[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.

[mpyne]

"Vigilante justice" is simply justice applied outside of the legal framework.

I see what you're getting at with civil disobedience though... I suppose the difference is in scope and scale.

Someone passively resisting a bad law can certainly be said to not be a vigilante; they're not actively trying to to bring about their desired brand of justice, they are simply refusing to comply with the current legal version of it.

One would not expect to bring out change only by themselves via civil disobedience, it's power comes from being applied across a group of people. Vigilante justice is different; you simply fix whatever situation is unjust.

If Aaron had simply complied with his own manifesto (e.g. downloading an article at a time, organizing others to download articles, etc.) I think we could safely say he was simply being civilly disobedient.

But he kicked it up a notch. He used technology to speed up his extraction of the entire JSTOR database. He evaded network blocks in the process. When he finally could go no farther on Wifi he hooked his computer directly within the assumed-safe MIT subnet. In short, civil disobedience was taking too long for him and he decided to escalate.

So even if one agrees substantially with his desire for open access I hope it is understandable why people might disagree with his methods, and furthermore to understand why the legal system would disagree. We as a society have deliberately chosen to punish vigilantism because it breeds a world where justice applies only to those strong enough to enforce their worldview.

Although Aaron was not physically violent he certainly had a leg up on 99.9% of the rest of the U.S. population with regard to "cyberskills", does he not? If I stole a million cars and returned them without a scratch to their rightful owner in order to achieve some desirable positive goal I would still get in trouble, because I am not Caesar and therefore don't get to decide which laws do and do not apply to me (however virtuous I might be as a person).

We can debate about misdemeanor or felony, whether 3 months of prison or no jail time at all is appropriate but people seem to be shocked and amazed that the legal system would have taken an interest at all in this case, and I just don't understand why people think that.