Comment by gonehome | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gonehome | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Aaron went into a place with public access internet (MIT) and had a python script download public documents that anyone on MIT's network had access (and the legal right) to download.

While an argument could be made that JSTOR didn't want people downloading so many so quickly they could have solved that other ways - nothing here was breaking the law. It was technically legal.

An argument could be made that Aaron planned to publicly release them to everyone on the internet for free (I didn't get to meet him personally, but from what I know about him I think this is likely). That was never part of the crimes he was charged for and frankly I'm not sure if it was even alleged. JSTOR understood this, dropped charges and backed out.

He was then charged with 13 felonies:

  Wire Fraud - 2 counts
  Computer Fraud - 5 counts
  Unlawfully Obtaining Information from a Protected Computer - 5 counts
  Recklessly Damaging a Protected Computer - 1 count

Aaron was someone who probably would have been acquitted ($1.5 million dollars in legal costs later), who's actions weren't illegal that was bullied with multiple decades in prison and driven to suicide because he was trying to do the right thing.

When asked about the government's actions in pursuing him, Carmen Ortiz defended her (and the government's) actions as "appropriate".

Is that Justice?

Copyright law was originally intended as an incentive for people to create, a deal with the government for a limited time monopoly in order to generate content for the public's benefit. The original spirit of the law has been lost - along with our republic. [1]

[1] http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_t...

The MIT network isn't "public." They let guests use it with proper registration. You ignore MIT's repeated attempts to lock him out and his working around their countermeasures each time, leading to more and more escalation. If he had just run his scraper exactly once and then stopped the first time he was kicked off, no one would have cared.

He also wasn't facing "multiple decades in prison." This has been debunked so many times it's getting exhausting, but once again I'll point out that his lawyer was not a complete hayseed and understood that, even if Aaron went to trial and was found guilty on every single count, he would face at most a few years in jail, and quite possibly no jail time at all.

What is the distinction between public and allows public guest use without registration? Yes it's MIT's network, but they were basically allowing public access.

Being pressured with multiple years in prison, 13 felonies and a 7 figure defense cost is a difficult problem to face. Even if your lawyer tells you 30 years in prison is not going to happen and worst case you'll be in prison for a year -- Even if he wasn't actually facing it - he was still being pressured with it (that's essentially the purpose of stringing together multiple charges for a plea).

It's not "basically allowing public access." MIT was actively and repeatedly kicking him off their network, and it got to the point where Aaron gave up and resorted to physically trespassing to regain access.

Facing criminal charges is indeed difficult. You don't need to make up stuff to make the problem sound worse than it is.

Even if he wasn't actually facing it - he was still being pressured with it

I know a little about this situation, but not the legal proceedings. Aaron downloaded JSTOR documents (bulk scrape) over the wireless network, and was blocked by the sysadmins (rate ban).

So he spoofed his MAC address, and the cat and mouse game continued. When wireless was throttled (and the ban/spoof game reduced the rate of download to something too slow), Aaron then accessed a data closet and plugged a cable into a switch, leaving his notebook in the switch room with a USB drive.

The admins traced the JSTOR downloads to the switch port, and installed a video camera to see who was accessing their switch.

Aaron would access the closet to retrieve his USB drive full of downloaded files, saw the camera, and on return visits he hid his face with a bike helmet. (He could see through the air slats on the helmet.)

These facts, called "atmospherics" by some, really changed my mind about the case. Prosecutors call this "intent" to gain unauthorized access to a network (the cisco switch and data closet, after repeated attempts to ban access).

I've also heard the prosecution was aggressive, and read this everywhere, mostly focusing on Ortiz as a person and her judgement (which worries me, since I don't know if we'd use the same 'aggressive' adjective for a male prosecutor). I think 'zealous' is the word lawyers use generally for being tough.

I don't know enough about computer crime to judge, but if this guy behaved this way on my network, I would call the police, frankly. A few events evading a ban? Ok fine. Account jigger and email or in-person discussion to get them to stop. Accessing a data closet to keep it up, and installing a cable to my switch, and installing gear? And then wearing a mask to get the hard drives? Wow. In my mind, all I can think of is: "he knows it's wrong".

So I think Aaron should have answered for this. What degree of prosecution would be non-"aggressive"? (And isn't the whole thing like an auction where the state starts high and pleas down?)

I think Aaron really just lost perspective (about access. Suicide is a whole other thing).

It's very sad, how it ended in Aaron's death, but for me, I just can't put that blood on Ortiz.

nowhere did i talk about "justice", i talked about current laws. do you feel parking tickets serve "justice"?

and again: http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/12/05/aaron_swartz_kev...

did he break into this wiring cabinet? did he install hardware there? is the video a fraud?

it's ironic that weev's at&t download was far easier to justify/defend than aaron's really bad decision to physically break into stuff.

The trespassing charges were dropped, but even if they weren't it's a bit of a stretch to say walking into an open closet and plugging in a laptop is breaking into a wiring cabinet. I can understand the argument for trespassing though.

The charges that actually went forward were erroneous and that's the current law that mattered.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com