Aaron Swartz Unlikely To Face Jail Or Conviction... Until Feds Decided To 'Send A Message'

from the prosecutorial-discretion dept

Things just keep looking worse and worse in the Carmen Ortiz/Stephen Heymann vendetta against Aaron Swartz. Now it's come out that state prosecutors, who were originally looking into the case had no interest in pursuing felony charges or prison time... until Carmen Ortiz and her team showed up. Instead, state prosecutors had focused on the initial charges: "breaking and entering in the daytime" which they expected "would be continued without a finding, with Swartz duly admonished and then returned to civil society to continue his pioneering electronic work in a less legally questionable manner." Instead, the report notes:

Tragedy intervened when Ortiz’s office took over the case to send “a message.”

In case you were wondering what "continued without a finding" means, Harvey Silvergate (author of Three Felonies a Day) explained to Declan McCullagh:

"Continuance without a finding" was the anticipated disposition of the case were the charge to remain in state court, with the Middlesex County District Attorney to prosecute it. Under such a disposition, the charge is held in abeyance ("continued") without any verdict ("without a finding"). The defendant is on probation for a period of a few months up to maybe a couple of years at the most; if the defendant does not get into further legal trouble, the charge is dismissed, and the defendant has no criminal record. This is what the lawyers expected to happen when Swartz was arrested for "trespassing at MIT." But then the feds took over the case, and the rest is tragic history.

The report above also notes that Ortiz is in some additional hot water, as another one of her overreach cases, involving an attempt to seize a family-owned motel in Massachusetts by claiming that it was "facilitating drug crimes" has failed miserably, tossed out by the magistrate judge. Not only was it noted that there were only 15 drug-related incidents over a 15 year period (during which 196,000 rooms were rented out), but also, the motel owners worked closely with local police to deal with drug issues and that other local businesses that had drug incidents were not targeted by Ortiz.

Filed Under: aaron swartz, carmen ortiz, federal prosecutors, lawsuit, state prosecutors

Another Case Of Prosecutorial Bullying Against A 'Hacker'

from the maybe-it's-time-to-rethink-this-approach? dept

As the tragic death of Aaron Swartz resides fresh in our memories, there has been a renewed interest by the public in the way prosecutors use the threat of more jail time as a carrot (edit: should have said "stick"; thanks comments section!) to secure plea bargains. The way the system is set up allows for an arena in which justice is no longer the objective. Instead, an injustice can be used in some kind of strange "ends justify the means" game that would make Lady Justice weep openly. With the odds firmly stacked against anyone that falls in the crosshairs of a federal prosecutor, this is a horrifyingly unjust method for achieving justice, and it appears to be a method favored for use against so-called hackers and hacktivists.

Now, lest you think that the Swartz case was an isolated event, or in case you thought perhaps there would be some sort of ripple effect as a result of it, you should note that prosecutors in the Barrett Brown case appear to be pursuing similar tactics. For those of you not familiar with Brown, he is the self-proclaimed spokesperson for Anonymous recently arrested for allegedly threatening an FBI agent.

Brown was arrested and taken into custody in September after allegedly threatening an FBI agent. In December 2012, he was indicted by a federal grand jury for trafficking “stolen authentication features,” as well as "access device fraud" and “aggravated identity theft.”

On Wednesday, Brown was hit with one count of “concealment of evidence,” and one count of “corrupting concealing evidence.”

And what did Brown do to "conceal evidence"? Apparently he "hid" his laptop with his mother's dishes. Apparently putting a laptop where the Feds don't obviously look is now "concealing evidence."

I won't sit here and compare Brown and Swartz in terms of character. Not because I know or don't know enough about either of them to do so, but rather because that would miss the point entirely. I'll leave it to others to erect the false justification of character assassination. Instead, I'd rather focus on how prosecutors appeared to think that the original charges, which could lead to 90 years of imprisonment for Brown, were apparently not enough and decided to lump this last charge on top of the others. Brown's former attorney, Jay Leiderman, appears to be similarly flabbergasted.

“I would not have seen a third indictment coming,” Leiderman told Ars. “You would think the 90 years of prison exposure that they had on him was enough. Are we at a point in society where we think that 90 years is no longer enough?”

Leiderman speculated that the new indictment was a legal pressure tactic against Brown.

As Ledierman goes on to say, at some point we departed the realm of prosecuting hacktivists and instead entered the realm of persecuting them. If there are crimes committed, let Brown or whoever else stand trial. If the law is behind the times, or written in a way that is ridiculous (as in the Swartz case), we can change the law. There's nothing wrong with the argument that that's a responsibility that falls on the public via whom we elect to government. All that said, for hacktivist crimes, or even those that Brown is accused of, to result in 90 years of jail time -- and for that to not be good enough for prosecutors -- is an absolute joke. Lumping on yet another, more minor, charge to pressure the accused is a downright travesty.

 

Filed Under: aaron swartz, barrett brown, concealing evidence, prosecutorial discretion

EU VP On Aaron Swartz: If Our Laws Hold Back Benefits From Openness, We Should Change Those Laws

from the still-waiting-for-the-others dept

As Techdirt has reported over the last ten days, the death of Aaron Swartz has provoked an outpouring of grief from friends and colleagues, who understandably wish to express their shock and anger at what happened. You'd expect that. What you might not expect is for a Vice-President of the European Commission to add her voice, but that's exactly what Neelie Kroes did this week. Her post is short, and worth reading in its entirety:

You've probably seen the terrible news about the death of Aaron Swartz. It's always horrifying when someone so young and so clearly talented feels they have no option but to take their own life. I know that this is something that shook the internet community deeply. And my thoughts are with his family, and what they must be going through right now.

This was a man who saw that greater openness can be good for citizens, and good for society. Hugely disruptive -- but hugely beneficial.

For me, the case is particularly clear when there aren't copyright issues, when information was already paid for by taxpayers, and when more openness can help new innovations and scientific discoveries.

I would never condone unlawful activity. But in my view, if our laws, frameworks and practices stand in the way of us getting all those benefits, then maybe they need to be changed.

Agree or disagree with his methods, Aaron could see the open direction we’re heading in, and its benefits. In the meantime, those scientists who are paying tribute by making their own work legally, openly available aren't just showing their respects -- they are also benefiting scientific progress.

Two points stand out there. First, the one regarding information "already paid for by taxpayers". That's a clear reference to the open access and open data movements, which seek to make precisely this kind of material available to all. In fact, the point that openness drives innovation and scientific progress is mentioned by Kroes not just once, but twice in her short post.

The other notable phrase is that "if our laws, frameworks and practices stand in the way of us getting all those benefits [of openness], then maybe they need to be changed". That's of a piece with her earlier frank comments about copyright being "a tool to punish and withhold, not a tool to recognise and reward," and her call for "flexibility in the system, not the straitjacket of a single model."

Given the stony silence from just about everyone in positions of power regarding Aaron Swartz's suicide, it's good that at least one politician had the decency to offer her condolences and admit that there's something seriously wrong with today's approach to sharing knowledge. It would be even better if more of her colleagues came to a similar realization and expressed it with equal honesty.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: aaron swartz, benefits, eu, laws, neelie kroes, openness, rules, scientific progress

Newspaper Editorial Insists Hackers Must Be Punished, While Misunderstanding Nearly Every Detail

from the apparently-never dept

We just recently wrote about a trio of recent situations -- all involving young hackers probing for information, leading to either criminal charges or threats of criminal charges against them -- that show what happens when people in power don't understand how technology works. They were all cases where the individuals involved may have done things that some would think inconsiderate, but that hardly should rise to the level of "criminal" behavior -- especially with threats of many years in jail. Presenting the flipside to that argument: the editorialists at the Toronto Globe and Mail, who show why those who don't understand technology have no business writing about it. The editorial is headlined When did it become wrong to punish hackers?, which already suggests problem number one. Hacker is a generic term that does not automatically imply malicious attacks, yet the Globe and Mail immediately seems to assume otherwise. That might be news to the US government, which just announced its own National Day for Civic Hacking (despite filing charges against such civic hackers...).

A Montreal school is being widely criticized for expelling a student who hacked into its computer system and helped expose flaws in the system’s security. The student now has been offered jobs by computer security companies, including the one that ran the system he hacked into. In the Internet age, the hacker is celebrated as a hero and the school is pilloried for being an overbearing, defensive holdover from a bygone age. It’s an unfair presumption that needs to be corrected.

That's one version of the story. The hacker is celebrated as a hero because he did something useful: exposed a security flaw that could have been used by someone malicious for nefarious purposes. We generally want to celebrate those who spot danger and warn people away from it. And the school is being pilloried because it expelled this person. Without Ahmed Al-Khabaz's help, the data of students would be at risk. Doesn't it seem somewhat overbearing to blame the messenger? What exactly is "unfair" about the presumption? After pointing out that Al-Khabaz "discovered a serious flaw" the editorial still supports his expulsion, apparently entirely based on the fact that the company, Skytech, felt his probing was an attack:

... Mr. Al-Khabaz then went on and carried out what the company considered to be a “cyber-attack” on the school’s production servers. The company notified the school, and Mr. Al-Khabaz was hauled on the carpet. The company accepted the student’s explanation and noted that he “demonstrated great talent in computer science.” They dropped the matter and offered Mr. Al-Khabaz a job, but Dawson’s administrators felt the student had gone too far and expelled him on the grounds he had violated the college’s code of conduct.

What the company considered a "cyber-attack" could also be described as "checking to see if the flaw was fixed." And, clearly, they didn't think it was a huge problem if they offered him a job, and noted his "great talent." So why does the school still think he went too far?

Dawson’s officials are right: Rules exist for a reason, and students cannot expect to break them without consequence. Why have them, otherwise?

Ahhhhhh. Rules are rules. Rules exist for reasons, but sometimes those reasons are bad. And punishing people for breaking rules in ways that help people seems like sending the exact wrong message. Sometimes rules should be broken, because the rules are wrong.

The editorial then moves on to Aaron Swartz:

Swartz, who had a history of depression, was facing a slew of charges for allegedly downloading publicly funded academic journals from a large database that charged a fee for access. His family and supporters blame overzealous prosecutors for his death; the prosecutors insist – again, quite rightly – that “stealing is stealing.”

Uh, "stealing is stealing" is a tautology, so of course it's right. But what's "wrong" is arguing that what Swartz did was "stealing." He stole nothing. He downloaded papers from MIT's open network, which was set up with a site license from JSTOR allowing open downloading of those journal articles, all of which remained on the site for anyone else to download.

Go ahead, explain what was "stolen"?

In the age of the Internet, the massive downloading for free of music and movies and other copyrighted material has muddied the waters for many people.

It seems to have "muddied the waters" for the editorial writers of the Toronto Globe and Mail who don't seem to realize that neither case had anything to do with the "massive downloading for free of music and movies."

They seem to have forgotten that privacy rights and copyright laws are among the foundations of our economy. These are things that are not to be shoved aside by the absolutism of Internet activism.

Oh really? If privacy rights are the foundation of the economy, then, er, isn't it a good thing that Al-Khabaz alerted officials to a hole that exposed the private info of students. He did nothing to compromise anyone's privacy rights at all. Similarly, Aaron Swartz did not violate any copyright law, and he was not charged with copyright law violations.

So, seriously, how does a huge mainstream publication like the Globe and Mail get away with writing a piece of garbage this ridiculous? It claims things that simply aren't true, completely flips around reality, and then seems to wrap it up in some bizarre "rules are rules" argument, that makes no sense since the rules it says people violated... weren't even violated.

And the Globe and Mail thinks people should pay its meter to access this kind of crap?

Filed Under: aaron swartz, ahmed al-khabaz, globe and mail, hackers, punishment, rules

Can Crowdsourcing Complete The Job Aaron Swartz Started In Freeing PACER?

from the would-be-nice dept

We've talked about the importance of carrying on the work that Aaron Swartz began, and the global efforts at hackathons to do just that. However, a few have started working on very specific proposals to try to carry on some of Aaron's work. Specifically, they're trying to build on the effort over which he was first investigated by the feds: his attempts to free up public domain court documents that are locked up behind PACER's paywall.

For the uninitiated, despite being public domain, court filings are locked up in an incredibly antiquated electronic document system that the federal courts all use called PACER. Anyone can get access to PACER (though using the system, which has never been an example of modernity, takes some figuring out), but it costs $0.10 per page to download any documents. That's what Aaron was trying to "free."

While his initial effort, making use of a "trial" at certain libraries allowing free access to PACER was shut down, his downloads did become the crux of the RECAP project, a browser plugin built a few years ago by some Princeton students, which would automatically upload any document you accessed via PACER to the Internet Archive where they could be viewed for free going forward.

Unfortunately, RECAP itself more or less stagnated after many of those behind it left Princeton. However, following Aaron's death, there have been a couple of interesting developments, driven in large part by a different Aaron, Aaron Greenspan. First, he set up three grants of $5,000 each to update the RECAP extension. It's currently only available in Firefox, but there are grants for expanding it to Chrome and to IE, while also updating the Firefox browser to cover appeals court documents. This would be huge. I tend to use PACER via Chrome, so I've been unable to contribute much to RECAP lately.

But the second part of the plan, also put in place by Greenspan, is what he's calling Operation Asymptote, to try to get lots of people to help out in freeing PACER documents. He's using the one slight exception to the $0.10 per page rule: PACER does not charge you if your total charges add up to less than $15 per calendar quarter. In other words, you can basically download 150 "pages" during a quarter for free. Now, that's not really 150 pages of court documents, since PACER also charges for searches. And, since some court documents can be pretty long, 150 pages can actually go pretty fast. But Greenspan is suggesting that if we can get a lot of people to sign up for PACER (and RECAP) and download a small amount, keeping under the $15 line, then effectively, a large group of people might free large parts of the public domain material in PACER for free (you need to have a valid credit card to sign up, but if you keep under the $15, then you don't get charged).

This is being done in association with Greenspan's PlainSite, a site which tries to make legal information as public as possible (we've linked to them in the past for their research into Intellectual Ventures' shell companies). Part of the goal is to actually pull together the details of cases worked on by "every US Attorney or Assistant US Attorney" during their career. For example, you could look at cases involving Stephen Heymann or those involving Carmen Ortiz. On the Operation Asymptote page, they even have a link that will automatically point you to cases where they're missing documents, so it's one click easy.

I have no idea if enough people will actually participate to make a difference, but after the slight hassle of signing up for a PACER account (and then a chance to witness just how poorly designed PACER is) anyone can help out for free. It seems like a worthwhile goal.

Filed Under: aaron greenspan, aaron swartz, crowdsourcing, pacer, recap

Concerns Raised About Aaron Swartz's Prosecution And The Wikileaks Connection

from the fishing-expedition dept

Let's state upfront that a lot of what's in this post is conjecture based on a few pieces of information out there. I'm not convinced that it presents enough evidence of an actual connection. However, a bunch of folks have been talking about this (and submitting it here), so we wanted to raise the issue to see what people thought, and if there was any other information that could confirm or deny some of the conjectures in the piece. As far as we can tell, some of the timing is a bit odd, but it could very well be a coincidence. We'd love to have the full story if there was one, but federal prosecutors -- especially those under media scrutiny -- aren't known for suddenly opening up about these sorts of things. Given that, we thought we'd post some of the details of the discussion for the sake of continuing the discussion and seeing if anyone had anything more conclusive, either showing a connection between Aaron Swartz's prosecution and Wikileaks... or debunking it.

We've already discussed how Wikileaks bizarrely outed Aaron Swartz as a possible source, and that's leading to other speculation as well, including a question as to whether or not the grand jury investigation into Swartz was really more about the fishing expedition against Wikileaks, rather than the whole MIT/JSTOR effort. The Emptywheel blog (linked above) notes that Swartz's defense indicated it was aware of a much deeper investigation concerning Swartz that went beyond MIT and JSTOR to Twitter, Google, Amazon, the Internet Archive and possibly more -- and asked the government to turn over such materials:

These paragraphs request information relating to grand jury subpoenas. Paragraph 1 requested that the government provide “[a]ny and all grand jury subpoenas – and any and all information resulting from their service – seeking information from third parties including but not limited to Twitter. MIT, JSTOR, Internet Archive that would constitute a communication from or to Aaron Swartz or any computer associated with him.” Paragraph 4 requested “[a]ny and all SCA applications, orders or subpoenas to MIT, JSTOR, Twitter, Google, Amazon, Internet Archive or any other entity seeking information regarding Aaron Swartz, any account associated with Swartz, or any information regarding communications to and from Swartz and any and all information resulting from their service.” Paragraph 20 requested “[a]ny and all paper, documents, materials, information and data of any kind received by the Government as a result of the service of any grand jury subpoena on any person or entity relating to this investigation.”

Swartz requests this information because some grand jury subpoenas used in this case contained directives to the recipients which Swartz contends were in conflict with Rule 6(e)(2)(A), see United States v. Kramer, 864 F.2d 99, 101 (11th Cir. 1988), and others sought certification of the produced documents so that they could be offered into evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 803(6), 901. Swartz requires the requested materials to determine whether there is a further basis for moving to exclude evidence under the Fourth Amendment (even though the SCA has no independent suppression remedy).

[snip]

Moreover, defendant believes that the items would not have been subpoenaed by the experienced and respected senior prosecutor, nor would evidentiary certifications have been requested, were the subpoenaed items not material to either the prosecution or the defense. Defendant’s viewing of any undisclosed subpoenaed materials would not be burdensome, and disclosure of the subpoenas would not intrude upon the government’s work product privilege, as the subpoenas were served on third parties, thus waiving any confidentiality or privilege protections.

Given all of that, it's leading some to wonder if this was more about the big fishing expedition a grand jury has supposedly been working on for quite some time, trying to sniff out anything that can be used against Wikileaks. There is no confirmed connection to the Wikileaks investigation, but Emptywheel notes some oddities in the timing -- such as the grand jury investigation into Aaron seeming to ramp up just as it appeared that the big Wikileaks grand jury was coming up empty. In fact, as Emptywheel showed in a different post, it looked like the investigation into Swartz was going absolutely nowhere... until the grand jury suddenly showed renewed interest long after the arrest. The post notes that the Secret Service didn't even bother searching the laptop onto which Swartz had downloaded the JSTOR material for weeks after getting involved in his case.

But what happened in between the arrest and the sudden decision to really look into Swartz? The DOJ drew a big, fat blank against Wikileaks. The timeline:

• Swartz was arrested on January 6th, 2011.
• On February 9th it was reported that the Justice Department had drawn a blank on anything it could use to go after Wikileaks.
• That same day, February 9th, the Secret Service suddenly got around to issuing warrants to search Swartz's hardware

Oh, and one other key date. Just a couple weeks before all of this, on December 27th, 2010, Swartz had filed a FOIA seeking information concerning the treatment of Bradley Manning. As is noted in the posts linked here, it's not at all normal for the Secret Service to wait so long to get a subpoena.

I will say that I'm far from convinced there was a full connection here. There is way too much speculation and conjecture and it is quite possible (even probable) that the timing is all a coincidence. But the timing is at least worth noting, since it seems that more and more information keeps coming out about this.

Filed Under: aaron swartz, secret service
Companies: amazon, google, internet archive, jstor, mit, twitter, wikileaks

Retired Federal Judge Criticizes Carmen Ortiz's Handling Of Aaron Swartz Case

from the good-for-her dept

While US Attorney Carmen Ortiz continues to stand by her actions in regards to the Aaron Swartz case (and other cases where she's being accused of being over-aggressive in prosecuting people), more and more criticism is coming to light, including from some influential voices who understand first hand the sorts of things that Ortiz has been engaged in. Former federal judge Nancy Gertner, who some may remember from being the judge in the Joel Tenenbaum trial, has spoken out about Ortiz's actions, suggesting that Ortiz took things too far.

“Just because you can charge someone with a crime, just because a technical crime has been committed, doesn’t mean you should,” Gertner said.

“At the time of the indictment, [Ortiz] said, ‘Stealing is stealing.’ I saw that all the time when I was on the bench,” she said. “This is a classic line. Stealing an apple if you’re hungry is different than Bernie Madoff. It is obviously different.”

She goes on to criticize Ortiz's continued public claims about how Swartz could get 35 years in jail based on the charges she presented. Gertner notes that, thanks to mandatory sentencing guidelines, judges have less power to push back against overzealous prosecutors like Ortiz, and, as a result, it gives those prosecutors much more power to bully people into agreements.

“And in the world of punishment, the prosecutor has enormous power and he has the enormous power to make you plead guilty and give up your rights,” Gertner said.

As she notes, since the prosecutor can choose what charges to file against you, and then just pile them all up until you agree to plead to something, the prosecutor often has way too much power:

“So the prosecutor determines the charges and the punishment,” Gertner explained. “Again, once they start the process, once the indictment is brought, the potential for enormous punishment is there and although a judge has some discretion in sentencing, often what the prosecutor wants is what the person gets.

“When that happens the prosecutor has enormous power and has to exercise that with some degree of fairness and judgment at that end,” she added.

On top of that, she points out that there were clearly alternative ways that Ortiz could have handled the Swartz case, either offering a deal that didn't involve prison time or even a diversion program with a suspended sentence (such that charges would be dropped if Swartz stayed out of trouble for a certain set period of time). Instead, she notes that Ortiz chose the hardline path that was designed to "wreck your life" even though it seems clear that merely drawing attention to the belief that his actions were criminal would have likely stopped further such actions.

Finally, Gertner points out that part of the problem is that US Prosecutors like Ortiz get rewarded for "high profile" takedowns, and thus all of the incentives she had were to turn the Swartz case into something a lot bigger than it really was:

“If the U.S. attorney is going to take credit for every successful prosecution, not matter what the issues were, the U.S. attorney then winds up as ‘Bostonian of the Year’ for these prosecutions, then you know high-profile prosecutions are valued in the office,” Gertner said. “Mr. Swartz was a high-profile prosecution. Whether they are right is another question.”

None of this, of course, is unique to the Swartz prosecution. We've pointed to similar things in the past, and it's unfortunately common today that US Attorneys use their position not to seek justice in the world, but as a political stepping stone to higher office. As such, "high profile" cases where they "put someone away" get them additional attention and acclaim. Being judicious and recognizing when prosecution doesn't make much sense... does not. The incentives are totally screwed up, and that can create calamitous results.

Filed Under: aaron swartz, carmen ortiz, nancy gertner, prosecutorial discretion, sentencing guidelines

The War On Computing: What Happens When Authorities Don't Understand Technology

from the here-we-go dept

We've obviously been covering a lot about Aaron Swartz lately, but his case is really just one of many similar cases involving people in positions of authority who simply don't understand basic technology, but feel that something must be illegal because they try to overlay an analog view on a digital world. In the Swartz case, Carmen Ortiz famously used the incredibly misguided and misleading "stealing is stealing" concept. However, as Cory Doctorow has been fond of pointing out lately, we're entering a war on general purpose computing, and this is just one battle front.

Two other recent skirmishes show the same sorts of things happening in slightly different contexts. A few months ago, we wrote about the case of Andrew Auernheimer, the security researcher who's been convicted and likely to face a long period of time in jail for exposing a blatant security hole from AT&T that allowed him (and anyone else) to gather personal data on the owners of any iOS device. Remember, AT&T set up some stupid security, making all of this data public via its own API. Now about to be sentenced, Auernheimer was asked to write up a "statement of responsibility" for the court, and chose to do a blog post in which he calls out what a farce the whole situation is:

The facts: AT&T admitted, at trial, that they “published” this data. Their words. Public-facing, programmatic accesses of APIs happen upwards of a trillion times per day. Twitter broke 13 billion on their API ages ago. This is something that happens more than the entire population of Earth, daily. The government has no problem with this up until you transform the output into something offensive to important people. People with “disruptive” startups, this is your fair warning: They are coming for you next.

The other one of my prosecutors, Zach Intrater, said that a comment I made about Goatse Security, my information security working group, starting a certification process to declare systems “goatse tight” was evidence of my intent to personally profit. For those not in on the joke: Goatse is an Internet meme referencing a man holding open his anus very widely. The mind reels.

I can’t survive like this. I am happy to be hitting a prison cell soon. They ruined my business. The feds get approval of who I can work for or with: they rejected one company because the CEO had a social network profile with an occupation listed as “hacker.” They prohibit me from touching any computer that isn’t federally monitored. I do my best to slang Perl code on an Android device to comply with my bail conditions. It isn’t pretty.

Meanwhile, up in Canada, there's been a fair bit of talk about how Dawson College computer science student Ahmed Al-Khabaz was expelled for discovering a security hole in a system used across many Canadian colleges to store personal data of students. In his case, part of the problem was that, after alerting people to the hole, he went back a few days later to run a script to see if they had closed the hole. This caused the company that managed the system to accuse him of criminal activity:

“It was Edouard Taza, the president of Skytech. He said that this was the second time they had seen me in their logs, and what I was doing was a cyber attack. I apologized, repeatedly, and explained that I was one of the people who discovered the vulnerability earlier that week and was just testing to make sure it was fixed. He told me that I could go to jail for six to twelve months for what I had just done and if I didn’t agree to meet with him and sign a non-disclosure agreement he was going to call the RCMP and have me arrested. So I signed the agreement.”

Even with the signed agreement, Dawson expelled him. While Dawson stands by its decision, the company Skytech says that it's now offered to hire him part time.

Yes, in all three of these cases you can make a case that what the individual did went further than others would go. Some might call it discourteous. Swartz downloaded a lot more than the system intended, even though the network was open and the terms allowed for unlimited downloads. Auernheimer didn't just find the hole, but he scraped a bunch of data and sent some of it off to a reporter. Al-Khabaz didn't just find the security hole, but he also went back and probed the system again later. But, in the context of someone who lives in this kind of world and understands technology, all three represent completely natural behavior. If the technology allows it, why not probe the system and see what comes out? It's the natural curiosity of a young and insightful mind, looking to see what information is there. When it's made available, how do you not then seek to access it?

But there is a fundamental disconnect between an older, non-digital generation who doesn't get this. They think in terms of walls and locks, and clear delineations. The younger generation, the digital native, net savvy generation looks at all of this as information that is available and accessible. The limitation is merely what they can reach with their computer. But this isn't a bad thing -- this is how we discover new things and build and learn. Treating that as criminal behavior is insane and backwards. It's trying to apply an analog concept to a digital world, and then criminalizing exactly what the system allows and what we should be encouraging people to do -- to push the network, to explore, to learn and to access information.

This is a culture clash, of sorts, but it represents a real problem, when we're criminalizing the most curious and adept computer savvy folks out there.

Filed Under: aaron swartz, access, ahmed al-khabaz, andrew auernheimer, apis, data, hacking, information, war on computing

Global Hackathons Prepared To Carry Forward The Work Of Aaron Swartz

from the keep-it-up dept

One of the key points we've tried to raise over and over again in the wake of Aaron Swartz's death is that it's important for people to carry on his work. We've seen it in a few places already -- such as with academics freeing up their own work -- but there's much more to be done. That's why it's interesting to see plans around the globe for hackathons in Swartz's memory. Who knows what will come out of those hackathons, but seeing more people working on technical solutions for better sharing information and knowledge seems like it can only be a good thing.

Filed Under: aaron swartz, hackathons

WikiLeaks Reveals Aaron Swartz May Have Been A Source: Wise Move?

from the question-of-trust dept

WikiLeaks currently finds itself in a difficult position. Funds are trickling in because of a questionable financial blockade against it, and Julian Assange is stuck in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. So it's understandable that it should want to take every opportunity to remind people that it is still around and keen to continue publishing highly-sensitive documents in a confidential fashion. But I do wonder if this series of tweets disclosing that Aaron Swartz was involved with WikiLeaks is the best way of doing that:

Due to the investigation into the Secret Service involvement with #AaronSwartz we have decided to disclose the following facts (1-3)

1. Aaron Swartz assisted WikiLeaks #aaronswartz (1/3)

2. Aaron Swartz was in communication with Julian Assange, including during 2010 and 2011

3. We have strong reasons to believe, but cannot prove, that Aaron Swartz was a WikiLeaks source. #aaronswartz

There are a number of issues here. First, WikiLeaks is revealing the name of one of its sources -- surely something it should never do under any circumstances if it wants to retain the confidence of future whistleblowers. Worse, it's not even sure Aaron Swartz was a contributor, but is making the claim anyway. That matters because it may encourage the US authorities to start investigating others in his circle as possible WikiLeaks contributors. At best, that could be awkward for them, and at worst, extremely dangerous given what has happened to the alleged WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning.

It's hard to see what WikiLeaks thought it would gain from making these statements, other than some quick publicity, perhaps. But that seems a very transient gain in the face of the long-term dangers it may have exposed others to. Moreover, those four tweets may also have compromised its credibility with potential sources, who must now be asking themselves whether WikiLeaks can really be trusted again.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: aaron swartz, anonymity, credibility, source, wikileaks