I don't think technological illiteracy plays a large part here, Aaron exploited a flaw in JSTORs ratelimiting system and continued doing so after being blocked several times by JSTOR administration. After that didn't work out he broke into a server cabinet at MIT.
The choice between "100% OK" and 30 years in jail is a false dichotomy. Nobody says Aaron Swartz was a saint without any flaw, and one can easily find many ways in which in hindsight one could suggest better action, especially if one doesn't actually have to act on their own advice. But that he was a fallible human being is not the same as accepting the treatment he's got from the US government. He was trying to fix an injustice and he was not harming anyone. Prosecutors have enough power and discretion to accommodate that if they wanted. They didn't want.
30 years in jail is a false dichotomy and people need to quit parroting that in relation to this case, it was never ever in any way going to be close to that.
Well, 30 years maybe a bit exaggerated, but multiple years in jail were well on the agenda if Swartz would not take the plea agreement, as the facts of the case were against him and the jury probably would not (and would be instructed not to) relate to his motives and why he did it. Then it would come to the sentencing and as the feds were determined to make an example of him... it would be hard to expect much leniency, especially given the fact that Swartz probably didn't think what he did was wrong (even if how he did it may be against he law) so he would not get the "regret" leniency too. So maybe not 30 years, but multiple years still, which is very harsh and can ruin one's life.
P.S. btw, please look up what "dichotomy" is. You can not have dichotomy of one thing, at least in the meaning of the word we're dealing with here.
To this, I can only add that there are a lot of bad laws and even more, much more, bad prosecutions, so sounding like every prosecution is right and if you don't like it, just don't break the law, is not only sounding mean and morally obtuse, but also very uninformed.
Sorry but serving six months jail time (and most likely less) for repeatedly breaking and entering is perfectly reasonable to me and not obtuse whatsoever.
Most on HN are outraged with this type of sentencing because it's someone they liked, but if it was anyone else it would be perfectly acceptable.
Did you spend time in federal prison? Are you dealing with convicted felon status? You seem to be awfully quick recommending people to sit in jail and accept the life of a convicted felon. It's either you recommend it from experience of it not being a big deal, or it is the obtuseness.
Essentially he was exploiting a vulnerability in JSTOR to mass download court documents, what if he was downloading credit cards instead? Or some sort of corporate secrets?
(Sure, credit cards and court documents are very very different. But the act here is the crime, not what he gains from it)
> Essentially he was exploiting a vulnerability in JSTOR to mass download court documents
He was downloading academic articles, not court documents. You're mixing up the JSTOR download and the time he pulled down PACER documents. He did have legitimate access to the JSTOR documents, but was bypassing rate limiting. In the process, he did do some things that were illegal, but nothing that honestly justified the Feds charging him with CFAA or wire fraud charges filed, nor anything that justified a felony conviction. What he was doing wasn't the sort of crime those laws were written to address and that they were intended to stop. The Feds. abused the ambiguities in poorly written laws to charge him.
> what if he was downloading credit cards instead? Or some sort of corporate secrets?
What if he was raping women? Or committing genocide?
> But the act here is the crime, not what he gains from it
Downloading scientific journals is not the same "act" as committing credit card fraud. It is an outrageous defect in the law that it doesn't adequately distinguish them.
Wow. You claim to know a lot about the case, but you don't even realize that JSTOR holds scientific papers, not court documents.
Swartz had previously downloaded court documents from a service called PACER. An FBI investigation was opened, but closed with no charges being filed; he was not prosecuted for that.
My issue is not the crime but the intention of the individual and whether or not his behaviour was fundamentally prosocial and/or in the national interest.
We have constitutions and laws specifically to product/advance those interests. If that is the standard by which we judge actions, then it change how we should view the case.
This debate has fueled technological literacy among the general population/legislative/judicial. Much like the fappening is doing for crypto/personal_security (Re: Android/Apple announcements). It further underlines the critical role that technology plays in our civil life.
This has been a crucial ongoing debate.