Re: Aaron Swartz
 

They were looking for experts and called someone I know and asked, "Would anyone ever download this amount of data for personal use" and he responded "well, sure, we do it when researching how language is used for example, if we're trying to code a natural language problem." It sounds like they decided not to use him.

I think it is hard (not impossible, but very hard) to argue that he did not violate the license on JSTOR's site; it prohibits mechanical downloads which interfere with their system (he might argue he paced his downloads slowly enough so as not to interfere, but it's an uphill battle after they shut him down a couple times). But is a database license going to be binding if you never have to click through it and agree to its terms? And, after he settles with JSTOR civilly, should we be chasing him criminally?

Re: Aaron Swartz
 

No. A great many people, including Swartz, are entitled to access the articles for free. This is why -- as I said before -- what he downloaded wasn't worth what you said it was. No one would pay that price.

Re: Aaron Swartz
 

I don't think we know the answer here, but see my last post on reasons some abstract software guy might do this.

We can all suspect, since he publicly advocated making government and public domain information easily accessible. Say he pulled out the documents that were out of copyright and put them up - criminal problem? contractual problem? both? What if he then programs an open source search function?

Re: Aaron Swartz
 

Probably is. This is the prosecutorial system: you get three years of schooling in how to be an asshole. You learn to admire great assholes of the past. You get an apprenticeship in assholery. Maybe you take some continuing asshole education courses. You sign on to an "ethics" system that codifies that you shall be an asshole on behalf of your client. You answer job descriptions looking for assholes, and get promoted based on just how much of an ass you can be.

And then one day after all this people are shocked (shocked!) at what an ass you've become.

Re: Aaron Swartz
 

When did I say that?

Re: Aaron Swartz
 

Last decade? Yes, but I'm younger than y'all.

But Hank claims to have run a law firm. Perhaps they didn't let him see the bills?

Re: Aaron Swartz
 

Do we know that? Did he ever do anything with them other than collect them?

Re: Aaron Swartz
 

Young Adder, let me give you some advice. If you're going to build a good practice, pay attention to the revenue side yourself, and hire others to pay attention to the expense side.

Re: Aaron Swartz
 

no. he was entitled to access an article a day for free. words in agreements carry weight.

Re: Aaron Swartz
 

That sounds like good advice.

Perhaps it also explains Hank's health care confusion?

Re: Aaron Swartz
 

This confers on one person the power to, at his whim, with impunity, utterly destroy another. The person with that power is also usually a political operator in a system that rewards him for scalps, and shows no concern for the human wreckage reckless pursuit of them might cause.

That structure needs a few more aggressive checks to keep it honest. (It actually needs a radical ideological overhaul, but that's fantasy.)

The statistics on our incarceration of nonviolent criminals - far exceeding every other nation worthy of being non-ironically considered developed or civilized - tells the rest of the story. Read about Mississippi's penal system. Not circa 1954. Today. I'm not suggesting that state is example of what the federal system does on a broader scale, but it gives you a flavor of what "tough on crime" distills to in practice.

Re: Aaron Swartz
 

I'm not seeing that, but maybe I missed it. Show me.

Two separate questions here:

(1) Your ridiculous statement about the value of the JSTOR materials, which you won't defend; and

(2) Whether Swartz violated someone's terms of service for something, somehow.

If you are right about (2), it doesn't save the dumb thing you said in (1), which was in the best tradition of prosecutorial excess. The more interesting questions are whether, when and why violation of someone's terms of service should turn into federal felonies, with fifty-year prison terms.

Re: Aaron Swartz
 

first of all, what's interesting to you is immaterial to me, and I'm sure, most of the world. Second I'm not the one that turned his acts in federal felonies; that was the United States Congress. Third, the institutions that license the database pay a large fee. Why, if the material has no value? I understand no one would pay much for a copy of one article. But the entire collection people pay for the right to have access. You and I cannot put a price on the value, but we don't have to, the institutions that pay the fee have already done so.

Let me see if I can dumb it down so you can understand. Say you own a bar and I came to you and said, I can license you to play Louie Louie in your bar when bands come in. You'd say, that isn't worth anything. On the other hand, if I offered you a BMI coverage license it is worth a lot.

Re: Aaron Swartz
 

Since you started the hypo, let's say an eccentric kid comes in every Friday and records the bands' shows on his iPhone.

Has the kid stolen thousands of dollars from BMI?

Re: Aaron Swartz
 

On all these questions of value, one thing Orin Kerr does a decent job of is laying out some of the issues on valuation thresholds for the claims. $5,000 is all that is needed, and you measure the value of what is taken (e.g., what would it have cost) rather than the amount of harm done. There is a separate question of valuation in sentencing that is very different.

Key elements for indicted crimes, drawn from Orin:

Wire & computer fraud (same basic elements, but they get you for two separate crimes): (1) gaining property by (2) false pretenses; key issues: (a) (missed by Kerr): did he gain property if he already had a right to it? After all, his breach of terms was the speed and quantity with which he downloaded, not the content he downloaded; (b) does using an alias or triggering a new ID or changing a MAC code constitue false presenses.

Unauthorized access to obtain information worth more than $5000: (a) $5,000 - likely met, not a high threshold; (b) "obtain information" - again, does it count if you have a right to the info but exceed your license? (c) "unauthorized access" - he may have exceed his license at MIT, in which case he wouldn't have access to JSTOR, or violated the terms of JSTORs license; however, it's not clear what he agreed to and what is binding - contract or criminal issue?

Unauthorized access to damage computers: (a) $5,000 - time spent dealing with his issues may be counted; not difficult thresdhold; (b) authorization - same issue as above; (c) damage computers - the only damage here seems to be that JSTOR cut off MIT for a period, though it isn't clear they had reserved the right to do so - even Kerr questions whether any damage was caused by JSTOR rather than Swartz; during one day over vacation, people had to use the library instead of JSTOR. Is this damage, where no data was lost and no equipment damaged?

Multiple counts of each of the above. There you have it. The charges. 50 years? 6 months?

One more point: Secret Service took possession of his laptap and searched it before they got a warrant - then they went and got the warrant and searched it again (more thoroughly). Big oops. That bit of "unauthorized access" had been argued about but not yet ruled on.