| |
| ▲ | pdonis 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > He did something illegal Read the book Three Felonies A Day. The law is so bloated now that we all do illegal things all the time, we can't help it. What Swartz actually did was to download copies of scientific papers that should be in the public domain to begin with, because we paid for the research already with our tax money. The fact that such information is considered "proprietary" and JSTOR and other companies are able to keep it locked behind paywalls is an outrage. Further, after Swartz returned all the material he had downloaded and agreed not to do it again, both JSTOR and MIT said they were satisfied and no further action was needed (though JSTOR was more emphatic about it than MIT was). Which, combined with the above, should have ended the case then and there. | | |
| ▲ | 9x39 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Swartz actually did was to download copies of scientific papers That's the root, but I think what Swartz actually did was anger someone at MIT, who called the Secret Service. The federal involvement persisted even after JSTOR and the state quit, and they had him served on a plate with MIT's help. You can set a surprising amount of government force in action with a concerned phone call, as it turns out. | | |
| ▲ | pdonis 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I think what Swartz actually did was anger someone at MIT, who called the Secret Service. MIT was concerned that someone (they didn't know who it was at the time--in fact IIRC they didn't find out until the police told them after they caught Swartz) was using their network in a suspicious way. I don't know that anyone was "angered". > You can set a surprising amount of government force in action with a concerned phone call, as it turns out. I don't think the people at MIT who called in the police (and they were, IIRC, fairly low level people) had any idea what a shitstorm they were going to unleash. Nor do I think the (higher-level, but still IIRC not at the level of the top MIT administration) people at MIT who ended up interacting with the Federal prosecutor thought through what was actually going on as they should have, or had the issue considered by the MIT administration as a whole as it should have been. | | |
| ▲ | 9x39 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | MIT evidently added a camera. Later that day, the MIT police made their first contact with him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#United_States_v._... "When it was discovered, a video camera was placed in the room to record Swartz; his computer was left untouched. The recording was stopped once Swartz was identified," IME, months-long internal investigations in an org with Secret Service involvement would be unlikely to escape senior management, but I'm just speculating and only have the same info as everyone else. You might be right. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Quarrelsome 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think you're being hysterical. Getting threatened for 35 years in jail is absurd for the crime. Stating "oh well it would never have actually _been_ 35 years" is akin to pretending to punch someone and stopping just before you hit them and then mocking them for flinching. > I wasn't _actually_ going to hit you, quit being a baby. Which is why its actually illegal to do that to people in a lot of places. My issue is that the sentence is artificial and used for intimidation as opposed to being a rational basis for a justice system. Hence the mafia analogy. Imagine if the US had a maximum sentence of 35 years for mere possession of a firearm but in practice, it would only be used in very unlikely conditions. It wouldn't last a minute. It's only allowed to be like this because nobody cares about tech. | | |
| ▲ | tpmoney 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Imagine if the US had a maximum sentence of 35 years for mere possession of a firearm but in practice, it would only be used in very unlikely conditions. It wouldn't last a minute. It's only allowed to be like this because nobody cares about tech. This is effectively how all federal sentencing and reporting about that sentencing works, all the time. A lawyer blogger Popehat has talked about this for years[1]. Headlines pull add up all charges and the maximum statutory sentences for those and report it as if that's even remotely close to a likely outcome and it's not. In fact, Popehat actually wrote about that as it applied to Swartz in the aftermath of his suicide[2]. If you read about the Swartz prosecution, you saw people decrying the fact
that he was facing 35 years in prison. That's more than rapists and murders
serve, they say. But they are talking about the maximum possible sentences,
not any sentence he was remotely likely to get. Recently in the context of
another case I explained how federal sentencing works, and how it's driven by
an arcane set of rules producing a recommendation that federal judges often
follow — rules that on most occasions produce a result well below the
maximum possible sentence.
Which isn't to say that this sort of aggressive intimidation isn't bullshit. It is. But it's also not some unique "nobody cares about tech" thing.[1]: https://www.popehat.com/p/beware-the-flood-of-trump-sentenci... [2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20150604204913/http://www.popeha... |
| |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
