[gruseom]

I've read many of your comments and am glad you've been posting them. They're well-written and well-reasoned, and I hope you stick around in the future and continue to speak your mind with the freedom that your current format seems to be providing. The combination of legal and technical expertise is valuable and rare.

That being said, your comments seem to me to pooh-pooh the impact of what the prosecutors/system did in this case as (a) standard practice and (b) not that big a deal. Most people here (well, I anyway) did not know much about this and, having learned it, feel that it is a big deal. This makes me wonder whether your senses have been dulled by taking too much of that standard practice for granted. Maybe the people here to whom this is new and disturbing are not the only ones experiencing "radical loss of perspective".

It's straightforward to explain why Aaron's story has had such an impact on this and similar communities: he is easy for many of us to identify with, so the shock has a personal effect. This isn't hypocritical, it's human nature: one takes in this kind of information through the emotional medium of a story one can identify with. There's no contradiction between that and learning that a great many less-advantaged people get treated far more abusively still – quite the opposite.

Setting aside the obviously dumb comments as a cost of doing business on a public forum such as this, I am also pretty sure that people here are not nearly as naive about Aaron's personal history as your critique and the GP's suggest. Taste enters into this.

[MichaelSalib]

Taste cuts both ways though. I'm seriously concerned about how younger people in the community might respond to the hagiography. I'm afraid that some might come to believe that the CFAA isn't a real law so there's no problem with breaking it or that suicide is the best way for activists to enact real change.

[gruseom]

That there's "no problem with breaking" the CFAA is the last conclusion anyone will draw from this tragedy.

[MichaelSalib]

I see a lot of people writing about how they change their MAC address all the time so what did Aaron do that was so wrong?

Granick writes in a well-read post about how Swartz didn't really break any laws -- everyone on MIT's network was legally entitled to download JSTOR as fast as they wanted to and apparently MIT had no right to keep anyone off its network.

There's a pervasive social norm that says 'if you can use tech to get something, then doing so is legal'; lots of people find the CFAA normatively absurd, in the same way that we might find a law against eating asparagus on sundays absurd. You see that in all the defenses that start from the premise that not only is Swartz innocent but that there's no conceivable crime he could have committed.

[koide]

> apparently MIT had no right to keep anyone off its network.

What? How could some institution not have a right to keep somebody else off its own network? That makes no sense at all. Don't forget both JSTOR and MIT (after JSTOR contacted them) tried to block Swartz's massive downloads.

[sociotech]

"This makes me wonder whether your senses have been dulled by taking too much of that standard practice for granted." Yes, that is totally fair. I have been thinking hard recently about the role of gradual change vs. radical change.

I agree about "taste" too. I'd never have said anything, but there comes a point in the popularization of a case where truth starts to be important.