cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/55039106
this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2025
1477 points (99.5% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
10356 readers
784 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nope! They made an example of because they didn't know how to deal with internet crimes so they decided he will be the scapegoat for their failures even though they knew his so called crimes didn't require such harsh punishment. They went after him so hard to make an example out of him to warn others. If you think they did it because of his beliefs you're doing injustice to what he went through.
I would rather firmly disagree with you, youre doing a greater injustice to him by ignoring how the articles alleged to be distributed were part of his long held beliefs and civic activism. Attributing this solely to "not knowing how to deal with internet crimes" doesn't really fit either - the Paypal 14, a cyber bullying case, the Morris worm, etc were all prior cases using the same act as a basis to charge him.
Let's be clear - he was a staunch and long term supporter of open access to information long before the incident at MIT. PACER is a good example of that, which had no charges brought against him.
In terms of the prosecution, yes, that was a decision by the Mass AG. That decision would not appear to have anything to do with "not knowing", and more to do with seeking to continue an overly broad interpretation of the computer fraud and abuse act. An interpretation that had been challenged by legal experts for years.
Now into the specifics here - the Mass AG based the prosecution around Swartz having an intent to distribute the materials. This is the part that has to do with his beliefs. His previous public statements regarding open access to information were part of this intent to distribute alleged by the Mass AG. So yes, his beliefs absolutely played a role in his prosecution (see the Guerilla Open Access Manifesto by Swartz)
Why it was such a harsh approach was based around, as mentioned above, the Mass AG looking to use this as an example of how others could be prosecuted, to push the limits of how the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act could be applied, opening up more options for the AG to be "tough on crime" (Carmen Ortiz, an Obama appointee who resigned when Trump was coming in).
To note, Carmen Ortiz has been accused by judges of stretching evidence, providing gross exaggerations of events, having "unusual" prosecutions. She oversaw the arrest of someone who kinda sorta looked like a wanted suspect, she agreed in pleas to lesser sentences and leniency but would then seek harsh penalties, tried to take motel via civil forfeiture despite the owner not having been involved/identified as part of/charged with any crimes.
TL;DR:
His beliefs absolutely played a role, and the US AG in Mass, Carmen Ortiz, often went waaayyyy beyond to get the harshest punishments possible.
So, I firmly disagree with your statement.
Edit: Cleaned up a sentence up top to be more clear. The Mass AG would allege intent to distribute due to his beliefs, though he had not actually distributed them.
I respect your opinion and let me say that I agree that his beliefs played a role but he wasn't punished harshly because of his beliefs. He was made an example not because of his beliefs but because the people in charge at the time wanted to show that they are in control. You feeling strongly about how the prosecution put together their remarks and how they used his own remarks against him I understand. (I'll tell you that I'm a lawyer with over 20 years of experience you want to believe me or not is up to you.) But I can tell you if they were doing it just because of his beliefs they could've charged him for each and every copyrighted material he downloaded from the servers. Considering he downloaded gigabytes of material in mostly text format they could've went an charge him for each and everyone of those. Just by doing that they could have easily finish his life with thousands of years of prison sentence and charge him hundreds of millions in monetary damages. Instead they turned it into one big case. You can check the law and see if it's possible or not. In the end let's agree to disagree. I wish you well and I hope that he is in peace.
That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it.
I would say his beliefs played a role in how prosecution handled it. I would say the AG was making a political play, she was on the lookout for something in the technology realm already.
Regarding this bit, he had not distributed anything and was permitted access to JSTOR and those materials. They pushed intent and his own words. There would be no basis for a copyright claim without distribution as he had access to those materials.
What they were hinging this on was his use of scripts making the access "unauthorized" by not using their interface directly. I don't see any way a copyright claim would be possible.
I'd say the only way he got such a harsh result was through the AGs abuse of the definitions of the computer fraud and abuse act, and the ignorance of the judiciary regarding most things technology.
Agreed, and I hope so as well.
I would like to clarify something so that there won't be any misunderstandings. Law doesn't require distribution or intent to distribute. Copying a copyrighted material without proper approval or license is enough. Which is what he did.
Below is the related section from the US Copyright Law, under section 506 Titled "Criminal Offences":
(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
As you can see they didn't need his intentions to distribute it was a factor used not required. I hope I made it clear about why I don't think it was because if his beliefs.
I wish you well.
And he had legitimate access to the materials on JSTOR which was never in question. Copyright would not come into play without distribution as he had every right to download the materials.
Ya, I have to agree with you. Don't wanna be at the fore front of and war.