[ScottBurson]

I think the most substantive part is where he quotes Alex Stamos, the expert witness who planned to testify in Swartz's defense. Stamos provides a strong rebuttal to claims that Kerr seems to take for granted, about the validity of the legal charges against Swartz.

I would very much like to see a detailed response by Kerr to Stamos' argument.

I think this would have been a very interesting trial.

[mpyne]

If Stamos's blog post was any indication I don't think it would have been much help to Swartz.

I say this only because his points were of the form "It was so easy to get around MIT's weak security that you can hardly call it hacking", but Swartz wasn't charged with "hacking", he was charged with wire fraud, computer fraud, unauthorized access, etc., and these are not charges that go away just because it was easy to do.

His testimony would certainly have been very helpful if it came to a sentencing phase but during the trial he would have been all but confirming that Aaron did indeed get around the feeble MIT and JSTOR blocks on him, and that's much of what the prosecution would have needed to prove right there.