DEAD. Murder? usa internet LAW REFORM REQUIRED!

This directly affects and sets a precedent for ALL INTERNET USERS in the USA:


Wikipedia: Aaron Swartz

"Aaron’s downloading of journal articles from an unlocked closet is not an offense worth 35 years in jail." [Or death.]


Did the Government Drive Aaron Swartz to Suicide?

Even though Swartz was charged under an anti-hacking statute, he was not accused of hacking anyone’s computer. With unauthorized software, he simply used his own computer to download more published articles than allowed.


Why the Prosecution of Internet Activist Aaron Swartz Matters to You, Personally

(Under federal law, Swartz would have faced less prison time if he'd committed manslaughter.)

And here's where the story gets personal -- relevant to you -- dear reader.

Simply put, you are most likely a criminal given the same sort of broad reading of the CFAA that Ortiz's office used to go after Swartz.


And then there is also the aspect of how the "plea bargaining system" appears to be in total disrupt and a tool for extra-judicial persecution... In this example, unto death of the victim.


Hence: ALL AMERICANS ARE CRIMINAL?

Disgusted!
Martin

Essential disclaimer: All just my own personal views as always.

This directly affects and sets a precedent for ALL INTERNET USERS in the USA:

[...]

Why the Prosecution of Internet Activist Aaron Swartz Matters to You, Personally

(Under federal law, Swartz would have faced less prison time if he'd committed manslaughter.)

And here's where the story gets personal -- relevant to you -- dear reader.

Simply put, you are most likely a criminal given the same sort of broad reading of the CFAA that Ortiz's office used to go after Swartz.

I for one am getting sick of being called a criminal. ...

... caught doing something stupid that should have been punished. Not like the prosicutor wanted, But he decided he wanted the cowards way out. ...

He should have gone to court and seen what would have happend. Thats why we have juries over here. And appeals courts. ...

This directly affects and sets a precedent for ALL INTERNET USERS in the USA:

[...]

Why the Prosecution of Internet Activist Aaron Swartz Matters to You, Personally

(Under federal law, Swartz would have faced less prison time if he'd committed manslaughter.)

And here's where the story gets personal -- relevant to you -- dear reader.

Simply put, you are most likely a criminal given the same sort of broad reading of the CFAA that Ortiz's office used to go after Swartz.

I for one am getting sick of being called a criminal. ...

... caught doing something stupid that should have been punished. Not like the prosicutor wanted, But he decided he wanted the cowards way out. ...

He should have gone to court and seen what would have happend. Thats why we have juries over here. And appeals courts. ...

Apparently, according to the RIAA, MPIAA, and "Hollywood", and Ortiz's office, you most certainly will be criminal punishable by over 50 years in an American jail.


Note that your predecessor Swartz exhausted all his money defending himself.

So... What should be the punishment for opening an unlocked closet and exceeding your permitted internet download limit?


Only in America, supposedly the land of the free?

Disgusted!
Martin

Essential disclaimer: All just my own personal views as always.

I for one am getting sick of being called a criminal.

Clearly, you are not reading the posts in full.

I for one am getting sick of being called a criminal.

Clearly, you are not reading the posts in full.

Well then please enlighten me.

...
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

I suppose we should really look at the Grand Jury indictment
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/09/swartzsuperseding.pdf
and not rely on sensationalist media reports.

A less sensational analysis is here:
http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/

III. Conclusion

My conclusion, at least based on what we know so far, is that the legal charges against Swartz were pretty much legit. Three of them are pretty strong; one is plausible but we would need to know more facts to be sure. Of course, there may have been reasons not to charge Swartz even though he had violated these statutes or to offer him a lenient plea. I’ll take on those questions in my next post. But to the extent we’re focused on just what the law is, I think that what Swartz was alleged to have done fits pretty well with the charges that were brought.

Why are you hearing that Swartz faced 35 or 50 years if it was not true? First, government press releases like to trumpet the maximum theoretical numbers. Authors of the press releases will just count up the crimes and the add up the theoretical maximum punishments while largely or completely ignoring the reality of the likely much lower sentence. The practice is generally justified by its possible general deterrent value: perhaps word of the high punishment faced in theory will get to others who might commit the crime and will scare them away. And unfortunately, uninformed reporters who are new to the crime beat sometimes pick up that number and report it as truth. A lot of people repeat it, as they figure it must be right if it was in the news.
...
To calculate how much time Swartz might have faced if he went to trial and was cvonvicted, we neeed to consider the relevant provision of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, Section 2B1.1. Under that provision, the actual sentence that would have been imposed in Swartz’s case would depend largely on how you measure the pecuniary harm — that is, the loss in dollar amounts — caused or intended to be caused by Swartz’s conduct.
...
According to Swartz’s defense attorneys, prosecutors claimed that they thought the judge might impose a Guidelines sentence as much as 7 years if Swartz went to trial and was convicted. That’s consistent with a loss valuation in the range of millions of dollars. In contrast, Swartz’s lawyers thought that Swartz might get just probation, which is consistent with a loss calculation at or less than $10,000.
...
The alternative sentence to consider is what Swartz would have received if he had agreed to plead guilty. According to Swartz’s lawyers, the prosecutors in the case offered two different pleas. First, they would agree to a sentence of four months if Swartz agreed to plead guilty to the felonies. And second, they could agree to a deal in which Swartz agreed to plead guilty, the government would argue for a 6 month sentence, and Swartz could argue for a lesser sentence (presumably including probation). In all likelihood, the judge would have then sentenced Swartz to 4 months under the 1st plea and whatever the judge thought appropriate, up to 6 months, under the second plea.

So, realistically, Swartz was facing anything from probation to a few years in jail if he went to trial — depending largely on how you value the loss he caused — and either a 4 months in jail or 0-6 months in jail if he pled guilty.

...
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

You've said that repeatedly. Which makes me wonder if you've missed the point. here are some questions you should be asking:

Why is downloading research papers and bigger crime that rape or murder?

I suppose we should really look at the Grand Jury indictment
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/09/swartzsuperseding.pdf
and not rely on sensationalist media reports.

Thanks for that link Gary. Very good reading.

Swartz was not some misguided young man swayed by altruistic goals. He was a thief who knew what he was doing was downright wrong. He continually used various ruses to hide his tracks while stealing documents. For over 3 months yet.

If he had such issues with Jstor he could have used other means to make his point. Stealing documents with the point of placing them on a file sharing system is going to far.

So sorry Martin, Swartz was no poor internet geek who just made a little mistake. He was a thief by any definition.

And why does internet law in the US need to be changed. So spoiled rotten kids can rip music and movies to share with no recomp to the people who spent money to make them.

Seems the law we have is working as it was intended. Is it perfect? No but what law is?
____________

A good summary is given in this media report:


Has Aaron Swartz's death made him an internet 'martyr'?

Aaron Swartz was many things - a brilliant young technologist, an entrepreneur, and an advocate for internet freedom. But according to the United States government, he was also a criminal.

After downloading millions of academic papers from the online service JSTOR, Swartz was prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and faced up to 35 years in prison.

He denied the charges of computer fraud against him and his trial was set to begin this month. Tragically, Swartz committed suicide in January.

The case against Swartz and his ensuing death have brought new scrutiny to the US's anti-hacking law, which critics say is too vague and unnecessarily harsh. ...



To my personal view and opinion: A simple analogy is that of the federal prosecutors demanding the death penalty for the sake of 'stealing' an apple laying on the ground in an orchard. Just?


Judge for yourselves. By the same rules, by merely reading this post, you are already guilty under such a vague and wide description of criminality.

Only in the USA?


Only on our only planet,
Martin

____________
Mandriva Linux A user friendly OS!
See new freedom Mageia2
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

To my personal view and opinion: A simple analogy is that of the federal prosecutors demanding the death penalty for the sake of 'stealing' an apple laying on the ground in an orchard. Just?

So, realistically, Swartz was facing ... 0-6 months in jail if he pled guilty.

To my personal view and opinion: A simple analogy is that of the federal prosecutors demanding the death penalty for the sake of 'stealing' an apple laying on the ground in an orchard. Just?

A much fairer description...

You still ignore the ridiculous threats available and levied of 50+ years in jail for something so trivial.

Martin did you read the grand jury indictment? Now matter how anyone feels about jstor. Stealing those papers was against the law. And he did steal them. by circumventing the safegauards jstor had put in place. He didnt do it just once he did it repeatedly and used various names and personnas to get them for over two months.

Why do you think no crime was committed?

And seeing as he took the moral cowards way out, We will never know what a jury would have arrived at.
____________

Martin did you read the grand jury indictment? Now matter how anyone feels about jstor. Stealing those papers was against the law. And he did steal them. by circumventing the safegauards jstor had put in place. He didnt do it just once he did it repeatedly and used various names and personnas to get them for over two months.

Why do you think no crime was committed?

And seeing as he took the moral cowards way out, We will never know what a jury would have arrived at.

Because the majority of the people that wrote what he "stole" thought their material should be open for all to read. It is the institution that has a problem with the legality of it all

Martin did you read the grand jury indictment? Now matter how anyone feels about jstor. Stealing those papers was against the law. And he did steal them. by circumventing the safegauards jstor had put in place. He didnt do it just once he did it repeatedly and used various names and personnas to get them for over two months.

Why do you think no crime was committed?

And seeing as he took the moral cowards way out, We will never know what a jury would have arrived at.

Because the majority of the people that wrote what he "stole" thought their material should be open for all to read. It is the institution that has a problem with the legality of it all

And who is the institution? If the majority of people who wrote the papers said they should be availabel why not self publish them? Make them available on the internet? Mabey because said institutions maight own them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSTOR

Inquiries have been made about the possibility of making JSTOR open access. According to Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig, JSTOR had been asked "how much would it cost to make this available to the whole world, how much would we need to pay you? The answer was $250 million". [31]