The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartzs-crime/

by secalex • 14 years ago

837 88 14 years ago

ghshephard2• 14 years ago

I wasn't aware the closet was unlocked. And apparently used by a homeless guy to store his stuff. So, even the bare minimum real crime that I thought he was guilty of (Breaking into a closet) which is a crime serviceable by community service in this context - turns out not to have occurred.

I've been sad all morning. Reading this article just makes me angry.

theevocater• 14 years ago

Not only that but the actual trespassing charge was dropped. So it wasn't even part of the case!

danso2• 14 years ago

I didn't even realize that. The most salacious and unsympathetic of the allegations is how Swartz got physical access...othherwise, how different is what he did than what people who go to Starbucks and torrent illegally? Just magnitude?

bcn• 14 years ago

"...an unlocked closet on an open campus, one which was also used to store personal effects by a homeless man."

mayneack• 14 years ago

MIT is very open. They just put ID card readers on the student center in the last month or so. I used to see homeless people in the computer labs around campus and the student center all the time.

hso9791• 14 years ago

There is something about this case that makes me feel an injustice has been done. Not by Aaron Swartz, but by the apparatus investigating and prosecuting this case.

Sadly, I wonder how frequent these witch hunts are in the USA. The Larsgard story is another, prime example of how misconstrued the narratives of prosecuting attorneys can get - without any risk to their own career.

(Edit:) This is just one out of a few, key reasons that I do not want to visit nor work in the USA. The risk that one may get to pay for some a..hole's political aspirations.

antr• 14 years ago

Of all the great stories and memories on Aaron that have been shared all day today, I believe this story is the one that the general public should really read. Until yesterday, most Aaron vs USA stories had a negative angle on Aaron, and this one really shines a light on the ridiculous witch-hunt lead by the US Attorney.

doe88• 14 years ago

It's even lower than what I expected. I remember having read one time there was allegedly a copied cookie involved (which already wasn't what I would call a hack), but it seems that's not even the case. I'm astonished how such a small offense could bring such huge charges.

nateware• 14 years ago

Agreed, if that article is accurate those charges are ludicrous. There are plugins for every major browser that basically do the exact same thing, which any average layperson can use. What's next, claiming that AdBlock is inspecting and subverting Internet traffic, and hence a crime under the Wiretap Act?

CJefferson2• 14 years ago

The law is not interested in how easy a crime is technically to perform. Lots of crimes are serious and really easy. (This crime should still not have been charged, but do not say easy to commit crimes should have low penalties)

ojbyrne• 14 years ago

The other stories were sad, but this one is disgusting. I hope that Aaron's death actually changes things.

jzone32• 14 years ago

Did Aaron release the articles, or just download them? If he released them, using what medium?

erichocean3• 14 years ago

He returned all of the articles he downloaded to JSTOR when he was asked to. He did not distribute them.

UPDATE: Here's JSTOR's confirmation of the above: http://about.jstor.org/statement-swartz

omarchowdhury• 14 years ago

How do you return something that was downloaded?

jzone32• 14 years ago

In that case, if the trespassing charge was dropped, what was he being charged with? Sorry, I do not know a lot about this story.

smackfu• 14 years ago

I don't think he had a chance to distribute them, because the high volume of downloading was noticed and they tracked the computer down and then caught him. The plan was certainly to distribute them of he had not been caught, AFAIK.

todayiamme3• 14 years ago

The only conclusion I can draw from his life and the events leading up to his demise is that he must have upset someone deeply entrenched in the circles of power. Otherwise the witch-hunt just doesn't make any sense. After all ask yourself what motive did the prosecutor possess for going after him like that?

andrewtbham• 14 years ago

Yeh I have thought the same thing. So, who could it be?

todayiamme3• 14 years ago

I doubt it if we'll ever know. Where I'm from such influence is exercised discreetly in back rooms over bottles of blue label, and I have a feeling that the US isn't too different. It is not my intention to sound conspiratorial or expound conspiracy theories, I'm simply try to state the underlying truism that this world isn't as neat, fair or rational as we would like it to be. It feels very uncomfortable to admit this, but the harsh truth is that it isn't just about who you are, it's also about who you know.

In a just, rational world, Aaron would have been lauded as a hero, but our world isn't that world. Our world is one where influence carries more weight than the power of ideas and even though ideas may win in the long term, the effect of power wielded by certain individuals is more immediate and almost always more corrosive.

rprasad5• 14 years ago

No conspiracy, guys.

The prosecutor was just doing her job. A simple case like Aaron's probably took up less than 1% of her week. It may have been a big case to Aaron, but compared to their normal cases, it was a relative vacation for the prosecutors working on it.

The problem was not that Aaron "upset someone deeply entranched." The problem is that Aaron's activities fall into the definition of a particular form of electronic crime which may be overbroad. Federal prosecutors don't get to decide if laws are overbroad or unconstitutional and choose not to enforce the law (because this discretion was historically used to excuse many white defendants accused of lynching black men in the South). They enforce all of the laws on the books unless someone with legal discretion (i.e. ,the head of the DOJ or the president) issues an order telling them not to enforce a particular (set of) law(s).

pekk• 14 years ago

Federal prosecutors do have a lot of discretion. I don't disagree with much of what you say, but this is just out of control and the only way for it to even start to get fixed is for heads to roll.

drzaiusapelord4• 14 years ago

So you're an up and coming prosecutor and handed the punk kid that took all those federal court documents and gave your colleagues a big middle finger when they tried to stop him.

Then JSTOR tells you to knock it off, but you proceed anyway.

And all this happens without Ortiz having any idea? Come on.

No one is saying Obama would know about this, but a bureaucrat on Ortiz's level does because its her job.

todayiamme3• 14 years ago

I think that the central assumption of your post is that I'm making the assumption that there was a systematic conspiracy to bring him to ruin. I am not alleging that. Neither am I stating anything towards the question whether or not his actions ran afoul of the spirit of the law. (indeed as this man asserts, there is reason to question that as well) I am simply stating an observation based upon the following;

a) the prosecutor's office has limited, finite resources to pursue cases

b) The prosecutor has discretion over the choice of cases

c) The office is judged by its record when it comes to the number of convictions and the quality of the cases pursued

d) It is reasonable to assume that the prosecutor acts as an agent, pursuing their own agenda versus the spirit of their duties. (the principal agent problem)

e) The legalities in Aaron's case are complicated and understood by a few.

f) It is also reasonable to assume that the case is inherently more risky than an open and shut guilty conviction, due to various factors such as, 1) the desire of MIT, JSTOR not to prosecute themselves, 2) expert witnesses such as the author of the article willing to provide testimony against the case, 3) the lack of a direct victim, and 4) questions over the inherent legality of the action itself.

g) In the above context it is reasonable to assert that the prosecutor without their well established tricks may have indeed lost this one if Aaron had the resources to have his day in court.

h) Aaron has a demonstrated previous track record of acting against the interests of the US govt. and the individuals it consists of.

i) Those individuals within the government have a social network

j) The said individuals are capable of and are willing to influence one another through this network

k) The prosecutor is a part of such a network by her very position within the government.

It is therefore reasonable to assume from the above assertions that it is likely the prosecutor was influenced to pursue the case with more rigour than necessary.

brown9-2• 14 years ago

It may have been a big case to Aaron, but compared to their normal cases, it was a relative vacation for the prosecutors working on it.

This makes it even sadder then.

darkarmani3• 14 years ago

> The prosecutor was just doing her job.

If that is the case, then she is BAD at her job. You can't have it both ways. Either way, let everyone know that she is either bad at her job or overzealous.

askimto• 14 years ago

Right right she was forced to do it.

temphn4• 14 years ago

  Federal prosecutors don't get to decide if laws are   
  overbroad or unconstitutional and choose not to enforce the 
  law...They enforce all of the laws on the books unless 
  someone with legal discretion (i.e. ,the head of the DOJ or 
  the president) issues an order telling them not to enforce 
  a particular (set of) law(s).

Simply untrue.

"The USA [US Attorney] is invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority."

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit...

  The United States Attorney, within his/her district, has 
  plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters. 
  This authority is exercised under the supervision and 
  direction of the Attorney General and his/her delegates.

  The statutory duty to prosecute for all offenses against 
  the United States (28 U.S.C. § 547) carries with it the 
  authority necessary to perform this duty. The USA is 
  invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney 
  General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of 
  such authority.

  The authority, discretionary power, and responsibilities of 
  the United States Attorney with relation to criminal 
  matters encompass without limitation by enumeration the 
  following:

  Investigating suspected or alleged offenses against the 
  United States, see USAM 9-2.010;

  Causing investigations to be conducted by the appropriate 
  federal law enforcement agencies, see USAM 9-2.010;

  Declining prosecution, see USAM 9-2.020;

  Authorizing prosecution, see USAM 9-2.030;

  Determining the manner of prosecuting and deciding trial 
  related questions;

  Recommending whether to appeal or not to appeal from an 
  adverse ruling or decision, see USAM 9-2.170;

  Dismissing prosecutions, see USAM 9-2.050; and

  Handling civil matters related thereto which are under the 
  supervision of the Criminal Division.

notatoad• 14 years ago

Does the US Federal Court count as 'someone deeply entrenched in the circles of power'? They tried to go after him for freeing documents from PACER and failed, so they had to find some other way to get at him. And then when he committed the same crime (freeing information) again, the government had the perfect opportunity.

larrys• 14 years ago

"I know a criminal hack when I see it, and Aaron’s downloading of journal articles from an unlocked closet is not an offense worth 35 years in jail."

Prosecutors regularly ask for outrageous sentences which from my observation are rarely granted.

Here is the case of Mark Drier. Government asked for 150 years, he got 20 years:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/13/breaking-marc-dreier-sen...

Michael Miliken theoretically could have faced 520 years:

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/30/business/junk-bond-leader-...

This is what happened (he got 10 and that was reduced):

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/06/business/milken-s-sentence...

drzaiusapelord4• 14 years ago

So in a best case scenario, let me repeat that - best case scenario, here we're going to take a delicate genius and put him into jail where there's a 7% chance of being sexually assaulted for about 5-10 years?

Look, you can judge him how you please, but don't tell me about about how horribly Turing was oppressed if you won't accept guys like Swartz got the same treatment.

Can you imagine working on a startup, clearing a couple mil, spending your life fighting for your ideals to only have EVERYTHING taken away by some overzealous prosecutor? Can you imagine watching your 2 million dollar nest egg go to lawyers who tell you that you probably will need to serve time? Can you imagine waking up and knowing that in 6 months you'll be telling everyone you know that you will be going away for 10 years? That all you've done will be taken from you? Or how utterly demoralizing it must be to realize that Ortiz cannot be stopped because of how powerful the federal government is? The level of defeat here and the stakes involved? That your reputation and the reputation of everyone and everything you touched will be destroyed the day you take the plea bargain? Knowing the coming storm will hit you soon and there's nothing you can do to stop it?

If there's any justfiable reason for suicide in this crazy world its being railroaded by a government with infinite resources and knowing that by the time you get out of prison you'll be 10 years older, never allowed to touch a computer, be seen as a horrible felon on par with Charles Manson, and come out deeply in debt and completely dead inside.

CJefferson2• 14 years ago

I really don't like this argument. Being a delicate genius. , or head of a startup, doesn't mean you get a "get out of jail free" card. It should be completely irrelevant.

Now, I don't think the laws Swartz broke are fair. But you seem to be implying he should of hot special treatment because he was special. That is not how the law should work.

mjn2• 14 years ago

Perhaps I've gone soft-European after living in Denmark for a bit now, but putting people in jail for double-digit numbers of years as the reduced sentences for nonviolent crimes seems bizarrely harsh. IIRC, studies don't find that particularly long sentences really increase the deterrent effect, either.

VikingCoder• 14 years ago

I can't remember a specific incident, but I'm fairly certain I've done things more "inconsiderate" than this.

Cripes, this reads like something Larry and Sergey would have done in the early days of Backrub (later Google), not something that you get prosecuted for and face the possibility of 35 years in jail for.

d0m• 14 years ago

Is this the reason why he committed suicide? As far as I understand, there really was no crime at all. Hell, by these standards, Mark Zuckerberg should get 70 years in prison for downloading some pictures. It's hard to believe he was persecuted for years because of that. Still, a part of me believes there had to be a stronger reason to commit suicide. I mean, we're not talking about a random stranger.. it's Aaron. He's fought all his life for things and menaces way bigger than that. This is odd.

exodust• 14 years ago

I thought it was odd too, then I read his 2007 short story post "A Moment Before Dying" where he originally had the character's name as Aaron before changing it to Alex after concerned friends flooded in. It's a bizarre and quite frankly terrible piece where he repeats more than once the line "The day Aaron killed himself...".

It won't win any literary awards, but it indicates he could get himself caught in a dark place given circumstances. It's actually one of the more blatant "hey everyone I'm suicidal" messages I've heard of outside of actual self-harm from failed suicide attempts.

As always, friends can't be babysitting each other 24/7. He felt he should check out early, ok, well not easy to prevent people doing that if they're set in their ways.

jacoblyles• 14 years ago

This article misses the main point. Even if he did break locks and crack authentication, what he did would still be morally right.

SoftwareMaven• 14 years ago

I very seriously considered MIT for my undergrad work, including doing the requisite alumni interview. I eventually decided the nation's 16th ranked computer science program was good enough, especially since they wanted to pay for me.

This whole time, I've had a piece of me that wished I'd done it (a very small piece, since 1/2 of my kids were born in that timeframe). Today is the first day when I can honestly say I'm glad I'm in no way associated with MIT.

Yaa101• 14 years ago

The United States are broken beyond repair, this is just the beginning of the shitstorm of corruption that has been building up since the end of the 19th century.

zaidf3• 14 years ago

To people wondering if prosecutors have a choice, they absolutely do. I was recipient of an NSF check of over $10,000 from a guy with a history of writing bad checks(a criminal offense). It is a clear cut case with ample proof and victims. Yet the DA's office in neither NYC or San Francisco has taken action against him for over a year.

Meanwhile the guy continues to scam more and more people, pushing one woman to brink of shutting down her business. I know because I made a site(http://cliffkaplanfraud.com) and the stories that trickle in are gut wrenching and infuriating.

So yes, the DA's office seems to have a lot of power to pursue someone unlike what some people here suggest.

rprasad5• 14 years ago

1) A bad check is a state level offense, not a federal offense, and the discretion afforded to state and local prosecutors is far greater than the discretion afforded federal prosecutors (though federal prosecutors have broader powers).

2) They may have prioritized murders and rapes over crimes, such as bad-check-passing, that can be remedied in a civil courtroom. That's generally what happens when state and local budgets get cut. For example, in 2009 and 2010, San Bernardino and Riverside counties simply did not enforce drug possession charges for meth or marijuana for quantities below the dealer amount because they didn't have the prosecutorial resources to handle those cases after prioritizing violent crimes.

3) HIRE A LAWYER. Winning a case against him in civil court for passing a bad check is pretty much guaranteed to spawn a criminal case because you'll have handed the prosecutors their case; they won't have to redirect many resources away from serious crimes.

zaidf3• 14 years ago

1. Guaranteed? Man already has multiple suits and judgements against him in civil court in past few years in addition to having servdd time years ago for a similar crime. He even has a warrant out in another state AFAIK. No criminal charges in NY(where I am based) or California(where he and many of his victims are).

2. It's very hard collecting money from him even after you win the judgement, from my conversations with those who have. In the end, I risk taking an even bigger hit especially if he countersues(even the odd lawyer willing to work on contingency warns me that he will almost certainly countersue for which I will need to pay out of pocket)

My best option in light of these realizations was to build this site which seems to have at least made a dent in his ability to scam. For example, the guy has been playing with the spelling of his name, at least partially I'm guessing so my site does not pull up when his next victim googles.

temphn4• 14 years ago

Please stop posting this misinformation about federal prosecutors lacking discretion. It is a completely false statement.

"The USA [US Attorney] is invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority."

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit...

  The United States Attorney, within his/her district, has 
  plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters. 
  This authority is exercised under the supervision and 
  direction of the Attorney General and his/her delegates.

  The statutory duty to prosecute for all offenses against 
  the United States (28 U.S.C. § 547) carries with it the 
  authority necessary to perform this duty. The USA is 
  invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney 
  General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of 
  such authority.

  The authority, discretionary power, and responsibilities of 
  the United States Attorney with relation to criminal 
  matters encompass without limitation by enumeration the 
  following:

  Investigating suspected or alleged offenses against the 
  United States, see USAM 9-2.010;

  Causing investigations to be conducted by the appropriate 
  federal law enforcement agencies, see USAM 9-2.010;

  Declining prosecution, see USAM 9-2.020;

  Authorizing prosecution, see USAM 9-2.030;

  Determining the manner of prosecuting and deciding trial 
  related questions;

  Recommending whether to appeal or not to appeal from an 
  adverse ruling or decision, see USAM 9-2.170;

  Dismissing prosecutions, see USAM 9-2.050; and

  Handling civil matters related thereto which are under the 
  supervision of the Criminal Division.

InclinedPlane• 14 years ago

"Hire a lawyer." To enforce criminal law and effective $10,000 theft. Do we no longer live in a civilized country anymore?

Meanwhile, what is the expected RoI on hiring a lawyer to recoup a $10,000 debt? Especially if the guy is a deadbeat? Probably somewhere around negative $50k, I'd wager.

cowsandmilk• 14 years ago

Many people have wondered who to point the finger at within MIT. I find it incredibly enlightening that he chooses to point a finger by linking to MIT's Office of the General Counsel.

mburshteyn• 14 years ago

The 9th circuit, followed by the 4th, has been limiting the CFAA's scope precisely due to the concern about prosecutorial abuse and criminalizing simple unauthorized system access. I wonder if this case would have moved forward if the alleged events happened in San Francisco.

From US v. Nosal, 676 F. 3d 854 (9th Cir.):

"The government assures us that, whatever the scope of the CFAA, it won't prosecute minor violations. But we shouldn't have to live at the mercy of our local prosecutor. Cf. United States v. Stevens, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 1591, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010) ("We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the Government promised to use it responsibly."). And it's not clear we can trust the government when a tempting target comes along. Take the case of the mom who posed as a 17-year-old boy and cyber-bullied her daughter's classmate. The Justice Department prosecuted her under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) for violating MySpace's terms of service, which prohibited lying about identifying information, including age. See United States v. Drew, 259 F.R.D. 449 (C.D.Cal.2009). Lying on social media websites is common: People shave years off their age, add inches to their height and drop pounds from their weight. The difference between puffery and prosecution may depend on whether you happen to be someone an AUSA has reason to go after.

In United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 108 S.Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788 (1988), the Supreme Court refused to adopt the government's broad interpretation of a statute because it would "criminalize a broad range of day-to-day activity." Id. at 949, 108 S.Ct. 2751. Applying the rule of lenity, the Court warned that the broader statutory interpretation would "delegate to prosecutors and juries the inherently legislative task of determining what type of ... activities are so morally reprehensible that they should be punished as crimes" and would "subject individuals to the risk of arbitrary or discriminatory prosecution and conviction." Id. By giving that much power to prosecutors, we're inviting discriminatory and arbitrary enforcement."

*disclaimer: I am not a lawyer

watmough• 14 years ago

I remember reading about this 'hack' at the time.

I just can't believe that it ended in Aaron taking his own life. I'm sure anyone paying attention to this will be very angry and sad.

jebblue• 14 years ago

>> The JSTOR application lacked even the most basic controls to prevent what they might consider abusive behavior

Was he allowed to download the documents? It doesn't matter what controls were in place. The question is basic, did he get something he was not authorized to take?

The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

Related Stories