Cool story, bro.
nitpick: JSTOR is an aggregator not the publisher.
And Swartz did a lot to point out a problem that those of us in academia know about, but often end up turning a blind eye to - that of the scholarly digital divide. I understand why Anonymous targeted MIT in this, but if they were going to do this to make a point, why not long before this?
Not merely people but his family and friends, who quite explicitly state while writing in memoriam:
Well, they’re grieving. I’ve lost a brother and, maybe worse, seen my parents lose a son, and time’s the only salve. It’s torture.
But I hope someday they regret placing a nontrivial share of the blame on MIT, of whose facilities Swartz took advantage in an act he knew full well was illegal. I understand that he could be a trying individual — well-meaning but idealistic to the point of obnoxiousness, prone to rash behavior and making enemies of friends. The JSTOR shenanigans were very much in keeping with his MO. No way his actions are worth the 35-50 year sentences I’ve seen bandied about, but if you’re going to break the law to fight for your ideals, at least have the guts to see it through when things go south.
Passing the blame just encourages more anger to stew, leading to crap like these Anonymous attacks.
10 awful crimes that will get you less prison time than what Aaron Swartz was facing.
A few crimes on the list:
- Manslaughter
- Selling child pornography
- Knowingly spreading AIDS
- Selling slaves
- Helping Al’Qaeda develop a nuclear weapon
Aaron would, of course, gotten off with much less than the maximum. Less than the crimes above.
Indeed. The Boston Globe is reporting that he turned down a plea bargain where he would have served six months - that’s directly from one his attorneys. Maybe quite a shock for someone who thinks they’re a genius, not a criminal, but isn’t that the whole point of civil disobedience? Commit the crime, then take the consequences and/or have your day in court to expose the injustice?