Slashdot Mirror
First Portions of Aaron Swartz's Secret Service File Released
Despite attempts by MIT and JSTOR to block the release of files pertaining the Aaron Swartz investigation, the court has ordered the release of documents not referencing MIT or JSTOR. There are approximately 14,500 pages of documents that will be released over the coming six months, after having information that could lead to harm against MIT or JSTOR employees redacted. Wired has the full story, and the author uploaded the first hundred pages of files. The first batch reveals that the Feds had indeed been looking into Swartz since the publication of his 2008 'Guerilla Open Access Manifesto,' several years before being indicted for copying documents from JSTOR.
With that kind of cowardice, you could black out the nearly the entire document just for someone's sensitivies.
Now if that information is released, that would be telling.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
We already know based upon Snowden that anything that will incriminate the U.S. government will be classified (Blacked out). It's clear on the Swartz case that they are so bent on making the people stupid that they are willing kill the smart ones that want to share knowledge. Not really much more to explore on the subject, other than a choice in country that is a bit more worthy of their word, and rule of law.
They do it on accident.
What the hell? How much of 14500 pages could have been relevant to the trial?
Are you guys competing with Stasi?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
It was in an 86pt font.
Python coder | PyQt Applications | Writer
How was Swartz charged with unauthorized access when he had a JSTOR account?
is to die.
Why is Snark Required?
Remember, the government is made up of people. Just like corporations.
And, just like the people in corporations, those people are open to petty jealousy, irrational rage, corruption and bribery by other people percieved as powerful and able to give them the bribe.
So when Apple Corp want the law to engender injustice, they get someone in government to do it.
This is no more "the government are abusing the law" than the hitman is guilty of murder: the one making this happen is just as, if not more, guilty of the crime. Insisting it is "the government's fault" is always used to absolve the rich commercial interests who sic the government on their opponents.
Without a government to do this, there would be no government to stop them just buying their own guards, guns and justice system. If there were no government to do this for them, they'd do it themselves. Removing government won't remove the injustice.
After having gained the documents, he would have been able to seed them to other computers and therefore the MIT system would not have to resolve every request for the document.
The work would have saved their network.
And Aaron wasn't going to ask for payment for his aid.
Whilst they hold "down" the fort. Look, they really could care less, even if they tried...
When completely clueless about technology, seize every object on the premises.
I mean...Applecare ? Manuals ? Adapters ? How are these "evidence" ?
Um, the whole fucking point is to release the information that could and should cause harm to JSTOR and MIT.
Oh, it's been redacted. Must be nice to not be one of the peasants like us.
AC
The first batch reveals that the Feds had indeed been looking into Swartz since the publication of his 2008 'Guerilla Open Access Manifesto,'
While I appreciate his point of view. He wrote a manifesto specifically desiring to persuade people to break the law, and implying that he had.
It's impressive and scary that the feds discovered and interpreted this manifesto --- I would of thought it beyond their level of intelligence to be capable of understanding it.
But it's not surprising or wrong, that he was to be investigated for publishing something so explicitly begging people to break the law and essentially confessing to copyright breaking.
Expressing such a message is sure to get you extra scrutiny -- that's the way the world works.
Everything you do after publishing such a document, and anyone anybody can find you've done in the past -- better be on the up-and-up, or you risk arrest.
And you better be prepared to be found guilty, too; maybe, even if the charges were bogus and contrived by our dark overlords to suppress the throes of rebellion.
Really tired of all the Aaron Swartz stories, it got old months ago.
Really tired of some people whining about all the Aaron Swartz stories. If you're not interested, don't read them. I am interested because this is an important ongoing story, and this article does contain new information.
Just because I let you in my house, and let you see my possessions, doesn't give you permission to break in and setup a camera to monitor everything in my house.
Of course since you don't have a problem with Swartz's behavior, I guess you don't have a problem with the NSA surveillance either. Both are exactly the same, accessing files they have no business accessing.
Court cases aside, Swartz and the NSA are both the same to me. They both access other people files, which are none of their business, while claiming moral superiority.
The difference is Swartz had to actually break into a phone closet to do it, and the NSA uses FISA warrants and collusion to do it.
But they're both guilty of arrogance in deciding they' have more right to decide what happens to other people information than the actual owners.
"It is a damn poor mind indeed which can't think of at least two ways to spell any word."
--Andrew Jackson
Why are these two still employed by the U.S. Government? Ortiz and Hyemann need to pay for their misconduct in this case, preferably by being disbarred for life, and at the least with their careers as U.S. Attorneys. That they are allowed to continue working for the so-called United States Department of Justice is one more indictation of the disfunction and failure of America's legal system.
THE OP says that the FBI was looking at Schwartz since 2008 b/c of his manifesto. If you follow the link, it refers you to Wired. The Wired article does not say this. It says they were going to use that 2008 manifesto against him when they prosecuted him.
If I am mistaken on this, please link me, but I don't think I am.
It's a big diff. In one case the feds are building a (pathetic) case. In the other one, the feds are starting to track people for exercising their 1st Amendment rights.
Maybe they do. They have in the past. But this is not an instance of it.