

Disappointing Unsealing Decision in Aaron Swartz Case - geekam
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/disappointing-unsealing-decision-aaron-swartz-case

======
sadfaceunread
Another perspective: <http://tech.mit.edu/V133/N26/swartz.html> Swartz's
lawyers initially sought complete release of information with no redaction of
identifying information (including SSNs and Birthdates see: Pre-motion
statements and the actions regarding maintenance of certain records they were
obligated to destroy at the end of the prosecution). Clearly balance is needed
and the employees of the victims in a criminal prosecution (JSTOR, MIT)
deserve reasonable protection.

edit: Minor increase in clarity, re:reply

~~~
coderaptor
After the Boston bombings it's pretty apparent that the Reddit community alone
will jump to some dangerous conclusions without the full story - and in this
case specifically that would be a major concern of mine. So where do we
actually find the middle line and balance here?

~~~
bhitov
Middle line and balance? If it would have become public record at trial, it
should become so now. How can one argue that Aaron's death should cause less
detail of the prosecution to be made available?

~~~
mhurron
Because it's no longer going to trial.

Lots of details of your life would be made public if you were brought to
trial, but since you're presumably not going to trial, they aren't.

Just because something would happen if something else did happen doesn't mean
that that something should happen regardless.

