Hacker News Reader

Comment by pdonis | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

> 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.

> 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.

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.

If they were even slightly concerned that the scope went beyond what they were aware of with JSTOR, they would've either immediately contacted police or disconnected the laptop. The timeline in the report outlines that they discovered the laptop at 8am, and were in internal communications with their bosses and MIT's lawyers before someone finally contacted police at 9:45am.

They knew what was going on before they found the laptop. They had been briefed by someone at MIT who was in contact with JSTOR. I suspect that everyone on the networking staff (and possibly most of the university) knew of the JSTOR downloading situation after the second incident in October. JSTOR had blocked MIT for 3 days, and that must have caught people's attention.

Once they found the laptop, they involved police despite knowing to a virtual certainty that the problem with the laptop was that it was scraping JSTOR, again. They didn't know yet that it was Aaron, but they would've known it would turn out to be someone ideologically just like him.

There was nothing suspicious about it. It was simply jeopardizing MIT's contract with JSTOR. The use of a data closet like that was very bad manners.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com