26-year old Aaron Swartz, co-founder of Reddit and the guy who developed the RSS protocol at age 14, took his own life on Friday. He was admittedly depressed, and was facing up to 35 years in prison and $1 million in fines in one of the most egregious cases of prosecutorial zealotry in recent memory. The fight against government control of the Internet will be much more difficult without him.
“Aaron’s death is not simply a personal tragedy. It is the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach. Decisions made by officials in the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney’s office and at MIT contributed to his death.”
Swartz was instrumental in defeating the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in 2011, and was a prolific hacktivist dedicated to keeping the Internet open and free from government control and intervention. He ran afoul of the Massachusetts US Attorney's office when he wrote a script to download hundreds of papers from JSTOR - a service he had legitimate access to.
In response to his suicide, MIT's website was hacked by Anonymous who posted the following:
"Whether or not the government contributed to his suicide, the government's prosecution of Swartz was a grotesque miscarriage of justice, a distorted and perverse shadow of the justice that Aaron died fighting for - freeing the publicly-funded scientific literature from a publishing system that makes it inaccessible to most of those who paid for it - enabling the collective betterment of the world through the facilitation of sharing - an ideal that we should all support."
MIT has pledged to investigate its own role in Swartz's suicide, but it is important to note that JSTOR wasn't coming after Swartz for anything and that this persecution was being led entirely by Mass. US Attorney Carmen Ortiz.
The Internet has lost one of its most creative champions, and he will be sorely missed.
Rest in peace, Aaron.
That is beyond depressing news.
It is insane to think that even highly successful people can go through that level of stress and all for a good cause of keeping the Internet free.
Here is an interesting write up from the expert witness (on Swartz's side) for the case of US vs. Swartz . It is interesting and worth a read as the author claims complete innocence for Swartz and makes a good case for it too. Here is the link:
http://io9.com/5975592/aaron-swartz-died-innocent-++-here-is-the-eviden…
The best paragraph (describing his alleged crime) is right here though:
"In short, Aaron Swartz was not the super hacker breathlessly described in the Government's indictment and forensic reports, and his actions did not pose a real danger to JSTOR, MIT or the public. He was an intelligent young man who found a loophole that would allow him to download a lot of documents quickly. This loophole was created intentionally by MIT and JSTOR, and was codified contractually in the piles of paperwork turned over during discovery."
The author even calls out the US Attorney for overcharging Swartz.
Worth a read, especially since he was one of the biggest hacktivists / voices for keeping the Internet government free.
RIP Aaron.
Wasn't he caught on surveillance cameras breaking into an MIT switching closet to retrieve hardware that he had planted to steal the files? It hardly sounds as innocent as portrayed...
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/secret-service/aaron-swartz-evidenc…
[quote=inkybinky]Wasn't he caught on surveillance cameras breaking into an MIT switching closet to retrieve hardware that he had planted to steal the files? It hardly sounds as innocent as portrayed...
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/secret-service/aaron-swartz-evidenc…]
Hardly "breaking into" a switching closet when the closet wasn't even locked. At best it's trespassing, not even B&E.
I don't consider myself a futurist by any means, but I predict that if the government doesn't back the fuck off and NOW, there's going to be a digital civil war in the next 50 years.
I'm interested/scared to see what cyber warfare will eventually become in my lifetime
As for the kid, MIT waived its option to charge. The prosecutor took it upon herself to make a case out of this for who know what reason. Can you say "Le Mis" ?
Now you can separately argue that the punishments are too harsh for this type of crime or that the prosecutor was too aggressive (as they sometimes are) or that these files should be free to the public to begin with. But let's not pretend that the guy didn't knowingly commit a pretty serious crime that he knew the consequences of beforehand.
Man this incident struck a nerve, thank you for posting Eddie.
As I see it, the knowledge belongs to the US taxpayer and the human race. I don't particularly care who slapped a flag or deed on it and intends to withhold the benefits until they generate a profit for themselves. I respect private property, I also understand the value of public property, and think the laws governing the two have been unfairly defined to favor those people making them and associated with them.So, breaking the law is the only realistic solution. Our founding fathers were criminals, so I don't see a necessary problem with that label. If prioritizing ethics over legality is suppressed, hoist that fucking pirate flag and declare war.
This kid's death is very sad and I don't know enough to take sides. But as you can see from the way I see things, I've already kind of taken sides. Sadly, the prosecutor is an Obama appointee, so I think I'm going to jettison my support of him very rapidly as this term progresses if things like this keep happening....the dems, for a very long time, trumpeted internet freedom until they got into office, proving that they are just a bunch of power hungry crooks like anyone else.
If I'm wrong, then show me.
RIP to another fallen yid.
This age of 'news-on-the-internet', where everybody feels the need to chime in through Facebook, is ridiculous. Seeing people arguing about whether or not Swartz committed a VIOLENT CRIME is nauseating..
I come from a long history of upping the punx, and even though I can see both sides, I think the way this case was being set up was just a tad overkill.
Though I agree that the government appears to have been overly aggressive litigating this case, I think it is equally clear that Swartz understood he was breaking the law and that he could be punished for his actions.
Either way, I believe it quite harsh to put Swartz's suicide on the conscience of state prosecutors. Internet moguls are placed under public scrutiny on a regular basis, and it is surely inappropriate to expect that opposing counsel could possibly have known that their actions might contribute to his suicide. Ultimately, Swartz missed out on his day in court, and we may never know how a judge would have ruled.
RIP Aaron, you were clearly a brilliant man destined for far more great things.
RIP, so sad. Any redditors on this site?
What we really lost is a successful person who dedicates his wealth and resources to the betterment of society, unlike most others who just write a check to some charity here and there.
Or at least his version of a better society. Let's not get carried away aggrandizing Swartz just because of this tragic event. There is a lot of grey area in the debate re: intellectual property and public domain.
Swartz decided to take matters into his own hands. And while public educators seem to be constantly cramming the virtuosity of civil disobedience down our throats, one who willingly disobeys laws of which he or she is aware must also be willing to stand the trials that are sure to follow. Swartz truly did himself a disservice here, as he was undoubtedly making progress on this issue about which he cared so deeply.
the guy was sketchy as fuck, what giant?
As a child.
As for his death: I don't think laying the blame on the prosecutors is entirely fair: we're looking at a depressed person who decided to kill themself instead of getting help, there's not much they could have done. They just kind of made things worse. As for what's legal or not, I frankly don't care...he did what he thought was right many times, the gov't just wanted to make an example out of him. He didn't violate the gov'ts territory for them to prosecute him, and the sad part is that such charges would probably not have held up in court.
Think of it this way: you walk into my house and take some food. The cops arrest you and I say "keep it, I don't care, have a nice life, whatever". Then some asshole prosecutor goes after you because they're pissed at you for something else.
That's the case here. MIT didn't press charges, the gov't was on a crusade and trying to get revenge for this guy shutting down their crappy SOPA idea. So this woman takes up the case and prosecutes him on the very thing MIT said they don't care about.
Not sure how anyone thinks there's any "nuance" in this case.
Feds being assholes. That's really it.
Don't read me wrongly, I completely agree with your assessment of the case - seems very unlikely it would hold up in court, presuming we have all the information necessary to make a balanced decision.
However, when you knowingly break the law, you have to accept that you have exposed yourself to the risk of being prosecuted (regardless of what party pursues the complaint). Either Swartz wasn't able to accept this burden, or he had a number of other stressors that were merely supplemented by the charges (I suspect the latter), but he made his own bed.
Don't be a jackass. About 80% of the apps on that smartphone in your pocket wouldn't work without the protocol this kid created when he was fucking 14.
But that's besides the point. Even if he was Steve Jobs, he's not above the law. He knew he was breaking the law in a big way. And he knew the consequences. It's sad that he didn't direct his talents toward more meaningful purposes. It's irresponsible to implicate the prosectors in his death when they were just doing their jobs.
lol, sry
tragic.
this guy looks a lot like john krasinski from The Office.
This is probably the best analysis I've read all day, and it's from the Harvard Business Review:
Aaron Swartz's "Crime" and the Business of Breaking the Law
The author brings up two recent cases which really speak to the prosecutorial misconduct in this one.
The first is the case of Synthes, a pharmaceutical company who decided to test out non-FDA approved bone cement by injecting it into the spines of patients, killing several of them. The executive behind what is essentially medical murder was convicted of a misdemeanor and was sentenced to nine months in jail.
The second case is near and dear to all of us on WSO - the illustrious case of HSBC. Here a bank launders an estimated $60 Trillion for drug cartels and terrorist organizations - including a wire transfer by an affiliate bank to one of the 9/11 hijackers on September 5, 2001 - and not a single fucking one of their executives saw even a minute's worth of jail time.
Then you look at Swartz's case. The prosecutor lined up felony after felony charge for what the author rightly points out amounts to "checking out too many library books" and this kid was facing 30 years in prison and a million dollars in fines. Even if the case got thrown out in court (probably pretty likely due to the lack of a victim), it still would've cost Swartz $1.5 million to defend himself to that point.
Now I ask you, how can you possibly fail to see the misapplication of any kind of justice in light of the above cases?
Go back through history, and I'm sure you can find a truck load of cases where individuals were punished inappropriately heavily or lightly based on a cursory examination of the evidence. That shouldn't surprise anyone.
Based on what little evidence and expert testimony to which I have access, it certainly appears to me that the prosecutors overstepped the bounds of reasonable pursuit.
Nevertheless, when you commit a crime, especially as a high-profile individual, you must be ready and willing to accept prosecutorial scrutiny. Repeatedly walking into a large post-secondary school's network room to hook your computer up to a switch in order to subvert the network owner's attempts to block your computer from the network is almost never acceptable!
What's more, it's equally clear that Swartz understood the illegality of his undertakings. I'm sure you've read his Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto, which declares:
The natural response to all of this is that MIT and JSTOR both elected not to prosecute Mr. Swartz and that the trespassing counts are not a part of the state's case. Naturally, I find it quite likely that the case against Swartz would have been thrown out. Simultaneously, I believe that Swartz should have been prepared for this (expensive) outcome. It is equally clear that this overstep should not be to blame for his decision to commit suicide.
Here's the petition calling for the removal of Swartz's prosecutor, U.S. District Attorney Carmen Ortiz: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-district-attorney-carmen-ortiz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck
Another ~6,000 signatures before the White House reviews the matter and responds.
well was this DA not prosecuting other people that deserved it? or did he just happen to be given this case and decided to pursue it? I'm completely ignorant on how this stuff works, but I don't see why it would be necessary to fire a guy for pressing charges on somebody who's suspected of doing something illegal when that's his job... I mean, unless he just let other people get away with it before this guy... then it'd still have to be looked at case by case. Again, I have no idea how this type of stuff works, just throwing it out there.
JSTOR is something academia holds sacred. There is an interest to keep those journal articles from hitting the streets, and that is why there was a law suit. I'm sure most of the public would side with Swartz's belief that the JSTOR articles should have been free for the public to access, but the public is usually on the side of free anything.
Swartz a Giant? Nobody had heard of this guy until today, and by nobody, I mean 99.8% of the population. Hell, I was surprised how many of the people I work with didn't know what redit was. That's not exactly Giant status in my opinion.
Quis sed ut incidunt ipsum atque facilis. Excepturi quia non sint nisi fuga. Enim itaque accusantium sed quam eius incidunt. Rerum enim quia aut soluta accusantium. Et rerum omnis quis blanditiis et et accusantium. Vero nostrum ut minima. A aut molestiae repellat tenetur et libero cumque.
Totam dolore qui ea dignissimos deserunt ea eos. Beatae ipsam voluptatem voluptatibus maiores et. Qui rem doloribus aut nulla ut.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Dolorum et delectus quia. Voluptatem rerum dolore temporibus nulla. Facilis dolores quia unde in ea nihil.
Hic vero fugit provident tenetur molestiae nisi ut. Odit ipsa repellat odit iure error porro. Et quis voluptate rem eos.
Qui et reprehenderit libero consequatur qui. Quis quas labore ducimus qui. Provident a cupiditate ea dolorum. Ea nihil neque id quasi modi.