
Aaron Swartz Was Targeted by Feds Over His Activism - ghosh
http://mashable.com/2013/02/25/aaron-swartz-targeted-for-activism/
======
GHFigs
This is bullshit. Establishing intent is not "targeting" someone. Of all the
things to get upset about in this case, this has got to be the least worthy.
It is the wrongest of wrong trees to be barking up.

He was caught doing 'A'. He had previously written a manifesto that describes
it as a moral imperative[1] to do 'A then B'. The prosecution believed that
this established his intent[2] to do 'B'.

 _This is not an unreasonable conclusion._ You don't have to respect or agree
with any part of the prosecution to understand this. You don't have to believe
that it was his actual intent to understand that it's not out of line to draw
that conclusion from those facts.

Please, if you care about this case, don't waste energy on linkbait and bent
truth.

[1]
[http://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamju...](http://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamjuly2008_djvu.txt)
[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law)> (I link to this
because some people seem to be unaware that intent has a legal meaning.)

~~~
Lagged2Death
_He was caught doing 'A'. He had previously written a manifesto that describes
it as a moral imperative[1] to do 'A then B'. The prosecution believed that
this established his intent[2] to do 'B'._

The exact word being tossed around here isn't "established," but "proved." The
claim is that a document Swartz didn't even write on his own "proved" his
intentions in a questionably related situation years after he wrote it.

 _This is not an unreasonable conclusion._

Have you been on the internet long? Have you ever written anything on the
internet that a stranger could misinterpret or that could similarly "prove"
you had bad intentions in some unrelated situation years from now? No? Are you
sure? How could you even know?

Since when are we prosecuting relatively minor civil offenses like copyright
infringement based on _intentions_ rather than actions anyway? Will we start
prosecuting people who _plan_ to jaywalk?

Bear in mind the prosecution's goal was apparently to put Swartz in prison, to
label him a felon for life, for an act even the prosecutors admit that he
hadn't actually yet committed, without a trail. And your "not unreasonable
conclusion" is essentially their entire argument for justifying this.

If this is different from prosecuting a thought crime, I'd sure like to know
how.

~~~
GHFigs
_The exact word being tossed around here isn't "established," but "proved."_

There are degrees of proof. The standard of proof required to press charges is
lower than that to actually convict someone in a trial. This is high-school
civics class material.

 _Have you ever written anything on the internet [...]_

Conceivably, yes. I'm not in the habit of publishing manifestos, but as
somebody that is routinely misinterpreted by people that don't share his
views, the possibility has crossed my mind.

But there are reasonable and unreasonable conclusions that one could draw
based on any pairing of a person's actions and their prior writings. I'm only
saying that this one is not outlandish or evidence of unreasonable
"targeting". They did not (for example) accuse him of intending to blow up an
MIT building. That would be totally unreasonable in a way that this is not.

 _Since when are we prosecuting relatively minor civil offenses like copyright
infringement based on intentions rather than actions anyway?_

That's not what happened here. Swartz was not charged with copyright
infringement. Look at the actual charges and the actual law they're based on.
The actions he was observed doing are as much a part of the charge as the
intent that was alleged.

 _And your "not unreasonable conclusion" is essentially their entire argument
for justifying this._

I said the inference is reasonable, not the prosecution's zeal. That's why I
say this particular part of the story is the wrong thing to be focusing on.
(And yet, here we are.)

 _If this is different from prosecuting a thought crime, I'd sure like to know
how._

If it were a thought crime, he would have been charged in 2008, when he had
the thought 'We should all do A then B'. But he wasn't. He was charged when he
was caught doing 'A' _and_ somebody inferred that his intention was to do 'B'
as well.

~~~
Lagged2Death
_The standard of proof required to press charges is lower than that to
actually convict someone in a trial._

Fine. The prosecutor's stated intent was to avoid a trial and imprison Swartz
using only this laughably low degree of proof. "Reasonable?" "Not targeted?"

Here's the thing: you're saying the prosecution's assumption would be
reasonable in the context of pressing charges and going to trial. Maybe. But
the prosecutor wasn't operating in that context. Shouldn't a higher standard
of evidence be used before sending a person to prison? Of course, you've
supplied the answer yourself, by pointing out that higher standards are
expected at trials. But trials aren't the only way people end up in prison
anymore.

 _Swartz was not charged with copyright infringement._

Yes, I know. I think it's clear that issues of copyright and control over the
making of copies are really the motive behind the prosecutor's behavior, don't
you? I mean, that's actually what the prosecutor's saying now, right? "Swartz
had this manifesto against copyright, therefore we charged him with the far
more serious crime of _fraud_. Perfectly reasonable. Totally not targeting
anyone."

 _The actions he was observed doing are as much a part of the charge as the
intent that was alleged._

I really don't see how. He was legally entitled to make the copies that he
made; the alleged intent is the sole basis for even supposing any crime
existed.

 _If it were a thought crime, he would have been charged in 2008..._

The scenario you describe also strikes me as prosecution for a thought crime.
I don't see how that imaginary scenario exempts this real one from being
prosecution for a thought crime, though.

~~~
GHFigs
_Of course, you've supplied the answer yourself, by pointing out that higher
standards are expected at trials. But trials aren't the only way people end up
in prison anymore._

I'm not sure if I understand what you're getting at. Aaron didn't accept a
plea deal, and he didn't have to if he didn't want to.

 _He was legally entitled to make the copies that he made; the alleged intent
is the sole basis for even supposing any crime existed._

This is false. Look at the charge sheet and look at the law cited. Many people
seem to have this misconception, but the law doesn't say "it's a crime to
intend to do this", it says "it is a crime to do this thing with the intent to
do this other thing". Both the things he did and the intent that was alleged
are part of the accusation, and both would have have to been proven to the
standards of "beyond a reasonable doubt" if it had gone to trial. If the
prosecution could not meet that standard for his actions (i.e. if they could
not show that he was not legally entitled to do the downloading the way he
did), he would have been found not guilty as well.

The point being: the alleged intent is _not_ the sole basis for the charge.

------
klrr
Similar things happen here in Sweden. Peter Sunde, the public face of TPB was
a activist fighting for less fucked up copyright laws etc. He got blacklisted
as a Neo-nazi by Sweden's feds SÄPO.

Very sad, but not very suprising.

~~~
clicks
Indeed. The absurdity of that was explained by Peter Sunde himself in the
documentary AFK (available for viewing here:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTOKXCEwo_8> \-- which I highly recommend as
worth watching ).

------
tptacek
One sentence in one Huffington Post article. An endless stream of wild
extrapolations by publications trying to gin up rageviews.

------
wglb
While I have enormous sympathy for Taren, Aaron's family, and all who knew
him, there isn't very hard evidence for this particular assertion. I do recall
that his lawyer didn't feel that it was a politically motivated prosecution.

An agressive prosecution will naturally research what the target has done in
the past as a way of establishing intent.

Not that I don't feel that the prosecution Aaron wasn't egregious.

------
andreyf
I wonder how his crime would have been reported/perceived in the US if he were
a citizen prosecuted by his government in China or Russia... I image it
would've involve a little swap of s/ro/er/

------
t0
>they offerred Swartz a plea deal that would have sent him to jail for three
months

Why didn't he take that?

~~~
mtgx
He wasn't guilty. Why would a prosecutor give someone an option between 30
years and 3 months - unless they _know_ they have nothing to hold him on, but
think they may get lucky and just accept the 3 months period and "admit he was
guilty"?

Either he's a dangerous criminal who deserves 30 years in jail, or it's
nothing, and the only reason they ask him to accept 3 months is because they
would look foolish asking him to accept anything less than that (like say
weeks or days).

~~~
jacalata
What wasn't he guilty of?

~~~
monsterix
Can you enlist some of those things you _think_ he was guilty of? Leaving
aside the fact that he was actually trying to forcefully give people (you and
I) back what they already owned.

~~~
sneak
This presupposes that one can own information in the first place.

~~~
monsterix
Well research papers that were funded by people's money - sure why not?

~~~
metaphorm
you should research the background of this case more. the jstor documents in
question were already in the public domain.

------
coldtea
> _This is bullshit. Establishing intent is not "targeting" someone._

Legally speaking maybe. In right life, fuck no.

And it's not just for the trial. What were the FBI files for Aaron like even
before that?

------
3327
Mashable links in HN, what has the world come to!

~~~
CrankyPants
It's HN's favorite topic.

------
InclinedPlane
If true everyone involved should be out on their ass, this is banana republic
shit, it should not be tolerated.

~~~
fennecfoxen
Really? I would have said it's more Soviet or something (going after someone
for ideology) and would save the 'banana republic' designator for when the
NLRB "respectfully" declines to pay attention to the district court because
they disagree. :P

But I digress.

~~~
sageikosa
Soviet-style would indicate social control through the designation of locally
delegated secret police (political officers).

The mode of operation here is less secret and more open, more akin to
totalitarianism, with a Federal twist.

------
JoeAltmaier
What is surprising here? Folks who publicly flout the rules are asking to be
censured, and it happened.

~~~
metaphorm
wow. thats an astonishing thing to say. you sure have a high regard for
"rules". some rules don't deserve to be respected. they're not automatically
right just because they are codified. there's also a difference between a
censure (a formal reprimand) and criminal prosecution. you ought to think more
about the implications of what you've said.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I'm just weary of all the gesticulating. The conversation isn't even about the
right thing. This guy presumably had friends - where were they? They failed
him. But all the talk is about projecting it onto someone else.

Why do they do this? Because after years of cheering on this manic-depressive
guy, laughing at his antics and ignoring his crashes, his cohort hopefully
feel shame at their part in egging him on to ultimately irresponsible acts.

------
nwzpaperman
The spirit of the United States Constitution and subordinate laws has been
wholesale abandoned and legalism has been adopted. The law has been usurped by
corporate interests, both for-profit and unprofit, to consolidate power in the
hands of fewer and fewer individuals.

Equalitarianism has over-taken liberalism. Democracy, as H.L. Mencken
projected, has been leveraged to undermine the Republican government.

The noble lie of the nation state is fighting to preserve its perceived
legitimacy. Regardless of the specifics, Swartz has gone down as a martyr in
the court of public opinion and "the people" are becoming increasingly
untrusting of their governors and government. Once trust is lost, it isn't
easily restored.

The elephant of tyranny remains until generations to come forget again.

RIP Swartz

nwzpaper.com/articleView?articleId=133 nwzpaper.com/articleView?articleId=141
nwzpaper.com/socialContract

