[anonymous246]

Nice spin: he's been charged for "excessive downloading".

Way to ignore the physical break-in to install a computer directly on a network switch. I, for one, hope that he gets a criminal record at the very least (plea deal). This really puts the crime in a different league.

Unless I have my facts wrong, in which I'm willing to be corrected.

[sp332]

Well, a physical break-in would be a matter for the local police, maybe state. Federal prosecutors don't get involved with those cases unless it's the Pentagon or something.

This is only at the federal level because the "unauthorized access" crossed state lines. (Aaron was at MIT when he was knocking over JSTOR servers, probably in NYC.) So the prosecutor is only going to worry about that part.

[tptacek]

I don't get why I'm expected to care about whether local or federal employees take an interest in the event. The state criminal court system isn't warm and fuzzy either.

[sp332]

He said "way to ignore the physical break-in" and I'm pointing out that federal prosecutors (almost) always ignore physical break-ins. It's not a federal crime.

[tptacek]

I take your point, but I'd like to point out that it's a side track. It gives the impression that you don't want to talk about whether a crime happened, and instead focus on the purported injustice of federal involvement. Well, what's unjust about that? That the DoJ and federal court system is more severe than Massachusetts?

[sciurus]

It's not a side track to point out that he should be charged with one set of crimes by the state government, but that he is instead being charged with a different set of crimes (Wire Fraud, Computer Fraud, Unlawfully Obtaining Information from a Protected Computer, Recklessly Damaging a Protected Computer) by the federal government.

[tptacek]

You think MA doesn't have computer crime statutes? The subtext to this thread seems to be "if they charged him locally they'd only be able to get him on trespassing". Uh, no.

[sp332]

Again, the state would only have bothered to get involved if MIT had bothered to press charges, which apparently they didn't. And all the stuff you mentioned happened across state lines, so if the case for those things is to be made at all, it should be made in federal court.

[_delirium]

Well, he probably wouldn't be charged with the state crime in most states, if MIT's claim that they aren't supporting the prosecution is accurate--- it's very rare for these kinds of state-law charges involving property (trespassing, breaking&entering, etc.) to get prosecuted if the victim isn't interested in pressing charges. Federal prosecutors seem to take a more freelance approach to charging.

[sp332]

Hm, sorry if I gave that impression. Anyway, I'm more curious about why the feds are continuing with the case after everyone involved seems to have dropped it. Should be an interesting case to watch.

[burgerbrain]

It is, at the very least, more expensive.

[pstuart]

Way to ignore the notion of intent when evaluating a "crime".

[tptacek]

Actually, from the material in the charging document, Swartz's actions do go a ways towards demonstrating intent. He's clearly aware that JSTOR and MIT don't want him doing what he's doing, and devises an escalating series of tactics to evade their countermeasures. "Intent" is largely expressed in words like "purposefulness".

[pstuart]

I disagree -- I was referring to the "ultimate" intent of openness and transparency. Shall we focus on the intent of the Woolworth's lunch counter sit-in as a purposefulness to deprive white people of their midday repast?

Edit (appending as reply chain is too deep):

Thomas, I see you that your focus is computer security, so I can understand how you are focusing on the breach of security and not the end goal. Perhaps I'm naive, but from the posting this thread is discussing it appears that his intentions clearly are honorable.

[tptacek]

The sit-in directly targeted an unjust law; the sit in was both the means and the end. Swartz is accused of breaking laws as a means to a different end (unless he planned on dumping the database to BitTorrent, in which case the whole thing was a grand act of civil disobedience; for his sake, I hope that's not what's going on.)

In either case, I don't have to agree with the prosecution to point out one obvious way it could be structured.

[klbarry]

I don't think that this poster should have so many downvotes, as of 12:59 EST. Even if he is wrong, or you do not agree with him, he is adding to the discussion in a reasonable matter, inviting conversation and debate.

[gobongo]

Don't you understand? You're not Google's customer, you're Google's product!

Wait, wait, that isn't the right groupthink response for this situation.. Give me a second....

This is not a bubble this time, this is a real new new economy, the old rules (nor the old new rules) don't apply.

Wait, that's not right either... nm, I'm not sure how to think about this one so I'm just going to downvote you.