Slashdot Mirror


FBI Investigates Liberator of Court Records

eldavojohn writes "Federal court documents aren't free to the public, they cost $0.08/page through a system called PACER. During a period when the US Government Printing Office was trying out free access at a number of courthouses around the US, a 22-year-old programmer named Aaron Swartz installed a small PERL script at the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals library in Chicago — a script that uploaded a public document every three seconds to Amazon's EC2 cloud computing service. Swartz then donated over 19 million documents to public.resource.org. That's when the FBI took interest in the programmer responsible for this effort and ran his name through government databases. How did he discover this? His FOIA was approved, of course, and he received the FBI's partially redacted report on himself. The public.resource.org database was later merged with that of the RECAP Firefox extension, which we discussed a couple of months back." Update: 10/06 18:22 GMT by KD: Timothy Lee pointed out that the summary as originally posted garbled the Swartz / RECAP connection. Improved now.

22 of 445 comments (clear)

  1. Bad English by AlterRNow · · Score: 3, Informative

    AARON SWARTZ would have known his access was unauthorized because it was with a password that did not belonged to him.

    Proof-reading. A valuable tool.

    --
    The disappearing pencil trick. Let me show you it.
  2. 19,856,160 records at 3 seconds per record by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Informative

    ((((19,856,160 x 3 sec)/60 sec)/60 min)/24 hours)/365 days = 1.9 years

    entirely doable

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:19,856,160 records at 3 seconds per record by demonbug · · Score: 2, Informative

      Tough to tell from the article, but it sounds like he didn't actually install a script on the terminals. Sounds like he copied the information (cookie?) from a couple of terminals that had access to the retrieval system, then used that login/cookie information to run a script on Amazon's cloud service that sent a request every 3 seconds using the authorization from the terminal(s). Hence the comment in the FBI file that he should have known it was illegal because he didn't own the account he used to access the retrieval system - he was using the information from the terminal(s).

  3. Re:And where did he get the password? by rehtonAesoohC · · Score: 3, Informative

    RTFA... He ran the script on the library computer, and the computer had a cookie set that allowed access to the PACER system without inputting a password.

  4. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Did you miss the part about installing (presumably non-permitted) software on a court computer?

  5. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by dwillden · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes it all costs money, and we the TAX payers have paid that money. Thus the works are public domain.

    --
    I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  6. Re:So, it took 1.9 years? by kent_eh · · Score: 4, Informative

    > What am I missing?

    Document != page

    19,856,160 pages at 3 seconds per court document.
    I expect many (most?) of those court documents are multi-page documents.

    --

    ---
    "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
  7. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by BigRedFed · · Score: 4, Informative

    When something is in the public domain, you can still charge for reproducing or hosting it. You just can not prevent someone from copying and distributing it in the manner that they want as well. Public domain does not preclude paid access. Also, since people pay money to file court documents, IE filing fees, etc. There are instance where you paid NOTHING for court documents to be produced at all. Courts do not run wholly on tax dollars alone.

  8. Pacer charges even more than it says by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Pacer is worse than presented. Itâ(TM)s not just 8 cents a page for downloaded, itâ(TM)s 8 cents a page for any page you pull into your browser. They consider any Web page you surf on their site in search of the legal document to be a âoedownloadedâ document.
    I work at a newspaper and one of my reporters ran up a $250 bill with Pacer checking many times a day to see if an important local opinion were issued. When it was, it was just 4 pages long; I expected to pay 32 cents. Instead they said we owed over $250. We never paid it and consequently no longer use Pacer.

  9. PERL! by spottedkangaroo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Perl is only an acronym in certain contexts and PERL is a shibboleth! Fortunately, you can load PERL with this module: http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?Inline::PERL

    --
    Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
  10. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by prgrmr · · Score: 2, Informative

    Read the article. PACER was specifically giving the documents out for free via the library. He didn't circumvent anything, just made very efficient use of a perfectly legal process using perfectly legal means.

  11. Re:And where did he get the password? by PhilHibbs · · Score: 4, Informative

    RTFFBI report, they say that he ran the script from a location outside of the library using the library password. Either the FBI are wrong, or the article summary is.

  12. Re:Not at all surprised by chrb · · Score: 3, Informative

    Install unauthorized software on a government

    Didn't RTFA eh? What he actually did was access the PACER database using the username/password of the library from his Amazon IP address. One request every 3 seconds (which apparently counts as "inundated"), worth an imaginary $1.5 million. So they investigate the IP address, Amazon helpfully coughs up all the accounts details, with the name they find his web page and from Accurint get his social security number and other details, then gain access to his LinkedIn and Facebook accounts, drivers license, drive by his house and get photos (they suggest surveillance will be difficult), then he gets interviewed by the New York Times. After all that, they drop the case.

    Possibly the best quote from the FBI: AARON SWARTZ would have known his access was unauthorized because it was with a password that did not belonged to him.

  13. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Instead of spouting bullshit, you could get some facts first. From the PACER FAQs:

    Why are there user fees for PACER?

    In 1988, the Judiciary sought funding through the appropriation process to establish the capability to provide electronic public access services. Rather than appropriating additional funds for this purpose, Congress specifically directed the Judiciary to fund that initiative through the collection of user fees. As a result, the program relies exclusively on fee revenue.

    So, in fact, PACER is NOT supported by taxes.

    Furthermore, just because some service receives some tax money does not mean it is completely funded by taxes. There are many services that receive some tax money, but not enough to pay for the entire service. The rest is made up in user fees. This is not double dipping.

  14. Re:Money by gnick · · Score: 2, Informative

    OK... No additional direct cost to me. Thanks for chipping in for postage =)

    Sadly, in your (accurate) context, I helped pay for them to investigate me...

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  15. Re:Doesn't the FBI have better things to do? by natehoy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, it all depends. The information is "freely" available as in "free as in speech". You can go on PACER any time you want and download anything you want.

    However, PACER itself is not (or at least not fully) tax-funded, so it's not "free as in beer". There is a user fee involved if you want to download the originals off the PACER system, which funds the system and makes the documents accessible. Once you have a copy of a document, you are free to do anything you want with it including share the document with anyone you want, which is why groups like RECAP can re-share any documents they've paid for or had donated to them.

    This one is an interesting case, because the library access was initially set up so people could do free searches for small numbers of records, expecting a small number of hits. When the number of hits started skyrocketing, the government got suspicious as to who was collecting all of the documents and why. The FBI started an investigation, and it sounds like they discovered that nothing illegal was going on after all and dropped it. I'd say the number of hits on the system was enough to raise suspicion and justify a further look into what was going on, but that's one man's opinion.

    While I applaud Aaron's efforts on behalf of RECAP, the net result was the publication of a few million files (good) and the shutting down of the free access to PACER at libraries due to what PACER obviously thought of as abuse (not so good).

    If everyone expects/gets access to all PACER documents for free, then there won't be any money going into PACER to pay to scan the documents, organize them, and make them available. Then PACER will either cease to exist, or require additional taxpayer funding to continue since they won't be making any funds from user fees.

    I'm not saying that complete taxpayer funding is a BAD idea, only that it is not how PACER is funded at this time. RECAP's initial approach was to collect donations to get "first copies" of a bunch of records from PACER then make them freely available to all (or to ask people to donate "first copies" they'd already purchased). So PACER was making revenue, and everyone was happy.

    --
    "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  16. Re:Money by gnick · · Score: 3, Informative

    So they had 88 pages on you for no reason?

    Not for no reason - I was told by the investigating agency that they were looking at me and I was interviewed twice, thus my interest in acquiring whatever they found. I knew pretty definitively that "they" had something on me. The point is, once they decide to look at you, they really try hard to look at you. So, if you know or suspect that you've got a file, read it - It's interesting.

    Part of the fun for me was looking at the various 'Red Flags' that turned up (They turned up the facts that I used to home-brew explosives, make improvised explosives (some multiple pounds)*, and get high all the time** - Those, for some reason, were lesser red-flags than the fact that I've had a common nick-name since Junior High and therefore use an 'alias'). Another fun area was looking at their interview list. For the interview list, my reaction was mostly, "How in the heck did you find him?" or "Man, if you wanted dirt on me you really talked to the wrong people..."

    * Stopped within a year after high-school
    ** Stopped after college

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  17. Re:Money by clintp · · Score: 5, Informative

    Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy also applies:

    "In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely."

    --
    Get off my lawn.
  18. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 5, Informative

    He created an executable file containing computer instructions written in a programmming language. How is that not a program? He received no authorization to install it, and therefore it was "unauthorized". The description "installed an unauthorized program" sounds right on to me.

    --
    I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  19. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by Iron+Condor · · Score: 2, Informative

    Are government bodies not entitled to charge a nominal fee for services rendered?

    No. First they didn't "render" and service - these records are available electronically anyway.

    No, they are not. You are simply and plainly wrong. That's the whole POINT of PACER: to send people into the vaults with tens of millions of pages of paper records and scan them, and check them and collate them and file them so they can be found by the people who need them. When was the last time you scanned tens of millions of pieces of paper? What makes you think this is not a service rendered?

    Second these public records were already paid for by public taxes - the "nominal fee" has already been paid by Joe public

    No, they haven't. PACER is not receiving tax money. You and your ilk would be frothing at the mouth about the waste of your tax dollars if it were.

    --
    We're all born with nothing.
    If you die in debt, you're ahead.
  20. Re:You know what pisses me off about stuff like th by amplt1337 · · Score: 4, Informative

    bleeding hearts are responsible for the national debt

    Actually, you're wrong.

    "social services" really ought to be handled by private organizations like they used to.

    You might want to do some research on the 1880s, and how effectively social services were handled by private organizations back then. Protip: they weren't handled at all. People died in the streets in massive numbers.

    Most of the cries of "ooh big government! big government!" that people love to wave around come from an ignorance of how important government programs are to maintaining social order and a modicum of well-being for poor people. Well, that and a gross misconception of how much of the federal purse is spent on social programs, versus the things that the libertarians actually think are worthwhile. (We could just as easily cut almost all of our defense spending, since it's pretty much worthless).

    --
    Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
  21. Re:Money by AlamedaStone · · Score: 2, Informative

    Oh well, blame it on cultural differences

    President Eisenhower explained the dangers of an entire industry built on creating the machines of war nearly 50 years ago. His warnings went unheeded, and the result is our out-of-control military spending. See his comments in his own words here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

    or google "military industrial complex" for more information. Many US citizens are opposed to our militarism, but we seem unable to alter the course of so much short-sighted self-interest, money, and influence.

    --
    "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."