6 months or not, it is very hard to live a successful life. Many business won't hire you or skip you for someone else less qualified and most public jobs require a clean record. And once it is on your record it is there for life.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What? The kid was an entrepreneur and a genius. In the circles he runs in this would have been a badge of honor. Maybe Walmart wouldn't have hired him, but your assertion is absolutely absurd.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And how many banks are willing to give out loans to people to start up businesses if they have a felony charge on their record?
        
        Really, you should shut up while you're only a little behind.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Banks? Hahahahaha. Did you forget the kid was a genius, entrepreneur and super-connected? Have you ever taken out a loan or mortgage? Were you asked if you had a felony conviction?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You know, I'm just feeding the trolls and you were already told that but you are one worthless piece of human garbage. Just expressing my opinion (and probably echoing a bunch of thoughts here). I'd try to build a good argumentation but it'll simply fall on deaf ears. So yeah, why don't you shut up and go lick the balls of some elected politician that agrees with your rotten self?
        
        Ahem. Pardon my impoliteness and my blatant feed of the troll. I'll excuse myself while more patient people try to argue this one and throw insightful slaps into his face.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        art guerrilla (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 12:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        thanks for saying what we all think, ninja...
        i REALLY despise these hit-and-run asswipe authoritarians...
        
        dog damn i'm old, but every day i get more and more pissed at this corrupted society, and am just WAITING for the 'v for vendetta' incident which brings the whole fucking rotten mess to a head...
        
        when the 99% FINALLY bite back, the consequences will not be pretty for the 1%...
        
        (when you prevent dissent, you cause revolution)
        
        art guerrilla
        aka ann archy
        eof
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 8:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You know me too well Ninja to not be able to resist feeding them. Takes a lot of stress out of my day....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ever hear of background checks?
        
        I know an ex-con, he has the HARDEST time finding places to live and work simply because of a crime he did over 20 years ago.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 8:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What's equally amazingly sad about that is all pedophiles and sex offenders have an easier time finding a job after conviction.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Add in being able to vote. It's well documented that ex-felons are often stripped of their right to vote
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzLMcq8YMfU
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 12:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        God you're a douchenozzle:
        
        From nonprofit vote.org-
        
        Massachusetts
        
        Individuals incarcerated for a felony conviction are ineligible to vote. Voting rights are automatically restored upon release from prison, and people on parole or probation can vote. Ex-offenders should re-register to vote.
        
        And before you blunder into your next stupid statement, even though it was a Federal conviction- voting is governed by state law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 12:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Okay but answer me this...what about if there was an important election in Massachusetts or some other event, that Swartz would have wanted to vote in, only he couldn't while in prison? So you're okay with people being threatened with jail time, even if its minimal, for violating stupid laws (even if that), and losing the right to vote?
        Maybe the fact felons lose the right to vote is one reason the US is so corrupt. Because it has the highest percentage of its population in prison among nations, there's less of its own people willing and able to vote out corrupt politicians. That and the fact the prisons are for-profit (which in my own humble opinion is the most blatant act of literally selling the government ever).
        
        Second to last- show me where its illegal to hide your face with a bicycle helmet. It could possibly be a rule on MIT, but that wouldn't be a law.
        Lastly - You're writing as if the US government follows its own rules all the time. It doesn't. Just because the law there states Swartz would have had his voting rights restored is no guarantee they would have been. It would take a vigilant population to do so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 12:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Aaron won't be voting in any elections now, will he? Doesn't seem like that was a big issue.
        
        Second to last- show me where its illegal to hide your face with a bicycle helmet. It could possibly be a rule on MIT, but that wouldn't be a law.
        
        It shows his state of mind. Just like fleeing from law enforcement
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Aaron won't be voting in any elections now, will he?"
        
        Translation: Mission accomplished.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 1:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That and the fact the prisons are for-profit (which in my own humble opinion is the most blatant act of literally selling the government ever).
        
        That's not true. The Federal system is 100% government run. But don't let the facts dissuade you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 4:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Conviction means one was sentenced and is currently serving time for the crime committed. Hence the entomology behind the word "Convict"....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 4:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Fascinating. What is the entomology behind the word,"douchebag"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 4:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your trolling is the very history behind the entomology behind the word "douchebag"...which is properly spelled "douche-bag" in the derogatory meaning.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Stan (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not only No. But, Hell NO!
        
        Aaron was still very young, and apparently unable to cope.
        
        When you get to a certain age, hopefully, you will realize that your best revenge is living well.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 5:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Have you lived with serious depression? Do you know how small a thing can trigger episodes? Do you know the depths of any such episode? Do you know what it feels like to be powerless to do anything, like get out of bed, or eat, yet are wide awake?
        
        I do.
        
        I think you do not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes. It is quite possible.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Internet Zen Master (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually, it's quite possible for someone to be bullied into committing. Happens all the time in highschool.
      
      http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/bullying-and-suicide.html
      
      It should be noted that this particular bully (Carmen Ortiz), was making Swartz's life unbearable in ways that make highschool look like kindergarten in comparison.
      
      Giving a kid a swirlie? Bitch please. Carmen Ortiz will throw you in prison for potentially 50 years just because the DOJ screwed up on arresting you (even though JSTOR wasn't pressing charges).
      
      I can see why Aaron Swartz was pushed to suicide. A lot of people can only take so much abuse...
      
      Now the bigger question is this: will heads roll for this travesty? One of them preferably belonging to a certain overzealous prosecutor...
      
      As the Zen Master says, "We'll see."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Internet Zen Master (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re:
        *committing suicide.
        [really wish there was a way to edit these posts...]
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How about you. Would you take your own life over facing six months in jail?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The only point you could possibly prove by asking that question again is that you are a complete and utter douche.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'll take that as a "no". Which is true of almost everyone. As the douches are the ones who continue to exploit the tragic suicide of someone obviously suffering from mental illness in order to make a political statement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Here's a question for you...
        
        Why should Aaron have had to face criminal charges when the people he wronged weren't going to press charges against him?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I couldn't answer that question, because neither I nor pretty much everyone else here has been in that situation.
        
        So, how about you address the actual arguments instead of proposing outlandish shit without backing it up?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        As the douches are the ones who continue to exploit the tragic suicide of someone who did not deserve to be put through our fucked-up "justice" system in order to talk shit in blog comments.
        
        FTFY
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Would I?
        
        No.
        
        But that's because I'm too cowardly to kill myself.
        
        Then again, I can say that with a clear thought, not suffering from major depression and not being stressed out from bullying from the DoJ.
        
        Would I say the same thing if I was suffering depression, being stressed out from the bullying and not thinking clearly?
        
        I don't know. And neither do you.
        
        This isn't the case of the girl who killed herself because some kids were picking on her online. This is a case of the government, specifically LAW ENFORCEMENT, going to extremes.
        
        BTW, I seem to recall people getting arrested when people commit suicide for their roles in the person committing suicide.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not six months. 35 - 50 years. The 6 months was the plea offer and has no real bearing in these circumstances. From Swartz' perspective, he was facing decades in prison. And regardless, you keep talking like 6 months is no big deal. It's a very big deal.
        
        I can't say that I'd be suicidal in his position, but it would be an almost unimaginably awful situation and very difficult to handle. Swartz did not believe himself to be guilty of the things he was charged with. If he lied and pled guilty, the psychological load would have been enormous. If he was honest, he was looking at decades in prison. It's easy to see how he may have thought he had no way out.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        John, go read the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and then come back and apologize. And no, six months is not a big enough deal to kill yourself over. As a non-violent first offender, he'd have gone to a "Club Fed" which don't even have bars. No parole, so he'd do 85% of his sentence so that a month off. Then typically an inmate spends the last two months in a halfway house. So he was looking at spending a whopping three months at Club Fed and two months in a halfway house where he could leave every day and return to spend the night.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So according to you, people should just up and accept being locked away from the rest of society, no matter how short, over a "crime" that had no victims, where even the "victim" (JSTOR) did not want to press charges. Anyone who complains of mistreatment is just a pussy bitch who should shut the hell up.
        
        Yeah...real classy you are. Is it likely that the prosecution were one of, if not the, main cause of his suicide? Yes. Beyond a doubt. I would find being threatened with jail time, no matter how short, to be stressful at the very least. For you to continue harping on about "oh its only six months" just shows what a scumbag you are. I don't care if he was being sentenced to six months in Disney Land. The fact is, he was being threatened with being locked away from the rest of society, of losing his freedoms, over an act that quite frankly, harmed no-one.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So he takes his own life, locking himself away for eternity? That really showed everyone.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, because humans are purely logical Vulcans who never ever make a rash or stupid decision, ever!
        
        I've made stupid decisions, even at times when I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that what I was doing was stupid. Aaron was smart, but at the end of the day...he was human. He still had the ability to make stupid decisions. I believe it was stupid of him to commit suicide, but that doesn't mean that the suicide itself makes the prosecution's conduct meaningless (since of course, you don't harp on that).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 3:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Honestly...if I faced upwards of $3.5-million in fines and 35 year to life in solitary confinement (which is what a Federal Prison is) after changing out the NIC device on my computer from wireless to wired...I would commit suicide too. That action was what got him arrested....changing out the fucking NIC device in his computer.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why don't you go spend time at "Club Fed"? Cause you're not guilty? Well Aaron wasn't either....
        
        Just because the government accuses you of something doesn't mean you're guilty.
        
        As the article itself notes, the government basically says that it wanted to arrest him for his manifesto. At that point they decided he was guilty, so they jumped into a case they had no business in, realized they made a mistake, then tried to cover it up by slapping him with a bunch of stupid baseless claims.
        
        You're as bad as the prosecution in this ASSUMING he's already guilty and that he should just serve the 6 months.
        
        HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG! The 6 months was a coverup by the government in order to say they were able to arrest this guy who was against a lot of the technical policies of the government.
        
        Basically, this case is showing the government is out to paint people who are for sharing information on the Internet as criminals. I'm willing to bet to that extent that if you follow the trails, the MAFIAA is probably somewhere in on pointing the finger at Swartz.
        
        Still, either way, you're trying to tell me that if the government says you're guilty, you should do 6 months without asking questions. Well you should be the one serving 6 months then....
        
        I'll leave you with this quote: "Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security." (In modern day terms: "Go to Jail. Go directly to Jail. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200").
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 2:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        John, go read the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and then come back and apologize.
        
        Done. Now, what do you think I need to apologize for?
        
        As to the rest of your comment, I truly don't understand what you're trying to say. Prison is no big deal?
        
        He wasn't facing 6 months in any case. He was being threatened with 35 years. The six months was about a plea bargain, which Swartz (or myself, were I in his shoes) was unable to accept because he would have had to lie to do it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 2:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Done. Now, what do you think I need to apologize for?
        
        For starters saying that he could get 35-50 years. And no, he wouldn't have to "lie"- not that it appears he had any problem with deceit. At the end of the day, you can get fucked unless you assume the position. Swartz had been down this road before, knew exactly what the stakes were and then did it anyway.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 2:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        *can't*
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 3:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        For starters saying that he could get 35-50 years.
        
        I will not apologize for simply reiterating the very threats the DOJ was making to him.
        
        And no, he wouldn't have to "lie"
        
        So pleading guilty to something you don't think you're guilty of isn't lying?
        
        not that it appears he had any problem with deceit
        
        When was he deceitful?
        
        At the end of the day, you can get fucked unless you assume the position.
        
        True. But Swartz was going to get fucked whether he assumed the position or not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 4:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "For starters saying that he could get 35-50 years."
        
        I will not apologize for simply reiterating the very threats the DOJ was making to him.
        
        The threats were baseless. You could tell me you were going to kick my ass. But there's close to zero percent chance of that ever happening. So, it's not like I'd take that sort of threat seriously.
        
        "And no, he wouldn't have to "lie""
        
        So pleading guilty to something you don't think you're guilty of isn't lying?
        
        I imagine that the court would have accepted a no-contest plea. Who the fuck cares though?
        
        "not that it appears he had any problem with deceit"
        
        Concealing his face from the cameras to avoid identification, for starters.
        
        When was he deceitful?
        
        "At the end of the day, you can't get fucked unless you assume the position."
        
        True. But Swartz was going to get fucked whether he assumed the position or not.He was deceitful as he hid his face to conceal his identity from cameras, for starters.
        
        Nobody forced him to do this. He beat the charge in 2008 and took proactive measures to thwart detection and evade law enforcement. He wouldn't have faced any charges had he not engaged furthering his declared manifesto.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 10:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The threats were baseless.
        
        Maybe so, maybe not. That's irrelevant. It was the DOJ doing the threatening. Perhaps you're the exception, but the overwhelming majority of people in that position would take them very, very seriously. The threats are credible.
        
        Who the fuck cares though?
        
        I do, obviously. And I'm far from the only one.
        
        Concealing his face from the cameras to avoid identification, for starters.
        
        We differ on the definition of "deceit", then.
        
        He wouldn't have faced any charges had he not engaged furthering his declared manifesto.
        
        Irrelevant. The charges they he was being threatened with were over-the-top ludicrous. If we had a criminal justice system that actually cared about justice, he would also not have faced charges. Or, at the most, a simple trespassing charge.
        
        But we don't. And that's not Swartz' fault.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 11:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        John, when you hide your face for the purpose of concealing your identity from a camera while engaged; that is deceit. You look bad suggesting otherwise and I doubt any unbiased person, such as a juror would agree.
        
        Aaron is 100% responsible for the trouble he brought upon himself. You can cry about the severity, but it is undeniable that he set it in motion. It is entirely relevant.
        
        The threat of actually getting 50 years and a million dollar fine are laughable and any responsible attorney would have advised his client of such. He had a plea agreement offered of six months. He could have gone to trial and won. He could have lost and the prosecutor was going to ask for 7 years. That's the top of the sentencing guidelines. But Swartz profile doesn't merit the upper band.
        
        Instead he hung himself and sentenced all of those who cared about him to a lifetime of sorrow. I see that as the worst outcome of all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 12:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Those photo's were taken in 2008......and the charges that were originally brought up by the FBI were actually dropped by the FBI because Aaron Swartz was only seeking public domain data which the JSTOR system was making money from. Once the FBI (Which is a law enforcement agency not prosecution as the Department of Justice is....FBI is Executive Branch.....DOJ is the Judicial Branch)figured that out, they dropped the charges.
        
        2011 rolls around....the DOJ want's to save face and then arrests Aaron Swartz on little charges not even remotely involving the earlier JSTOR case.......
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 1:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Those photo's were taken in 2008.
        
        What the fuck are you talking about? Go look at the photos again. They're labeled. Also Swartz wasn't alleged to have entered a computer room in 2008 so again.... wtf?
        
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261840/Aaron-Swartz-MIT-surveillance-shot-ruined-tragic -Reddit-founders-life.html
        
        Maybe you are a psychologist after all. Most of the ones I've met were nuttier than squirrel shit. In which case you're over-qualified.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 12:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        John, when you hide your face for the purpose of concealing your identity from a camera while engaged; that is deceit. You look bad suggesting otherwise and I doubt any unbiased person, such as a juror would agree.
        
        No need to fold personal insults into this. We disagree. I don't think that withholding your identity counts as deceit. Deceit is engaging in deception.
        
        Aaron is 100% responsible for the trouble he brought upon himself
        
        I've never said otherwise.
        
        The threat of actually getting 50 years and a million dollar fine are laughable and any responsible attorney would have advised his client of such
        
        I think that you underestimate the amount of power a threat from a prosecutor has. If I were in that position, no amount of reassurance from my attorney would counter that. History does not reassure than any amount of time is "laughable". There are quite a lot of "laughable" sentences like that, and this was a case that was obviously deeply political for the DOJ. Political cases are even less stable.
        
        He could have lost and the prosecutor was going to ask for 7 years. That's the top of the sentencing guidelines.
        
        When you add all the charges the DOJ was threatening him with together, 35 years is a bit higher than the middle band. The prosecutor was going to ask for a minimum of 35 years. Unless you're saying the prosecutor was lying.
        
        Instead he hung himself and sentenced all of those who cared about him to a lifetime of sorrow. I see that as the worst outcome of all.
        
        Yes, the outcome is a real tragedy. That said, if Swartz believed he might spend the next 35+ years in prison (and I don't know if he did or not), suicide does begin to look less terrible in contrast.
        
        But that's all irrelevant to this anyway. The issue is, did the DOJ behave in good faith and with the goal of seeing justice done? It looks to me like the answer is clearly "no".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 1:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        John, you are simply wrong about this 35 year sentence nonsense. Here's a link to the letter Darryl Issa and Elijah Cummins sent to Eric Holder. In it, you will see that they cite the report that prosecutors would seek 7-8 years, not 35.
        
        I cannot fathom how you believe concealing your identity from a camera while engaged in unlawful activity doesn't qualify as deceit or deception.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 1:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oops, link:
        
        http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5853 &Itemid=49
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 3:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So what does the DOJ being grilled about the very act you are praising have to do with the argument that you were making to John Fenderson???
        
        You are acting like someone who plays on the Internet all day and doesn't really get out much. You need to seek treatment.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 12:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The 35 years comes directly from Ortiz:
        
        "�[I]f convicted on these charges,� said Ortiz [in an official press release], �Swartz faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million.�
        
        Note that the 35 years figure is before they piled on a bunch of additional charges, bringing things up to about 50 years.
        
        I cannot fathom how you believe concealing your identity from a camera while engaged in unlawful activity doesn't qualify as deceit or deception.
        
        Deception is being deceptive. In other words, giving false information: lying. Concealing your identity is not that, regardless of the purpose. Concealing your identity is withholding information, not giving false information.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 3:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        His initial charges were headed for 30 to 50 years in a federal prison and in fact were the sentences the prosecution was seeking.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 11:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        *Sigh*
        
        Citation please? All of the media accounts say the prosecution would seek 7-8 years at trial. But, what do they know?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 12:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Citation granted....It is really sad that all I had to do was use Google News and type "Aaron Swartz" in the search box to find this where you would not lift one lazy finger to fact check like everyone else:
        
        http://rt.com/usa/doj-targeting-swartz-activism-482/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 1:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You fucking moron. The eighth paragraph of your own citation says prosecutors were pursuing 7-8 years. That's precisely what I said.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 3:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So you didn't notice that the 7-8 years offered was the plea bargain if Swartz pled guilty on all charges? I think you're the moron now...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 4:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So you didn't notice that the 7-8 years offered was the plea bargain if Swartz pled guilty on all charges? I think you're the moron now...
        
        Why don't you pull your head out of your ass and read that again. It was six months for a guilty plea, and the prosecution would ask for 7-8 years if he lost at trial. Oh look, there's shit on your face.....again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 4:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ok so how much sense does it make to plea guilty and get 6 months if you win and 8 to 7 years if you loose???? The DOJ would have given him 35 years minimum, if he didn't plea innocent. But I'm sure you missed that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 6:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ok so how much sense does it make to plea guilty and get 6 months if you win and 8 to 7 years if you loose????
        
        What are you talking about? Six months if you win? It's zero if you win. It's six months if you accept the plea agreement and if you went to trial and lost, the government said it would seek 7-8 years.
        
        The DOJ would have given him 35 years minimum, if he didn't plea innocent. But I'm sure you missed that.
        
        I and anyone that can read missed that. First off, the DoJ is not even part of the judicial branch of government. They don't give anybody anything. Sentencing is a function of the judicial branch, specifically the court. What you said doesn't even make any sense... "The DoJ would have given him 35 years minimum if he didn't plea(sic) innocent." So if he pled guilty (the opposite of pleading innocent) they would have sought 35 years. You're nuts or really, really stupid. I'm not sure which.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 27 Feb 2013 @ 12:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well...that AC is correct.
        
        I think I know what he is trying to say.
        
        If he pleaded guilty and won the case, he would have been jailed for 6 months....if Swartz pleaded an Alford Plea which was what was being offered. 7 to 8 years if he pleaded guilty without Alford plea...and 35 years if he plead not guilty...the DOJ had stacked a ton of minor charges to save face and pressure him into an Alford Plea.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 2:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        As to the rest of your comment, I truly don't understand what you're trying to say. Prison is no big deal?
        
        Not exactly Gitmo.
        
        http://www.forbes.com/2006/04/17/best-prisons-federal_cx_lr_06slate_0418bestprisons.html
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 3:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, if you're arguing that prison is a good time for all unless it rises to level of an institution designed specifically to torture people, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 5:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        At least at Gitmo. you can talk to your fellow prisoners. Federal Prison is purely solitary if I recall.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 5:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        At least at Gitmo. you can talk to your fellow prisoners. Federal Prison is purely solitary if I recall.
        
        Utter bullshit. Pure solitary? You're kidding right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 8:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's like being in the psych ward without the padded room. It's your own cell..
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The prison that you linked to is reserved for those who committed acts of insider trading. Martha Steward spent time at one.
        
        People who allegedly violate the CFAA and get a guilty sentence are typically treated the same as those charged with a second degree murder.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 7:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The prison that you linked to is reserved for those who committed acts of insider trading. Martha Steward spent time at one.
        
        First, it's Stewart; not Steward. Second, no prison is "reserved" for any single offense. That's idiotic.
        
        People who allegedly violate the CFAA and get a guilty sentence are typically treated the same as those charged with a second degree murder.
        
        What the fuck is a "guilty sentence"? Do you have a shred of proof of what you're saying? Typically, short-term non-violent offenders are housed in minimum security facilities, while violent offenders with long sentences are in medium to maximum security. I realize that is inconvenient for your narrative, but you are simply talking out of your ass... again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 8:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why do you argue with these idiots?
        
        Techdirt is like the yard at moron prison.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 8:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Good point. Though this simpleton is just so full of shit, it's hard to resist bitch slapping him.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 9:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "What the fuck is a 'guilty sentence'?"
        
        In other words.....being found guilty for the crime for which they have committed with due process of United States Law........
        
        " Typically, short-term non-violent offenders are housed in minimum security facilities, while violent offenders with long sentences are in medium to maximum security."
        
        If you violate the CFFA however you would only be getting 10 to 20 years. The DOJ was shooting for 30 to 50 years.
        
        http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030#c
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 9:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Given that the computer he accessed illegally was not at all a GVT computer but that of an institution, Aaron Swartz's charges from the DOJ far exceeded that of the law provided by the Section 18 U.S.C. � 1030(c) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act where in it states that if the amount of data is exceeded $5,000 in value you get no more than 10 years in prison.
        
        "Good point. Though this simpleton is just so full of shit, it's hard to resist bitch slapping him."
        
        Likewise...a bit of a lesson, the more you argue with someone you perceive as a fool, the more you look like a bigger one than those fools you argue with.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - NA Protector, 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:59am
      
      Could They?
      Normal A-Hole that are all bark with no bite, No way.
      
      But he wasn't up against normal a-holes, these are federally funded, tax payer expense, (questionable) law enforcement a-holes. How do you stand up against that and not be intimidated? And for what? Copying data that would best help people out by making it public? (Steal definition: Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it. By this definition, the only way you can steal data is by permanently deleting it after copying it.)
      
      Overall, Swartz was just a person that didn't just complain about what is wrong with the system, he fought against it in his own way. It may have been wrong, but can you list out any other methods that have a chance in your lifetime that may have gotten better results. And if you think it is wrong to fight a corrupt system, then all those that sign the Declaration of Independence are the greatest criminals of all time.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - silverscarcat (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Why don't you go ask a few colleges who have suffered some suicides in the past few years?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike, 25 Feb 2013 @ 2:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Could a few assholes bully you into committing suicide?"
      
      If coerced, yes. I would give my life to save others.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 2:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Who did Aaron save? As far as I can tell he only inflicted misery and sorrow on those who cared for him.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:07am
  
  Re:
  I doubt he could "buy" (as in own the rights) to databases. What he was talking about was subscribing and then downloading and distributing which violate both the law and TOS.
  
  You cannot copyright facts.
  
  If the database contains facts, and he distributes the facts contained within it instead of the entire database, he would not have broken the law. And a TOS is not the law, either.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:17am
    
    Re: Re:
    So you are saying that a database cannot be protected by copyright if it only contains facts? Interesting. How about a math book?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Copyright covers creative expression, not facts. You cannot compile a database and then copyright the database as a result (in the US, I believe in the UK you can do this), since it is not a creative work. The items in the database may be copyrighted on their own merits, of course, but that's independent of the database.
      
      You can copyright the creative portion of a math book (illustrations, language, etc.), but you cannot copyright the mathematical ideas themselves.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rikuo (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      More proof you're not a lawyer, otherwise you'd know that the US doesn't allow databases to be copyrighted.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Who claimed to be a lawyer? Not me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        We all know its you AJ. So stop pretending its not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 5:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, its likely the same AC who keeps at calling me a fanboy for preffering my iPod over an Android for my daily life. I no longer let him get away with it, so he's finding more attention than what he is worth.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Swing and a miss:
        
        http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Even if that is true...in what sane world does it make sense for people to own databases of facts? So do phone companies in the US, are they now in the moral, legal and ethical right to sue people if they copy their database of phone numbers?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 12:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So after debunking your challenge on legal grounds, you want to move the goalposts?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 12:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        My challenge wasn't, was it legal or not. I don't care about that part. Any prosecutor can find something to charge you with, as long as they look through the law books long enough. It is an incontrovertible fact that every single person on this planet is guilty of violating a law that is still on the books...unless you happen to be in a newly created country that doesn't yet have a codified body of law.
        
        Should the government have gotten itself involved in Swartz? No. The JSTOR declined to pursue charges. What harm was caused? IIRC, the database he accessed was documents that were supposed to be in the public domain, so again...where was the harm? Why would the government get itself involved in a case where the presumed "victim" declines charges, unless the prosecutor wants to make a name for themselves?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 12:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        My challenge wasn't, was it legal or not.
        
        What the fuck does this mean:
        
        More proof you're not a lawyer, otherwise you'd know that the US doesn't allow databases to be copyrighted.
        
        You aren't very well suited for this are you? Maybe you should stick with something you're good at... like fellatio.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 12:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Clap clap clap.
        
        Congratulations on sinking to a new low.
        FYI - I'm a virgin, not that that matters to you. All you care about is insulting when it turns out you can't make an argument.
        Besides...what sort of insult is fellatio? That might be taken as an insult about oh 50 or 60 years ago, where being homosexual was a massive social stigma, but not today. Yes, there is still anti-homosexuals out there, but the world is much more liberal towards them.
        Notice I say them. I happen to be heterosexual.
        
        Still, it says a lot, and I do mean, A LOT, about your character, when you decide to insult someone by saying they engage in homosexual activities.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 12:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm done here. Now that the person I was debating with has decided to throw in the towel, and is now relying on attacks on my sexuality, I'm done. I'm no longer going to talk to him.
        It's not that I feel insulted over the fellatio remark. I don't. It's the fact that there is no point in debating someone when they feel that that is all they can do. I want to debate someone, not exchange insults all day long.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 1:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Bawk...bawk...bawwwwwwk.....
        
        It's not that I feel insulted over the fellatio remark. I don't.
        
        I'm sure its a point of pride. Congrats!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 1:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry, I assumed you were a woman. My bad.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 1:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't accept your "apology" because if I was female, then you would have been implying I was a female prostitute.
        I'm not even going to ask how and why you assumed I was female.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 1:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't accept your "apology" because if I was female, then you would have been implying I was a female prostitute.
        I'm not even going to ask how and why you assumed I was female.
        
        Your thin skin, delicate demeanor and irrational arguments. If you are, in fact, a man it certainly explains why you are still a virgin and likely will remain so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 1:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        HAHAHAHHAHAHAH! Oh god, I had to laugh at that. Hey, ladies who frequent Techdirt. Look here, its a sexist pig who paints women as thin skinned, delicate and irrational.
        
        When was the last time you thought about what you were going to say before you said it. Talk about putting your foot in your mouth. So yeah, like that attitude is going to get you laid. I can't remember the last time I encountered a woman who appreciated it when told she was easily insulted and stupid.
        Want me to link you to a picture of my dangly bits, to prove I'm a man? No, for three reasons
        1) There is no difference in what I'm saying when it comes to my gender.
        2) I don't have to prove my gender to you.
        3) I don't want to take the risk that you are in fact gay yourself and will masturbate to the sight of my junk.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 1:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        HAHAHAHHAHAHAH! Oh god, I had to laugh at that. Hey, ladies who frequent Techdirt. Look here, its a sexist pig who paints women as thin skinned, delicate and irrational.
        
        Thank you for making my point far more eloquently than I ever could.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 3:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why do you mindlessly troll on and on like a child???
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 12:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ah yes, insulting others and making statements about people you know nothing about. Always the mark of someone on the "winning" side of an argument. /s
        
        It's cute though how you grasp at straws. No technical expert would ever state that was Aaron did was in anyway hiding or attempting to conceal his computer's identity.
        
        As for breaking and entering charges leveled against him. Yes, opening an unlocked closet door at an open campus is totally that. /s
        
        You're such an idiot and have such a hard on for fighting "pirates"(which Aaron wasn't) that you'll do anything to obfuscate the issue/perpetuate the myths surrounding it.
        
        When the person being "wronged" doesn't want to press charges, that's pretty much it. It shows just how little harm was done (in this case NONE).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 12:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I never even addressed the MAC spoofing. I only talked about him covering his face and looking out of the vent holes of his bike helmet. Is English not your first language?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 1:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261840/Aaron-Swartz-MIT-surveillance-shot-ruined-tragic-Red dit-founders-life.html
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 5:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "MIT valued that information at $50,000, according to the Cambridge Police incident report."
        
        The DOJ wanted $1.5 million.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Again, I wasted my time trying to verify your outrageous lie. I found no mention of any fine, much less $1.5 million as part of the plea agreement.
        
        Until you get some help for your pathological lying, I see no point dignifying your baseless falsehoods with a response.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 8:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why plea guilty to a crime you didn't commit. MIT and by extension JSTOR were willing to settle for damage equivlincy for the information he downloaded....which is an ass-ton of information at 99� per page. To get what they wanted from him...a plea bargain of guilty under very shoddy evidence and blurry photo's.....the prosecuting attorneys of the DOJ asked for the extreme opposite end of the results of a guilty plea to pressure Swartz into said guilty plea. If Swartz did not plea guilty, they were pressuring him with $1.5-million fines and 30-50 years in a Federal Prison...not the type where rich people go.
        
        If he pleaded guilty, he was offered 6 months in Federal Prison and 3 years probation where he would be practically barred from mentioning the word "computer" let alone handle or touch and/or look at one....and if he did, he eould be sent back for to prison for another 30-50 years.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 8:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You were saying???
        
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSTOR
        
        On your web browser, hit Ctrl+F and type in "Aaron Swartz".
        
        It's sad how desperate you are for attention. You are not being funny or witty by trolling along like this. Please just stop. You've gotten plenty of attention.
        
        I am a psychologist and if you need counseling. I have the same amount of patients for my patients as they have for me, so trolling mockery only allows me the same curtesy for you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 7:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You are a psychologist? Right. You don't even understand the difference between patience and patients. I'd be shocked if you had a GED.
        
        Your citation proves nothing, but does reinforce what an idiot you are. The Swartz plea agreement includes no mention of a fine that I can discover. Your citation was yet another irrelevant recitation of the theoretical maximum sentence and maximum fine. Not what the sentencing guidelines call for and certainly not what the proposed plea agreement contemplated. So again, Mr. Psychologist; you whiffed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 9:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So you are attacking my merits based on me being a terrible speller??? Could it be that I likely have dyslexia? One of my cousins is MRDD Autistic Savant...and he can spell like the dickens.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 7:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, and "curtsey" is what a woman does when meeting the queen. I believe the word you were struggling for is courtesy. I'd have thought that an actual psychologist would know how to spell.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 10:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well at least you have nothing left to argue with. By the way, as a psychologist, I can only recommend that you seek treatment for your severe case of OCD and your mild case of GD (Grandiose Delusions).
        
        I might want to warn you that you questioning my merit based on spelling only shows that:
        
        1. You are too stupid to look past spelling mistakes and try to actually read what someone else has to say.
        
        and 2. You have nothing relevant left to argue about or say concerning your theories which you seem to not be backing up, or researching.
        
        If I don't see a link provided by a person I typically do research the subject matter myself which is a lot more than I can definitely can say about you concerning the following comment by you:
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130223/02284022080/doj-admits-it-had-to-put-aaron-swartz- jail-to-save-face-over-arrest.shtml#c2596
        
        To to which I responded here:
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130223/02284022080/doj-admits-it-had-to-put-aaron-swartz-j ail-to-save-face-over-arrest.shtml#c2780
        
        Not so easy to find anything relevant to say after that wouldn't you say?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So you are saying that a database cannot be protected by copyright if it only contains facts? Interesting. How about a math book?
      
      I'm saying the facts in the database (or math book) cannot be copyrighted. There may be elements of either that are able to be copyrighted, perhaps the code used to generate a specific report from the database, or the layout of the math problems, but the facts cannot be.
      
      For example, if Aaron was to have gotten access to a database, and used his own knowledge of coding to generate a report that the makers of the database did not perform or anticipate, he could've done whatever he wanted with that report.
      
      If I have misunderstood some facet of why that would be illegal, please point it out to me.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 12:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, but he obtained more than just the sterilized "facts" didn't he. He got to those facts through a database and many of the individual works he downloaded were subject to individual copyright.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 12:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What difference does it make that individual reports were copyrighted make?
        
        Google can index the entire web, even though many of the pages are copyrighted, and they can do whatever they want with their index. Google can digitize every book (copyrighted or not) they can get their scanner on, and use the data to spit out results showing how the overall use of language changes over the decades/centuries without having to worry an iota about copyright.
        
        We don't know what Aaron ultimately was going to do with the data he downloaded and that is tragic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:20am
  
  Re:
  Pointless speculation, but I'll bite. Swartz was very open and upfront about his goals and plans. If he meant "subscribe to disseminate" he would have said that. He said "buy" and I think he meant exactly that. It was a long-term goal. Impossible now, but ten years from now, who knows?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 4:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I am beginning to wonder if Swartz had Asperger's Syndrome. My brother is the same exact way :-)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 4:52pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I am beginning to wonder if Swartz had Asperger's Syndrome. My brother is the same exact way :-)
      
      The Beaver? I had him pegged as ADHD. Who knew?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 5:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Look, I know you're only trying to be friendly and all...but honestly you have been a serious pain to other people tonight in stead of being remotely funny at all.
        
        Aaron Swartz was facing severe charges and would have forfeited his works to JSTOR and MIT, his livelihood, his life savings, pretty much his life altogether if he pleaded guilty for a 6 month time in a maximum security Federal Prison (which means solitary confinement for 30-50 years).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 5:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Aaron Swartz was facing severe charges and would have forfeited his works to JSTOR and MIT, his livelihood, his life savings, pretty much his life altogether if he pleaded guilty for a 6 month time in a maximum security Federal Prison (which means solitary confinement for 30-50 years).
        
        What on earth are you talking about???? You are utterly delusional or simply making up the most fantastic, unsupported lie I've seen on TD to date.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 5:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How is it not over-reach when being arrested for simply changing the way you connect to the Internet??
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No I was talking about this bullshit you spewed:
        
        Aaron Swartz was facing severe charges and would have forfeited his works to JSTOR and MIT,
        
        What works of Aaron Swartz?
        
        .. his livelihood,
        
        How so?
        
        his life savings,
        
        How? No report of a fine that I could detect
        
        pretty much his life altogether
        
        He did that to himself with a rope
        
        ....if he pleaded guilty for a 6 month time in a maximum security Federal Prison
        
        Inmates with his profile go to Club Fed, you idiot.
        
        (which means solitary confinement for 30-50 years).
        
        Are you fucking kidding me? Solitary confinement? 30-50 years? WTF?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Berenerd (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:16am
  
  Re:
  So who owns those databases of journals that were funded by government grants and then locked up for personal gain? Who is in the wrong for taking those journals and letting the people who paid for them to be written, free access to them?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 12:39pm
  
  Re:
  Databases can't be copyrighted.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 12:49pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Maybe if you say it ten mores times, it will magically come true.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 3:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Cite case law that shows they can be. We'll be waiting, because we already know that body of law doesn't exist in the US, but go right ahead and look.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 8:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Here, choke on this:
        
        http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 2:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's not a case law...
        
        A case law is along the lines of Rowe vs. Wade .
        
        The point of a case law is that it is a US Supreme Court ruling based upon various factors involving certain circumstances where the US Constitution seems a bit gray legally. They can either provide added structure to the laws already in place...or topple them down like a Jenga tower.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 2:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm now convinced that you are mentally retarded. What do you think 17. U.S.C. � 101 is? Hint: Many people know it as the Copyright Act. In this country, Congress makes the laws. And the courts interpret their application. Unless a court rules a law to be unconstitutional or having some other defect it is the law of the land. Why not spare yourself further humiliation and just shut the fuck up. You've revealed yourself to be a buffoon and laughingstock. Each new post leaves that much more shit on your face.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 3:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The penalties are outlined in the next U.S.C guidelines.
        
        http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 3:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And here's a link to the sentencing guidelines, which matter far more than the statutory penalties.
        
        http://www.ussc.gov
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 4:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh that's very lovely....non-specific and a lot of unnecessary searching to do so you can "prove" your point....good luck at finding specific things in there. If you would be so kind to specifically provide and highlight thr charges and penalties Swartz was actually facing...of which the DOJ cited him for "Pursuit in the evasion of the authorities in a legal manner".
        
        Tell me exactly how that is actually against the law to provide yourself with a legal defense :-D I mean seriously you sound so stupid in continuing on like you do....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 3:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      A database is a list of accessible folders and files contained therein. Under your logic, merely listing a bunch of your favorite movies and cataloging them by genera, date released, and/or any combination therein is copyrightable...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:57pm
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 25th, 2013 @ 9:22am
  Since he's talking about public domain works, it only potentially violates TOS. That obviously depends on the TOS in the first place. And if TOS have the full force of law, we are all in big trouble.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Togashi (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:41am

The US justice system is reminding me of Cardassian law more and more every day.

Under Cardassian law, guilt was confirmed prior to Court proceedings � the trials themselves served only as a way to demonstrate the wrongdoing of the defendants and to illustrate the consequences of their alleged criminal behavior. Defendants were provided with legal counsel merely to help them "concede" the "wisdom" of the state's judicial process, as well as help them to admit guilt and express "proper" remorse. (Memory Alpha)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:48am
  
  Response to: Togashi on Feb 25th, 2013 @ 9:41am
  Actually it reminds me more of the obsidian order...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:10am
  
  Re:
  The psi corps
  is your friend.
  Trust the corps.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wally (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 3:42pm
  
  Re:
  I am wondering if Eric Holder is a Trekkie....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:48am

The spring is coming!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeff (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:55am
  
  Re:
  You've got that wrong...
  
  Winter is coming!
  - Ned Stark
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Afterburner (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 9:55am

Are you happy yet?
You've got your backlash. It's sickening, killing a man in an attempt to prevent a backlash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:10am

I love my country and their fucked up justice system.

You can take a 500$ fine for jaywalking.
or
You can fight it and spend the next 900 years in prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rob, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:22am

Catch-22
Clevinger was guilty, of course, or he would not have been accused, and since the only way to prove it was to find him guilty, it was their patriotic duty to do so.

Joseph Heller, Catch-22, chapter eight: Lieutenant Scheisskopf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anon, 25 Feb 2013 @ 10:23am

" lightening rod"

NO! Bad Mike! A "lightening rod" would be something like a glow stick. A "lightning rod" is something that attracts strikes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 2:43pm
  
  Re:
  I'd figured he was thinking of a highly specialised magic wand that only reduces weight.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark Yoffe, 25 Feb 2013 @ 12:30pm

Aaron Swartz and Pussy Riot: two cases of crime and punishment
My essay on George Washington University Feminist site comparing cases of persecution of Russian and American political dissenters:
http://www.womeninandbeyond.org/?p=1572
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 2:05pm

"the reason they went after Swartz with such zeal was because of his infamous Guerilla Open Access Manifesto."

IOW, the govt is against open access and only seeks closed access at the will of corporate entities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 5:25pm

Some congressional staffers left the briefing with the impression that prosecutors believed they needed to convict Swartz of a felony

wow congressional staffers,,,, have the power to CONVICT PEOPLE !!!!!

They had an opinion, although you do not name them people, but congressional staffers DO NOT CONVICT PEOPLE IDIOT..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 5:27pm
  
  Re:
  Hmmm, no names of staffers, no direct quotes of what led them to that conclusion, nothing. Hey, that's prima facie evidence here on Techdirt.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 8:40pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Unsubstantiated hearsay is obviously proof positive of the truth of what was said. Of course, such a belief will likely not strike a responsive chord with the Evidence professor, the State Bar, and the Multi-state exam.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Togashi (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 5:57pm
  
  Re:
  Ummm... context? If you bothered trying to understand the sentence, you'd see that 'prosecutors' is the antecedent to 'they', and prosecutors certainly play a role in conviction.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 5:56pm

Some congressional staffers (including the tea lady) left the briefing(NOT IN THE BREAFING) with the impression that prosecutors believed (hearsay) they need to convict Swartz for a felony.

They would believe that because the charges levelled at Swarts were FELONY CHANGES.

Of course they would believe that they would have to lay felony charges in relation to a felony. Laying charges is not a conviction.

You mention no names, what staffers, NAME THEM, or is it the tea lady or someone who sweeps the floor ?

You have a concept of hearsay ?? and do you believe that prosecutors are able to press non-felony charges in a felony charge case ?

What has someone's 'impression' have to do with the rule of law ?

Usual quality of Masnick drek
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 6:48pm

I look at this page of comments and I am amazed at what it reveals.

The standard trolling combined with people who refuse for one second to even imagine the possibility what was done in this case was horrible.

As people dare to consider the motivations, they spit out vile bile and every possible answer to somehow justify what was done. One is left to wonder if they post so vehemently in threads talking about why DoJ was unable to find any wrongdoing on Wall Street and how the world just needs to suck it up.
I hope that they don't end up distracted by the BP case arguing that poor put upon BP has suffered enough and its just a witch hunt to punish them for something not even BP's fault.

Some truth about the little white lies...
The government is not your friend.
The check is not in the mail.
Yeah he's gonna do it in your mouth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 7:55pm
  
  Re:
  While I believe that the government piled on, I don't think the offer of 6 months was unreasonable. Swartz was committed to his mission, had narrowly avoided charges for similar behavior, evaded network security to continue downloading after he was cut off, showed his state of mind and awareness of his unlawful conduct by concealing his face from security cameras and tried to elude police. Question the virtues of the law if you like, but reading it as face value- he clearly was in violation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 8:46pm
    
    Re: Re:
    If I ever defended a criminal defendant and jury selection was taking place, I would immediately seek to dismiss you for cause. As for virtually all of the others who have commented on this thread, I would not at all be reluctant to have them seated since none of them seem to believe that people can actually commit crimes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 3:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I would not at all be reluctant to have them seated since none of them seem to believe that people can actually commit crimes.
      
      well, I have to agree with you. Despite uncontrovertible evidence, few if any of the commenters " seem to believe that people can actually commit crimes." That is the problem. Unmitigated bias. If they answered truthfully during void dire they'd not make the first cut.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 3:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        stupid auto-spell: voir dire
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Feb 2013 @ 11:07pm
    
    Re: Re:
    A victimless crime with greater punishment than crimes that destroyed peoples lives.
    
    A witch hunt where they piled on charges to get acceptance of lesser charges because a conviction was not assured in court, voiding the right to a fair trial by adding weights and pressure to the scale to obtain an outcome that wasn't about justice or fairness but about not making themselves look like morons.
    
    DoJ is a game of metrics, there is more value in getting a high profile win over making sure Justice is served. Those who are to be the pinnacle of justice in this country abuse their position and power, going so far as hiding evidence that would clear someone they targeted.
    The cases they do take to court there is evidence they mislead the court, they omit facts to secure their position, and inflict damage onto those based on allegations that are false.
    
    He might have broken the law but he was denied a fair trial, and the response of the DoJ should be against the law. Crushing someone under ridiculous charges to claim another mark in the win column while undermining the legal process needs to be criminal and be punished.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet Another Anonymous Coward, 25 Feb 2013 @ 7:39pm

Hope the DOJ looses so much face if falls off
I signed the Whitehouse.gov petition to remove the prosecutors from their jobs.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fire-assistant-us-attorney-steve-heymann/RJKSY2nb

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

It's the least I could do about this travesty. Part of me hopes that Ortez has to suffer through a trial of one of her own children being prosecuted in this fashion but I doubt it will ever happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bergman (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 5:10am

Wow...
A malicious intention to obey the law exactly as it is written...to do what exactly? Not commit any crimes and thereby cause prosecutors to lose their jobs due to a shortage of cases?

Wow...just...wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 3:25pm
  
  Re: Wow...
  You shortened that article quite significantly in one swoop...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2013 @ 10:51am

It is truly remarkable how stupid you are. The $1 million+ fine you cited is, as I pointed out, like the theoretical but meaningless statutory maximum sentence of 30+ years. You claimed that Swartz was facing such a staggering fine. There was no mention of a fine associated with the plea agreement and no assertion from the prosecution that they were seeking a fine- just a sentence of 7-8 years.

So nice try recycling your lies. but again you fall on your face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wally (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 12:34pm
  
  Re:
  You forgot to hit the reply button...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wally (profile), 26 Feb 2013 @ 12:43pm
  
  Re:
  http://rt.com/usa/doj-targeting-swartz-activism-482/
  
  What lies??? I see no lies....If you want a lie, here's one for you:
  
  You are an intelligent human being who actually makes the time and energy to spend time outside of the world of the internet.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coyne Tibbets, 27 Feb 2013 @ 8:57pm

When you gotta, you gotta
My translation: "When you just have to file a false charge, then you just have to get a false conviction. Otherwise, what's the point?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]