

Did Prosecutors Go Too Far In Swartz Case? - codegeek
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/15/169421636/did-prosecutors-go-too-far-in-swartz-case

======
mmanfrin

      "I'm really not sure that anyone in this country would 
      disagree that computer hacking is a problem," says 
      Washington defense lawyer Jeff Ifrah, who has been 
      following the case. "Should it be a crime? That's an issue 
      for Congress. But Congress decided to make it a crime, and 
      prosecutors have an obligation to enforce those crimes."
    

This is so absurdly pointless and dumb -- in the context of this case, he's
talking about how law is binary.

------
jordanb
Horrible article.

Most of it seems to be written from the view point of that random unrelated
lawyer they decided to interview, Jeff Ifrah who's connection is that he "has
been following the case."

~~~
MartinCron
NPR News is very aware of the persistent bias allegations and often works hard
to "balance" the presentation, sometimes to the point of creating an
unreasonable false equivalency between points of view.

I didn't see any glaring factual inaccuracies, nor was it sensationalized. It
seems to be a good intro to the case for a non-technical audience.

~~~
jordanb
"No glaring factual inaccuracies" is a high standard indeed. :)

I think NPR erred when they repeatedly quoted a man who has about as much
connection to the case as you or I do. I also think they erred in repeatedly
describing what Swartz did as "hacking." They even dropped the obligatory
"alleged" after the first mention.

Someone reading this article would come away thinking that Swartz "hacked
into" the MIT network and "stole" millions of documents. That he was
prosecuted for this crime, and that his "friends" feel that the punishment was
too harsh.

------
michaelfeathers
_"Should it be a crime? That's an issue for Congress. But Congress decided to
make it a crime, and prosecutors have an obligation to enforce those crimes."_

They certainly did enforce a crime.

------
redthrowaway
This is an incredibly poor article. It shows little understanding of the facts
of the case, and is simply a collection of quotes from other people.

I'd have thought NPR would have better quality control than this.

