World poorer for loss of tech genius Aaron Swartz

5 months ago

World poorer for loss of tech genius Aaron Swartz

Kansas City Star Editorial

It’s one of the mysteries of depression that someone like Aaron Swartz, a recognized tech genius by the age of 26, could describe himself as “worthless” in his blog. His suicide a week ago shocked the tech community.

In his teens, Swartz helped write the RSS standard, was a builder of Reddit.com and led the successful opposition to the controversial federal Stop Online Piracy Act.

He believed data should be free and he assigned himself the mission of liberating it. He moved a big chunk of the PACER database — the registry of online federal court documents — into the public domain, using a maneuver ultimately deemed legal.

But that stunt put him in the eye of federal prosecutors, who were apparently frustrated by their inability to bring charges.

In 2010, Swartz went further. He tapped into the Massachusetts Institute of Technology computer network and downloaded nearly 5 million academic articles from the subscription-only JSTOR site. This time, Swartz potentially faced more than three decades in prison and a million-dollar fine.

Prone to depression and reportedly worn out from the financial and emotional stresses of his legal troubles, Swartz took his life in his New York apartment last week. His death raised questions about the heavy-handed nature of the prosecution, and about whether the legal basis for the case rested on an overly broad statute.

The 1968 computer-fraud law bars use of a computer “without authorization” or via a method that “exceeds authorized access,” but the statute doesn’t define those terms.

In light of Swartz’s death, the Justice Department should review its handling of cases under that law and how it pursues particular instances of hacking. An earlier case handled by Swartz’s prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Heymann, also ended in suicide.

In a statement made public Wednesday, U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz expressed condolences to Swartz’s family and noted that her office had informed Swartz’s lawyer that it planned to recommend a sentence of no more than six months in a “low-security setting.”

Computer hacking is an affliction of our times, and what Swartz was accused of doing was no small matter. But he didn’t do it for personal gain. JSTOR told federal prosecutors it did not want to pursue charges, and last week JSTOR opened its website, allowing anyone to read its archives for free — the right move.

Swartz was one of those brilliant creatures of the IT world’s quirky, unpredictable culture — a realm whose ways are mysterious to many of us until some new gadget or website comes on the scene, joining the others that have revolutionized our lives.

Swartz’s salient fault — a complete lack of moderation — was also one of his virtues. However you sort this sad case, the world is poorer for his loss.

Comments

Matt Henry
5 months ago

You know, Aaron Swartz was not accused of simply downloading too much stuff. He was accused of having broken into a computer closet at MIT to bypass secure servers and hooking up his own equipment to download millions of proprietary documents that didn’t belong to him. Seems hard to believe he didn’t know full well he was breaking the law, at least in some form, for this gross invasion. Does not the fault of the complications that arose from this act not fall mostly on his own shoulders?

Terrible shame this guy’s depression was exacerbated to the extent that it was. But are we a little off-base acting like this was an act of Robin Hood nobility for which we should be blaming everyone but him for his death?

Phil Cardarella

5 months ago

Your editorial decrying the persecution of Aaron Schwartz by the Justice Department did not go far enough in criticizing what was effectively “Murder by Indictment.” This case of Federal over-reach is exceptional only in that it deprived society of a young genius of more value to it than the entire Justice Department combined.

Aaron Schwartz did not “succumb to depression.”  He was not depressed over a failed love affair or job loss.  He was driven to suicide by federal law enforcement.

It is not unusual for federal prosecutors to bring frivolous felony charges – threatening horrendous losses of liberty – based on broad interpretations of the statute.  Then the poor defendant can either plead guilty to a felony that he may or may not have committed, or spend his life savings going to trial and risk spending decades in prison. 

There is no effective check on this prosecutorial abuse.  There is no “adult supervision” of federal law enforcement when it veers off like this.  Courts have been rendered powerless.  Only rarely does the media question these cases.  More often, they are cheerleaders and enablers. For all the talk of  “victim’s rights,” the pleas by Schwartz’ “victim” to drop the case were ignored.

And,  make no mistake:   Swartz’ was a political prosecution.  It was meant to send a clear message that the young man who single-handedly derailed the massive corporate takeover that was the “Stop Online Piracy Act” would pay for his interference.  He would be disgraced, labeled a felon, rendered illegitimate  – and probably barred from the Internet as a condition of being out of prison (as is often the case in computer-related  “crimes”).   Best think twice before putting yourself in the sights of corporate America.

He would be punished more severely than those who conspired to commit hundreds of thousands of wire frauds – bringing down the world economy.  They got bonuses, in part funded by our tax dollars.

The cause of freedom of information has lost a hero.  Russia’s Putin would be proud of Prosecutors Carmen Ortiz and Stephen Heymann.  Americans should be ashamed that they are paid by our tax dollars.

Matt Henry
5 months ago

So he didn’t break the law? He didn’t get into a cabinet where he had no access and download documents he wasn’t authorized to have?

He had no history of depression, so that played no part in his decision to kill himself? Doesn’t that position presuppose that anyone would do the same? His attorney (supposedly) was told that they were seeking six months minimum security. Martha Stewart did more than that and before you knew it she was back on tv making chicken croquettes.

The notion that Swartz wasn’t responsible for his original decisions and then ultimately in charge of his own decision to end his life is silly, unless you factor in the real illness that is depession. “Murder by indictment” is hyperbolic nonsense.

That being said, I agree that the federal government, including its law enforcement wing, is wholly out of control. Glad to have you on our side.
Matt Henry
5 months ago

So he didn’t break the law? He didn’t get into a cabinet where he had no access and download documents he wasn’t authorized to have?

He had no history of depression, so that played no part in his decision to kill himself? Doesn’t that position presuppose that anyone would do the same? His attorney (supposedly) was told that they were seeking six months minimum security. Martha Stewart did more than that and before you knew it she was back on tv making chicken croquettes.

The notion that Swartz wasn’t responsible for his original decisions and then ultimately in charge of his own decision to end his life is silly, unless you factor in the real illness that is depession. “Murder by indictment” is hyperbolic nonsense.

That being said, I agree that the federal government, including its law enforcement wing, is wholly out of control. Glad to have you on our side.
Phil Cardarella
4 months, 4 weeks ago

Matt: The issue is twofold.

First, you have an insanely over-broad law that was clearly stretched to go after a guy that the “victim” did not want prosecuted. Prosecutors are not helpless victims of their oaths, compelled to prosecute everything that anyonc eould possibly think might violate a law.Prosecutors have discretion in these matters — and it is their use of that discretion that is so bad.

Because — second — these guys went after him BECAUSE he had kept our corporate masters from passing a law that would lock up the Internet — the Stop Internet Piracy Act (which, like the GOP’s Clean Air Act, had little to do with its title and a lot to do with corporate profits).

They wanted to break him financially, make him a felon, discredit him as a voice opposing information monopoly — and, probably keep him off the Internet as a condition of staying out of prison beyond the 6 months (a common condition of release).

I am constantly surprised that those who decry the excesses of Ruby Ridge and Waco think that the Feds are only out of control when it comes to rightwingnuts. Frankly, their natural tendency has been to go after the lefties — a la Rove/Gonzales’ Bushies.

I think we all need to be concerned about Federal over-reach. I just don’t think AKs with 100 round magazines are the answer.

Midwest Voices