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.

12 of 445 comments (clear)

  1. What's wrong with this picture? by PunditGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Man makes public documents available, for free, to the public. Obviously, this sort of thing cannot be allowed to continue.

    1. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From the file :

      "PACER normally carries an eight cents per page fee, however, by accessing from one of the seventeen libraries, users may search and download data for free.

      Between September 4, 2008 and September 22, 2008, PACER was accessed by computers from outside the library utilizing login information from two libraries participating in the pilot project. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts reported that the PACER system was being inundated with requests. One request was being made every three seconds.

      [â¦] The two accounts were responsible for downloading more than eighteen million pages with an approximate value of $1.5 million."

      So he used a login (which wasn't registered in his name according to the report) to access files from a location not supposed to be used by those logins to download so many documents it began to look like a DOS attack. I'd say the FBI are correct to at least investigate.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    2. Re:What's wrong with this picture? by PitaBred · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The main problem I have with that is the "approximate value of $1.5 million".

      That is not their value. That is their price. Very different concepts. In a free society, they have much value, but shouldn't have a price. It's information every citizen should have access to.

  2. retaliation by yincrash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    if you look too closely at the gov't, they'll look too closely at you.

    1. Re:retaliation by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      if you look too closely at the gov't, they'll look too closely at you.

      Oh please. Put the tinfoil hat away. If this was 'retaliation' I suspect that it would have gone a lot further than an investigation that was closed after concluding that no laws were broken. Did he really expect the FBI not to take an interest in him after he installed his own code on a Government computer? Frankly I'd be worried if they didn't take an interest when some IT person notices a script running on a Government computer that's uploading hundreds of thousands of documents.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  3. Doesn't the FBI have better things to do? by langelgjm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, as far as I know, all this material is a matter of public record anyway. It should already be freely available. I've used bulk.resource.org primarily to read opinions of appeals court cases, and it's fantastic to have all that information freely available online. The FBI should be investigating the turrurists instead.

    Moral of the story is that if you don't pay 8 cent duplication fees and you know how to use PERL the FBI could come a knockin'?

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
  4. Not at all surprised by FrozenGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Install unauthorized software on a government, or business, computer anywhere and see what sort of response you get. This fellow installed an unauthorized perl script on a computer in a federal court (okay, the library thereof). I'm not surprised that the government decided to take a look at things. I'd be disappointed if they had not done so. DUH.

    --
    linquendum tondere
    1. Re:Not at all surprised by dwillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree. And I have a hard time seeing what the big deal about this is anyway. So they investigated. No charges were filed.

      End story: The FBI was doing it's job to ensure a crime wasn't being committed, when something unexpected was occuring on a government computer system.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  5. Re:Wow , at 8 cents a page for a PACER document... by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Government services charge a nominal fee that the majority of people pay for services rendered already.

    They call this fee, "tax"

    Most people don't want to pay again for what they've already paid for.

  6. Re:Money by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Proof that lean living nets profits.

    Our tax dollars primarily fund a welfare system known as civil service. We don't know what they do, but it requires a lot of them and a whole lot of time to do it.

  7. typical demagoguery by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    false dichotomies, misrepresented reality, etc.

    nobody in their right mind is thinking of shortchanging something like defense spending for the sake of welfare recipients. this never enters into any governmental spending calculus as it is blindingly obvious something like police are more important to absolutely everyone involved in decision making. if spending is not at the level you think it should be, it has to do with someone thinking less is needed for that particular spending allotment, in a vacuum of any other consideration, not because someone needs a battered women's shelter instead. you present a false choice in your comment that never exists in the real world

    furthermore social services are a bargain: every dollar spent on welfare and healthcare and other social services is one less guy breaking into your house or mugging you on the street, because they can't feed their kids, or because they can't keep their job with a broken arm (that they can't afford to fix). it's cheaper to fix their arm. you will pay for social services one way or another. the idea of not spending on healthcare for the poor means the problem just goes away is ignorance: every untreated case of diabetes winding up in the emergency room, every case of tuberculosis untreated resulting in your children catching it, every untreated case of hypertension resulting in a heart attack for the family breadwinner who now leaves a familty to fend on their own: you pay for that in the form of a sick society, and that affects your bottom line and the balance in your checking account, whether you are blind to how you are not an island in this world or not

    when you live in a rich society, you in turn are rich. when you live a poor society you in turn are poor. the money that exists in your pocket is not something devoid of any relationship to everything around you, the money in your pocket is abstract expression of the wealth around you. you pay for basic simple social services, or the money in your pocket is worth less and is less in quantity. that you can't see that is a defect in your perception. unfortunately, so many people take this defect in perception as the basis for an entire philosophy of life that assumes they exist apart from their society

    it isn't about individual responsibility and self-initiative, and those who don't have that having less socioeconomic status then you, it isn't about rewarding the undeserving. it is about giving the genuinely undeserving the bottom of the basement standard of living, so they don't wind up a cancer in your society that rots your entire society, which in turn impoverishes you. think of social services as an investment that pays dividends that are indirect. apparently beyond your ability to understand. and not making that investment resulting in the loss of far more of your money than you spend on basic social services

    the idea is freedom right? freedom from poverty deciding issues of basic human dignity right? oh yeah... durrr...

    but you shouldn't respond to me, you should get into politics. listen to any senator arguing out of ignorant resistance to change, and we see exactly the same sort of false choices and red herrings. you have a bright future in ignorant ideological grandstanding and fearmongering: go for it dude

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  8. Re:Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lol. You have no choice in who your military kicks the shit out of. You just get to see the aftermath on Fox. One day their gonna kick your Lilly ass you dumbass.