[SagelyGuru]

Surely 'intent' only becomes material after some crime was actually committed? Otherwise prosecuting just for intent alone makes it into a thought crime?

Specifically, in this case, I do not understand how the shills are hoping to keep justifying the use of the manifesto as proof of intent to distribute the articles, when he has NOT actually distributed them? How can that be possibly relevant?

Or is it the case that we are not only not allowed to read research that we paid for but now are potentially all guilty of thought crimes as well?

[twoodfin]

Please refrain from referring to hn posters who disagree with you about the scope of "thought crime" as "shills". It's unbecoming.

Yes, intent only matters if you've committed a crime, but it's not at all difficult to argue that Swartz probably did commit a felony under the CFAA. If you can't see that, imagine he had downloaded loosely protected private emails or credit card account lists.

[betterunix]

"Yes, intent only matters if you've committed a crime, but it's not at all difficult to argue that Swartz probably did commit a felony under the CFAA"

You are not saying much here. The CFAA is so broad that one could argue that any Internet user has violated it at one time or another. We might as well pass a law that says, "You are a criminal if the government does not like you."

"If you can't see that, imagine he had downloaded loosely protected private emails or credit card account lists."

Hm, I see where you are going. You are saying that if a business posts a bunch of credit numbers on its website, and says to everyone, "Please only download these numbers one at a time by manually clicking on the links on our website," it should be a felony for someone to write a script that automatically downloads all the numbers.

[snowwrestler]

It remained to be seen whether he had committed a crime. That is what the trial was going to determine.

That said, I agree that since the prosecution was taking the position that it was a crime, it's not surprising or particularly concerning that they were looking at his past statements as evidence for establishing intent. That is a normal and expected thing for prosecutors to do.

[SagelyGuru]

Aaron downloaded many research papers which, individually, he had every right to do. I remember it and at the time it was quite clear that the reason he needed so many papers was because he was doing statistical research on them - establishing how many were publicly funded.

However, we now know that he was a target for a political trial, so it was clearly imperative that some 'bad intent' be found to boost the charges to 14 counts with the total of 50 years in prison that had driven him to suicide. Having laws that make an intent alone (to make publicly funded work available to the public) into a crime has made this possible, of course.

Anyone trying to justify this, while making a living off the technological revolution made possible by free exchange of scientific knowledge which Aaron was trying to defend, is a shill in my book.

[analog]

"imagine he had downloaded loosely protected private emails or credit card account lists"

Respectfully I don't think that's a great argument. That what he did is in the public interest (imo) is central to the issue. You can't just ignore that.

[mpyne]

That's more of a factor for the sentencing phase of a trial (a "mitigating" factor to be considered when adjudging a proper sentence).

What you propose is vigilante justice (though without the violence we normally ascribe to it) and though I too am often sympathetic to that, the legal system is not (and we as a society have chosen that on purpose).

[analog]

I don't think I am proposing vigilante justice, are you confusing comments here perhaps?

The intent is absolutely a factor at the decision to prosecute stage.

You're trying to equate an act in the public interest (freeing academic information), with an act with clear criminal intent (credit card fraud). They simply aren't treated the same way and nor should they be.

[rada]

I read your comment as essentially advocating vigilante justice as well. If you are not saying "we are free to steal if we think it's for the public good", then what are you saying?

[analog]

You're describing civil disobedience, not vigilante justice.