[zaidf]

Anyone associated with the DoJ can't see that the DoJ is the problem

Why? He is precise in what his post is doing: simply making an evaluation of whether the charges stack up with the law on the books. He neither promises nor tries to evaluate the legitimacy of the laws. I think that is perfectly fine and in fact I'd love if more qualified folks shared their specific interpretation of the law with minimal bias in either direction.

[michaelfeathers]

Here's the thing that we need to be aware of. I'm assuming that many of the readers of HN are programmers or have been programmers. The law is very literal, it is like code. But not everything in life is black and white.

Often I run into programmers who want want to think that all questions should have yes or no answers. Even if they don't, many of us have a deep sense that there is something right about seeing the world in terms of strict categorical statements.

Me? Well, as a programmer, citizen and human being, I'm suspicious of it. Deeply.

[roel_v]

"The law is very literal, it is like code."

(I have degrees in law & CS)

No, it's not, and it's the nr 1 mistake armchair lawyers across the internet are making in commenting on this case. Law is much more common sense than many people give it credit for; except it's common sense in a very different way than many people want it to be. (e.g., the bickering elsewhere in this thread on the intricate details of the facts and Orin's analysis of it).

[michaelfeathers]

Can you give us a bit more of your perspective on the case, esp. regarding the common sense view of it from a law perspective? I'd love to hear it.

[monsterix]

> "He neither promises nor tries to evaluate the legitimacy of the laws."

Which also implies that there is hardly any possibility for his analysis to be 'incorrect' because it is rooted to come out as correct within the provisions of existing laws.

Isn't that so?

[zaidf]

His analysis can still be incorrect. For example, other legal experts may disagree with his interpretation of blah law. This is why I think more, not less, somewhat emotion-free evaluation would be helpful.

If we learn the laws are far overreaching, it requires a different set of actions to attempt to change than if we find that the charges don't align with the law.

[andylei]

uh, definitely not.

his analysis is about whether the charges the prosecutors levied against him were reasonable, based on case law. if he misinterpreted established case law or the charges levied against aaron, his analysis certainly could be incorrect.

[danso]

Please realize that Kerr is tackling one issue at a time, in fact, I think he is promising a second post.

This first post is to show how the charges fit the existing law...This is to tackle the first question of, Is what Aaron Swartz did illegal?

This is a wholly different question than whether the prosecution was justified in its aggression, which will be the topic of his second post.

But whether something was illegal or not, yes, generally, we want that question to be based on existing laws. You do not want to go to court, either as a defender or prosecutor, on the grounds that your case will be decided on what's made up during trial.

---

Someone noted that many HN readers are programmers and seem to have problems with seeing the world as too black and white...I'm surprised at how hard it is for professionals whose work is heavily governed by the concept of orthogonality not being able to understand why people like Kerr can dissect this controversy into two separate components. Both components, related as they are, are worth considering and involve different arguments and evidence.

[defrost]

It's your analysis that's incorrect.