Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

HSBC bankers skating on serious drug money laundering charges while the SecretService hunts down a 26yo for downloading too many scholarly articles

Posted by on Jan. 24, 2013 at 3:06 AM
  • 9 Replies

Why Did the Justice System Target Aaron Swartz?

26-year-old Internet activist's tragic suicide raises questions about prosecutorial overreach

January 23, 2013 3:49 PM ET
Aaron Swartz
Aaron Swartz
AP Photo/ThoughtWorks, Pernille Ironside

Hundreds of mourners filled the Great Hall at New York's Cooper Union on January 19th to honor the life of Aaron Swartz, the Internet activist who took his own life earlier this month at age 26.

Swartz was well-known in technology circles for helping develop the RSS web feed format and the popular site Reddit, among other accomplishments. At the time of his death, he was facing 13 felony charges and up to 50 years in prison: Prosecutors had accused him of using MIT's network to download too many scholarly articles from an academic database called JSTOR.

Swartz's friends and family have said they believe he was driven to his death by a justice system that hounded him needlessly over an alleged crime with no real victims. "[He was] forced by the government to spend every fiber of his being on this damnable, senseless trial," his partner Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman said at the memorial, "with no guarantee that he could exonerate himself at the end of it."

Swartz's tragic death has already begun forcing lawmakers to start rethinking our draconian computer laws. And House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-California) even promised an investigation of the Justice Department prosecutors who did their best to send a young Internet pioneer to prison.

Two zealous federal prosecutors handled Swartz's case: U.S. district attorney Carmen Ortiz and assistant attorney Stephen Heymann. In the days after his death, writers, tech experts, and many of Swartz's friends have called out Heymann and Ortiz for prosecutorial overreach. A White House petition demanding the removal of Ortiz garnered well over 25,000 signatures, reaching the level which guarantees an eventual response from the Obama administration.

Some of Swartz's advocates believe the prosecution sought excessive punishment to set an example in the age of Wikileaks and Anonymous.

"This was, in my opinion, part of a coordinated campaign to scare young Internet activists," says Roy Singham, ThoughtWorks chairman and a friend of Swartz.

It's worth reviewing the so-called crime which put Swartz in the government's crosshairs. From September 24th, 2010 to January 6th, 2011, he accessed MIT's network to scrape an "extraordinary volume of articles" from the academic database JSTOR. Initially, he used the university's open wireless network to grab the files. But after several attempts by JSTOR and MIT to block him, Swartz gained access to a restricted closet and directly hardwired his laptop to the network, leaving it there to pull data.

MIT personnel found Swartz's laptop on the morning of January 4th, 2011, and connected a second computer to the network switch to monitor Swartz's activity. They also fingerprinted Swartz's device and installed a camera in the closet to identify their culprit.

On the same day, the U.S. Secret Service took over the investigation. Court documents reveal that Secret Service agent Michael Prickett recommended MIT personnel leave Swartz's laptop in the closet for monitoring. All acquired data was eventually disclosed to the Secret Service.

On January 6th, 2011, MIT and Cambridge police, with the help of special agent Prickett, arrested Swartz on charges of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. As blogger Marcy Wheeler suggests, the early involvement of the Secret Service "makes it clear that this was a nationally directed effort to take down Swartz."

JSTOR chose not to pursue charges against Aaron Swartz – who not only returned all downloaded content, but also ensured it "was not and would not be used, copied, transferred or distributed." That didn't stop MIT and the feds from indicting Swartz on 13 felony charges and insisting on prison time.

Ortiz and Heymann charged Swartz under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a 29-year-old law, notorious in the legal world for being broadly interpretable. They argued that Swartz accessed MIT and JSTOR computers without "authorization," despite MIT's extraordinarily open network policy and Swartz's legal access to JSTOR content.

Despite admitting that Swartz wasn't financially motivated by his act – and even after learning that the 26-year-old had battled depression – Ortiz and Heymann refused to offer a deal that didn't include at least six months of prison time and a guilty plea on all 13 charges. If Swartz chose not to label himself a felon for life, he'd risk the possibility of many years in the slammer.

Any probe into this case must raise serious questions about prosecutorial overreach by Ortiz and Heymann. Heymann's record, in particular, reeks of bullying and power-hungry ambition. A damning report from the Huffington Post paints the assistant U.S. attorney – and head of his court's computer crimes task force – as a careerist who sought tough convictions to bolster his reputation. In 2008, Heymann prosecuted another hacking case that ended with a suicide.

But holding Heymann and Ortiz accountable, while necessary, won't be enough to stop the persecution of Internet activists and hacking culture in this country. It's time to have a serious conversation over whether Swartz's fight for free information truly warranted Secret Service investigation. Should participating in a DDoS attack, the Internet's equivalent of a sit-down strike, send someone to 30 months in prison? As Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig has put it, our government pursued Swartz as if he were a "9/11 terrorist."

Last month, Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi noted the absurdity of HSBC bankers skating on serious drug money laundering charges while hundreds of thousands of Americans sit behind bars for petty drug offenses. The Secret Service's involvement in hunting down a 26-year-old charged with downloading too many scholarly articles is just another example of our justice system's chillingly warped priorities.


Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-did-the-justice-system-target-aaron-swartz-20130123#ixzz2IsV2zCfj

Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

by on Jan. 24, 2013 at 3:06 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-9):
Veni.Vidi.Vici.
by on Jan. 24, 2013 at 3:14 AM

It's odd, fishy and missing important info IMO. I read the article I posted two weeks ago over and over. I couldn't put it all together. I put it out of my mind until I saw this post. I'm surprised it didn't gather more curious readers. Not my post, but the topic.

Goodwoman614
by Satan on Jan. 24, 2013 at 3:29 AM
1 mom liked this

I've been following this. 

He was low-hanging fruit for a Justice Dept bozo to go gunning for...

much easier than taking on the bankers. 

krysstizzle
by on Jan. 24, 2013 at 8:56 AM
Incredibly frustrating.
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
radioheid
by Libertarian on Jan. 24, 2013 at 10:03 AM
1 mom liked this

 He broke the law. I don't know that it was worth 50 years in prison, but he indeed committed a crime.

Why was the Secret Service involved? That's what I don't understand. Seems real sketchy to me.


"Roger that. Over."

R   A   D    I    O    H    E    I    D

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Jan. 24, 2013 at 10:14 AM


I don't think anyone denies that he broke the law and should be held responsible for what he did. But considering JSTOR didn't pursue charges against him it seems odd, like you pointed out, that the Secret Service got involved.

So when you add in the facts that he doesn't have a background of crime, he has helped the internet community at such a young age and likely would have continued too, the JSTOR didn't pursue charges, he didn't make money, and didn't cost anyone money-It seems pretty absurd to go through such lengths to treat him like the worst criminal that needs to serve prison time.

Especially when you look at the HSBC Bankers that committed serious crimes. But no one is even willing to try and charge them. It just showcases how off our priorities are.

Quoting radioheid:

 He broke the law. I don't know that it was worth 50 years in prison, but he indeed committed a crime.

Why was the Secret Service involved? That's what I don't understand. Seems real sketchy to me.



Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

mehamil1
by Platinum Member on Jan. 24, 2013 at 11:19 AM

This. 

Quoting brookiecookie87:

I don't think anyone denies that he broke the law and should be held responsible for what he did. But considering JSTOR didn't pursue charges against him it seems odd, like you pointed out, that the Secret Service got involved.

So when you add in the facts that he doesn't have a background of crime, he has helped the internet community at such a young age and likely would have continued too, the JSTOR didn't pursue charges, he didn't make money, and didn't cost anyone money-It seems pretty absurd to go through such lengths to treat him like the worst criminal that needs to serve prison time.

Especially when you look at the HSBC Bankers that committed serious crimes. But no one is even willing to try and charge them. It just showcases how off our priorities are.

Quoting radioheid:

 He broke the law. I don't know that it was worth 50 years in prison, but he indeed committed a crime.

Why was the Secret Service involved? That's what I don't understand. Seems real sketchy to me.

Hippie.Gypsy
by Member on Jan. 24, 2013 at 11:24 AM
1 mom liked this

Was it suicide though? Depends on who you ask apparently...and TBH, he had no reason to commit suicide, he was giving access to public information stored at MIT...the charges were false, he hacked nothing, he did not profit from the information. Murder or Suicide

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Jan. 24, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Interesting. I haven't heard the angle that he was murdered.

I know his family blamed the Prosecution for his death. I assumed his feather was implying that the Prosecution was restonbible for pushing his son to commit suicide and not actually murdering him and then making it look like a suicide.

Quoting Hippie.Gypsy:

Was it suicide though? Depends on who you ask apparently...and TBH, he had no reason to commit suicide, he was giving access to public information stored at MIT...the charges were false, he hacked nothing, he did not profit from the information. Murder or Suicide



Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

Hippie.Gypsy
by Member on Jan. 24, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Nah, his girlfriend blamed the prosecution (publicly), his father claims murder (along with others who knew him, friends, family, co-workers, etc...).

As the story I linked says, he had no reason to commit murder, especially if it could be proven he did nothing wrong. The prosecution had no leg to stand on with false charges. Anonymous has and is still picking up on this, anonymous is a world-wide coalition of hackers, they are set on proving his innocence (along with trying to find evidence of murder vs the suicide story being pushed). At this point we only know what we're told by media outlets, am actually surprised anyone has taken the fathers statement and put it out there.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

Interesting. I haven't heard the angle that he was murdered.

I know his family blamed the Prosecution for his death. I assumed his feather was implying that the Prosecution was restonbible for pushing his son to commit suicide and not actually murdering him and then making it look like a suicide.

Quoting Hippie.Gypsy:

Was it suicide though? Depends on who you ask apparently...and TBH, he had no reason to commit suicide, he was giving access to public information stored at MIT...the charges were false, he hacked nothing, he did not profit from the information. Murder or Suicide




Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN