Despite what Aaron's intentions were, he clearly knew he was doing something illegal. He broke into a building (closet?), setup a computer illegally and transferred information illegally. In addition to all of that, he tried to evade security when he knew he had been discovered.
It seems like there were many other (more reasonable) avenues that he could have taken to accomplish his goal. He's really the only one to blame for getting himself into this mess. I sincerely hope that he gets the punishment he deserves which should be a firm slap on the wrist. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of him getting any jail time, but if it comes to that then he'll have to deal with those consequences.
I disagree that there are other, more reasonable avenues to achieve the goal of putting as much information as possible into the public's hands. Breaking into a closet that you think you can access and downloading a lot of it is undeniably faster and more effective than lobbying or voting or petitioning companies or building alternative publishing mechanisms (all of which are also avenues which he has personally taken, to great effect.)
If ten thousand people took Aaron's approach and simply got caught less, society would be significantly better off for it.
Indeed, one of the facets of civil disobedience is that you have to be willing to accept the consequences. As much as we may like the activist, we can't support making an exception to the law, because that would invite anarchy.
However, this logic rapidly breaks down when the prosecution is vindictive and the consequences disproportionate, as they are in this case. Before the indictment was expanded, he was facing up to 35 years in prison.[1] Even if he doesn't get that, he'll likely bankrupt himself and his family defending himself, and suffer consequences for years to come. No one should have to "deal with" this. It's the government that deserves the blame for his fate, not him.
> we can't support making an exception to the law, because that would invite anarchy.
Exceptions to the law are made every day - it is hardly applied at all when the violators are politicians, big media organizations, and bankers. I'd agree we don't already make exceptions to the law when high profile connected public figures (eg the ex-head of MFG and the guy who authorized F&F) are indicted for anything.
That's a great point and yet another reason why it's becoming increasingly difficult to accept the argument that activists who perform civil disobedience must accept the consequences.
I'm not familiar with the specifics in this case, but if it's like most other cases they're not pushing for 35 years. They're pushing for him to take a much shorter sentence by threatening 35 years. (It's still ridiculous, but my point is they probably don't think 35 years is appropriate for his crime -- they think 35 years is appropriate for getting him to accept their deal)
While I do not disagree, one point I would like to add regarding the notion of "breaking into a computer closet, etc.". Someone, a Harvard student, recently posted to HN a "love letter" to MIT. The letter went into detail about how liberal MIT is with its resources for students. And how that really has benefitted her studies. It seems MIT is somewhat unique, at least vis-a-vis other universities in the region, in their approach to making resources available to "almost anyone" (i.e. you do not need to be an MIT student) for academic purposes.
Is it possible that if he were to have tried this stunt at another institution he would not have so easily succeeded? Was he simply taking advantage of MIT's liberal policies with respect to computer resources? Or is MIT's "do whatever you need to do" environment irrelevant... as we ponder thoughts of "breaking and entering". Just a thought. Maybe it's irrelevant. What do you think?
MIT alum here. Lots of MIT resources are accessible to almost anyone. That doesn't mean they all are -- it's easy to get into our computer labs, but the network closets are actually off-limits to anyone other than network admins. Some things are more liberal, but that's not a free license to do whatever you want.
Nor does it mean it's acceptable to abuse MIT's trust. In particular, presumably as a result of this case, JSTOR now requires strong authentication from the individual MIT account holder, instead of permitting access from MIT's IP address space as they used to.
Finally, yes, MIT does have an "it's better to ask forgiveness than permission" culture. But that very clearly only applies to legitimate MIT affiliates. I know of at least one other legal case (of perhaps equivalent importance) where MIT's lawyers said, if this guy were an MIT student or staff member, we'd go to bat for him, but since he's not, take the content down.
Thanks for this. I was just curious. "Abusing trust" is exactly the type of thought I had when I first read about this case. It sounded to me like MIT is very generous with letting people use the computer labs and he really took these privileges a little too far. But being far from MIT I can only form a picture from what I read. Thanks for the color.
> He's really the only one to blame for getting himself into this mess.
Not historically, due to principles of solidarity. In decent leftist movements, activists expect assistance from others. I heard one way to assess a leftist movement is how much support incarcerated people get.
(Imagine blame-oriented workplaces where people are completely on their own if something goes wrong. Who'd want to work in such a toxic, self-defeating environment?)
After all, prison is often kind of a limited death penalty, imposed by the state. You're stripped away from social bonds and freedom. (Particularly in the US; though fortunately Aaron is wealthy and white, a great advantage. Not to mention that he was engaged in a rather elite crime.)
Leftist is completely redundant in the above comment. If you don't have a committed hard core of true believers you have a talking shop not a poitical mvement; left or right.
> I sincerely hope that he gets the punishment he deserves which should be a firm slap on the wrist.
A felony, even without any jail time, is an irreversible and life changing punishment. He will no longer be able to vote or (possibly?) leave the country, or work at various organizations and corporations that automatically do not hire felons.
Edit: didn't know that felons could still get passports. They can have trouble getting visa's for sure though.
This is one of the biggest misconceptions about voting out there. The suspension of your voting rights is dependent on the state in which your felony is committed. There are only 12 states where it can be suspended for life and even then it's usually dependent on the crime (i.e. in Nebraska only those convicted of treason will lose the right for life.) Voting rights are restored in all other states under different conditions.
> He will no longer be able to vote or leave the country,
Why leaving the country would be a problem? I haven't heard of that one before. Say what if wants to fly to Europe for vacation, he can't because he was convicted of a felony?
Swartz is smart and has interned for (law professor) Larry Lessig.
I doubt he's even going to try to make the case he didn't know it was illegal.
This is civil disobedience against unjust laws at its best.
To quote Wikipedia's summary of Martin Luther King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail"
Against the clergymen’s assertion that the demonstration was against the law, he argued that not only was civil disobedience justified in the face of unjust laws, but that "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."[1]
It seems like there were many other (more reasonable) avenues that he could have taken to accomplish his goal. He's really the only one to blame for getting himself into this mess. I sincerely hope that he gets the punishment he deserves which should be a firm slap on the wrist. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of him getting any jail time, but if it comes to that then he'll have to deal with those consequences.