Which is “almost always.”
If by “woodwork” you mean Senator John Cornyn, then yes, they are. Here’s an article about Cornyn’s letter to the Justice Dept. regarding Carmen Ortiz’ prosecution of Swartz. Note that in the text of the letter, Cornyn asks this question:
That “prior investigation” that Cornyn refers to is Swartz’s involvement in Wikileaks, according to Cenk Uygar of the Young Turks inthis video.
So that’s the source of the theory that Wikileaks is involved, and may be the REAL basis for the prosecutorial misconduct that led to Swartz’s death. It does explain the otherwise inexplicable viciousness of Justice Department’s response to Swartz’s “crime” if it was even a crime. And it does not feel like wild-eyed conspiracy theorizing, but the gradual discovery of new facts in the case.
I find it very interesting that Cornyn, a hard core conservative, and Uygar, a hard-core progressive, are both on the same side on this one. I believe that’s because the Justice Department’s conduct has been so egregious that the only defenders are gonna be hardcore Obama defenders: “our President and his Administration no matter how tyrannical!”
Well, he broke into a wiring closet. That is illegal. He hooked up an unauthorized laptop to a network. That is illegal. As in, he broke the law by physically entering a space he had no right to enter and he attached a device to a network he had no right to access.
Breaking into a wiring closet is a no-no. Do it to one of my closets and I will have you arrested, prosecuted and reported to gaming*. Plug a laptop into my network unauthorized after breaking into a wiring closet? You are going to jail.
The copyright aspect of this is a bit trivial compared to the breaking in part.
Additionally, this is the second time we know of that he pulled a stunt like this. He also installed a PERL script on a computer in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals library to automagically upload PACER documents. The FBI investigated but did not purse charges, which surprises me. Installing a script on a federal PC is a big no-no. I am surprised he didn’t get hammered on that. Link. Note, the problem with this is not that he accessed public documents and uploaded them, it is that he installed a script on equipment that he had no right to alter.
This guy was bright enough to know that hacking someones network is wrong, that there is a good chance you will get caught and last, and most importantly, people aren’t screwing around with this anymore.
People seem to be focused on the copyright violation. That is a problem but it is not the only issue in this case. Breaking into a network is a serious issue and Swartz knew that.
It is a bummer he offed himself. However, he knew going in what the penalties were and that the government would look to prosecute. Maybe he thought that since he got away with it once he would get away with it a second time. Who knows? In any case, if he didn’t want the government to come down on him he had a simple choice, don’t illegally access networks.
Slee
*I work in casinos. The gaming board can and does ban people from entering casinos for doing this type of stuff.
But that is also included in the overall point, many over here already aknowledge that he was at fault, the problem is that the punishment for Swartz was still over the top, and what you say here does support also what many said, there were better and fairer punishments than the one the authorities in this case were looking for.
Let us assume that his prosecution was disproportionate to the crime and motivated by reasons other than the crime itself. I am not convinced of that – they may have merely been taking the "let’s try to make a very highly visible dramatic example of how much we mean business on this stuff" approach for the future deterrence value (like the woman initiallyfined $1.9 million for 24 illegal music downloads) – but assume it.
I still have a difficult time with the way in which his death is being blamed on his prosecution. He was killed by the disease depression. A tragedy that prosecutorial overreach did not cause.
But of course, the only punishment I can see coming to the authorities is only public shame.
I’m ok with that.
A guy with no criminal convictions opened a closet and plugged into his computer into something he shouldn’t have. Does that sound to you like a crime deserving of 13 felony convictions and six months in prison?
That depends on the closet and the computer, of course. In this case, it’s probably heavy. If he’s doing that at the Federal Reserve, then it’s light. The 30 years for copyright violation is completely excessive, though.
ETA: If he did that at my work, which is somewhere in between, it would depend on the computer and the closet. Six months could be light.
ETA2: And of course at the Federal Reserve, he’d probably be shot while trying to break in. I’d take six months.
“Information control” is not a desirable thing in the sciences. No man owns the truth; and if you can’t see that, and choose antipathy toward those who do–to the point of supporting felony convictions and a multi-decade prison sentence for Swartz–yeah, your antipathy is noted, not to your credit.
This isn’t a hypothetical. We don’t have to wonder where the closet was or whether it was at the Federal Reserve. It was in a building at MIT. Not a casino. Not the Federal Reserve.
No it doesn’t. Does that seem like a reason to kill yourself?
Fair point. He wouldn’t be allowed to do this in a casino either because that would probably mean he was trying to steal actual money. But in this context it’s hard to see a 35-year sentence as a reasonable threat for the crime of illegally entering a closet and downloading stuff he was entitled to read for free.
To me? No. But if I had a history of depression, felt I were being railroaded, and might go broke and have my career and life ruined, it might seem like a reason.
A guy breaks into your house and plugs in his laptop to your network and takes your data to give away. Does that sound like six months in prison? After doing this previously to another person?
Yes. Six months is about right.
Swartz, however noble his goals*, did something illegal and very, very stupid. More than once.
The cost of his little stunt was probably quite high for the network folks. A breach of security on a network can cost a reasonable amount of money even if the person didn’t actually do anything. A sweep of all the possibly affected PCs and servers can take a lot of time and cost a lot. And you have to do the sweep as you don’t know what the person who attached to the network did. I recently had to deal with a situation at work. Cost us about $100,000 or so.
For some reason that I do not understand, people seem to think computer crimes, and what he did is a crime, are not real crimes. They are. He broke into a closet and then broke into a system and stole stuff. If he didn’t want to deal with the justice system, he should not have done it.
Swartz went out and bought a laptop specifically to use for this. When he went on campus he used a pseudonym, Gary Host (GHost, get it?). The laptop name was Ghost Laptop. The software on the laptop was specifically designed to work around the download limits JStor had set.
Once MIT found that data was being copied and a large amount of bandwidth was being used, they blocked Swartz IP. Swartz then grabbed another address and continued. Additionally, according to MIT the downloads were affecting the network adversely. MIT then blocked his MAC address. Swartz then spoofed his MAC.
Swartz then brought in another laptop. Between the two laptops it brought down some servers. All of Swartz activities caused JSTOR to block all of MIT from accessing the data for several days.
Link. Scroll to the indictment.
So, on top of taking data he had no right to, he also caused harm to the network. He caused legitimate users to be blocked from accessing the data. He also worked around blocks put in by the network administrators to keep stealing data.
**hansel **said:
Swartz behavior does not point to someone who thinks what he is doing is legal. He knew it was illegal, had done similar illegal things in the past and actively worked to get around the security put in place to stop him. Secondly, doing what he did in large volume caused damage to the network.
He deserved six months at least. He knew what he was doing was illegal. He should have known that it was going to cause problems and cost money.
That would be breaking and entering, which is different from being in a building you’re authorized to be in and entering a room you’re not supposed to go into. And in this context it’s not my data - it’s data I’ve agreed to share with the person.
Wrong. Swartz was charged with breaking and entering. But thanks for playing.
See wiki for a cite.
Additionally, it seems you want to wave away the damge he did. This wasn’t a one off harmless prank. He caused financial loss for MIT ( investigations and folow up cost money believe it or not) and he caused a system outage.
Like it or not, Swartz did cause damage. It was a concerted, long term plan to access data illegally. He chose to break the law, knew he was breaking the law and cried like a little bitch when he got busted. Then he offed himself because he couldn’t deal with the cinsequences of his actions.
And it wasn’t the first time he pulled this knid of shit.
I wish he didn’t kill himself. However, the fault is his own. He made all the choices knowing that what he was doing was illegal.
Slee
What happens if the victim confronts a tiger, is rescued by the village, and then doesn’t say “Guess I shouldn’t fuck with tigers any more,” but rather says, “Cool, no real consequences for fucking with tigers! Let’s find another one.”
Swartz faced similar consequences when he fucked around with PACER. Prosecutorial grace was dispensed, and he got off scot free. Then he turned around and did basically the same thing again.
What do you mean “wrong?” You compared this situation to breaking into a house and (I think) to taking someone else’s data. He didn’t break into a house. He went into a closet without authorization. You’re answering that he was charged as if he’d broken into a house. Are you sure that makes me wrong?
I don’t think I’ve waved anything away, although I might as well point out that the people he “stole” from weren’t seeking civil restitution for whatever this expense was. I’m questioning if it was worth the penalties he was threatened with, which included a 35-year jail sentence and a $1 million fine. It seems that much more questionable when the people he “stole” from were satisfied once he turned over the laptop and state prosecutors didn’t plan to pursue charges even considering his history.
You could perhaps boil it down this way: he knowingly broke several laws. The maximum penalties were apparently 35 years in prison, a fine of $1 million, and probation. Does it follow that the government was justified in pursuing those penalties and insisting on prison time? I can’t find my way from here to a yes answer.
I am positive you are wrong. You said:
That is incorrect as he was charged with breaking and entering.
Link.
Breaking and entering:
Link.
So, you are dead wrong. He committed the crime of breaking and entering.
Have you actually read anything about this other than the ‘But he was such a nice guy’ crap? It seems that you don’t know what the hell you are talking about.
He knowingly broke laws multiple times in different instances and did not learn from his actions.
He did it once, got investigated and let off. So, he does it again. That is stupid and illegal. And in the process he caused a network outage which affected anyone who needed to access JSTOR from MIT. And he did this for months on end.
Additionally, and you seem to keep missing this point, his actions were criminal and had costs associated with them.
The fact that MIT did not want the prosecutors to go forward is trivial and you should know that. It is well known that the victim of a crime has no say in whether or not the perpetrator is prosecuted. That is up to the prosecutor.
This guy, no matter how noble you may think he goals were, committed felonies. And to top that off, the little pussy killed himself over 6 months in jail. Note, the prosecutor piled on the charges to get the max up to 30 years, but this is normal practice to get defendants to plead out. A plea bargain of six months was offered. If you don’t like the prosecutors actions then you need to go after the plea system that is in place (which, by the way, I think is a good idea).
It sucks that this guy killed himself. He was apparently rather bright in some areas. However, his actions were down right stupid. He committed felonies to download some data and did it multiple times. If he was doing this as some sort of civil disobedience, well, one of the things about practicing civil disobedience is that you should expect to end up in court and possibly prison for your actions. If you cannot handle the consequences then do not commit the actions that bring on those consequences.
On a side note, had he been let off I am willing to bet that he would have been right back at it again. In fact I’d bet that he probably accessed other networks illegally with out getting caught.
Slee
Well, didn’t he actually trespass on MIT property and connect into their server room with a hard line to get at information MIT specifically revoked his credentials in order to stop him from accessing?
Now, I get the 1980s era hacking law that, technically applies here, is far too harsh for what was going on and was a product of a different time and place, but dude broke into a building and took stuff that wasn’t his. In what way is that ever just activism and not a crime?
His other activities where he used accounts he had rightful access to in order to do screen scraping and etc, that’s fine. But when he was found out to be doing similar stuff on MITs networks with JSTOR and MIT kicked him out of the building and revoked his access, and he broke back in, to me I lost all sympathy. He knew he was committing a crime at that point, and something that should be a crime. The punishment didn’t fit the crime, but I don’t see how we could ever argue illegally entering a building, entering a server room, and connecting illicitly to the network shouldn’t all constitute criminal acts.
Looking over that post, I see insults of Swartz (which don’t mean anything to me), I see nitpicks, I see a lot of ‘he knew what he was doing!’ bluster, and I see comments about my knowledge of the case (which is limited, but not to tributes). I don’t see an answer to this:
‘You don’t know what you’re talking about’ doesn’t cover that omission.