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.

58 of 89 comments (clear)

  1. MIT/JSTOR redactions == cowardice by sethstorm · · Score: 1, Troll

    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.
    1. Re:MIT/JSTOR redactions == cowardice by Weezul · · Score: 2

      Agreed. I think people know that Prosecutors Stephen Heymann and Carmen Ortiz are the ones who need to pay for Aaron Swartz death by losing their jobs. Any MIT and JSTOR employees involved should be penalized by people remembering them and obstructing their promotion within those organizations, but tempers have cooled enough that they shouldn't be getting death threats now.

      In any case, these documents will help focus anger back on Heymann and Ortiz. Example :

      Prosecutor Stephen Heymann Compared Aaron Swartz To Rapist

      --
      The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  2. Released? by MobSwatter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Released? by buchner.johannes · · Score: 2

      The assessment that people at MIT and JSTOR would be personally attacked and harassed by internet vigilante is realistic. You can just read the Slashdot articles calling for the hanging of everybody involved.

      But bringing more suffering does not help Aaron. We need to create protections against the psychological, financial and social consequences of prosecutions that go on for years. People lose their jobs, sanity and social status due to being under investigation.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    2. Re:Released? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      If they're not charged with anything, it's usually zero to minimal interference with their activities. If they're charged, they can demand speedy trials. American defendands have that right but rarely exercise it. I've heard an attorney say that they rarely do because it rarely works to their advantage. Many of the delays are actually caused by defendants and their lawyers.

    3. Re:Released? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      The only person who participated in his death was Aaron Schwartz. He wasn't harassed. He was arrested for unlawful actions.

    4. Re:Released? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The only person who participated in his death was Aaron Schwartz. He wasn't harassed. He was arrested for unlawful actions.

      He was needlessly imprisoned as punishment for taking actions which really shouldn't even have been illegal. That's not just harassment, it's also punishment before a finding of guilt.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Released? by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      But bringing more suffering does not help Aaron.

      You are of course correct.

      But killing these fuckers and every friend they ever had while torturing their families for 3 generations might prevent it from ever happening again.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    6. Re:Released? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      But killing these fuckers and every friend they ever had while torturing their families for 3 generations might prevent it from ever happening again.

      Unlikely.

    7. Re: Released? by dnadoc · · Score: 1

      No where is "speedy trial" defined as a particular length of time. In practice it works like "as soon as possible" considering all the recognized reasons/loopholes for a delay. Other than gitmo inmates nobody "invokes" their right to a speedy trial anymore than they invoke their right to a Republican form of government.

    8. Re:Released? by Dishevel · · Score: 1
      You do not think that Federal Prosecutors would unlikely to abuse their powers once they knew that getting found out meant a lynching of themselves by a mob of angry citizens followed by the torture of their parents and children? I do.

      Will not happen though. The stupid fuckers we have can not even vote people out of office.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    9. Re: Released? by dnadoc · · Score: 3, Interesting
      It's really callous to ruin somebody's life with immoral abuse of the legal system, over an unjust law, then blame the victim for his own suicide, because you think it didn't count as harassment.

      Aaron's dad was right- the government murdered Aaron.

    10. Re:Released? by Creepy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Swartz published PUBLIC DOMAIN documents on the internet that non-college students had to pay 10 cents a page for a copy. He was charged with computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer and recklessly damaging a protected computer, all provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, many of which were meant to protect ATM transactions before there was internet. If you haven't read this extremely over-broad law, which depending on interpretation makes the internet illegal (accessing any site without permission of the owner is illegal and a felony). In the aftermath, Aaron's law was proposed to eliminate terms of service from the CFAA, which is what all of these charges were based on.

      For that he was looking at 35 years in prison, forfeit of assets, and a 1 million dollar fine. To put that in perspective, he was looking at spending over half of his life in prison and could be 61 by release (without parole) and completely broke. That was for making free knowledge available to the public. I can understand being depressed and possibly suicidal faced with those charges and the very likely possibility of losing in court.

    11. Re:Released? by loufoque · · Score: 1

      That's what happens when you don't subscribe to a legal protection insurance.

    12. Re:Released? by cavreader · · Score: 1

      You best get back on your medication before you hurt yourself or others. You have come real close to issuing the kind of threats that people are starting to take seriously.

    13. Re:Released? by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      What threat? Coming close is noticing that if actions have consequences it changes things more than if there are no consequences? The fact prosecutors are already almost completely immune from proprietorial conduct makes this type of thing common. When the lawmakers make themselves immune to the law, sooner or later vigilantes will come into the picture. This is not a threat. It is an obvious observation. Without law there is vigilante justice.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    14. Re:Released? by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Seriously dude get back on the meds and power down your reality distortion field a bit. It's bad enough a young man killed himself, someone with admitted psychological issues, but laying the blame on others and threatening them with violence is probably not the best way to vent your anger.

    15. Re:Released? by Dishevel · · Score: 1
      Not threatening. Stating that it would be nice.

      Also not placing blame for the suicide on them. Only placing blame on them for twisting the legal system to protect big money interests while harming the people the law is supposed to protect.

      Since prosecutors are immune from prosecution even when they are clearly abusing their power the only type of justice that can ever come their way is via vigilantism. Which I think personally is wrong in most cases as law is supposed to be applied to them. Sadly they have exempted themselves from the law ...

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    16. Re: Released? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      I prefer the truth even if you think it is callous. Nobody murdered Aaron Schwartz. He killed himself and nobody else can or should be held responsible for that.

    17. Re: Released? by dnadoc · · Score: 1

      True! When he said "American defendants" I assumed he meant federal statutes. My memory of those cases involved judges scheduling a trial, then granting the prosecution as many continuances as they wanted. The only Constitutional bar is something like years after indictment.

  3. 14500 pages? by c0lo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:14500 pages? by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      These are scary unethical people developing policy, given that they are driven by corporate interests, well... FUCK THAT!!!

    2. Re:14500 pages? by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I suspect there will be page after page of

      suspect woke up at 06:55. Alarm played I'm Free by the Who
      suspect entered bathroom at 06:56
      suspect farted
      suspect got dressed Jeans (faded levi's) and white T shirt at 07:04
      suspect descended stairs at 07:05 and yawned
      suspect said good morning to

      etc etc etc

      He must have been a 'very naughty boy' (with homage to Monty Python) to have made the feds take that level of interest in him. It is a pity that in doing do, they took their eyes off of other even badder people in the Boston Area.
      joking apart and honestly,
      I can't see what was so serious/life threatening/treasonable that caused the Feds to take that level on interest in him. However, I do suspect that having done so, they saw that this pretty innocious charge of copying was the foot in the door and they needed to show the bosses in DC that there was some return on their investment so they put the squeeze on the DA to throw the book at him.
      no proof but why else would she keep saying we are going to press for the maximum sentence?
      If found guilty, he could well have spent more time in jail than a murderer. How can his crime be regarded as being more serious than that? The US Justice is IMHO anything but Just.

      --
      I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
    3. Re:14500 pages? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The US does not have a justice system. It has a legal system. Wherever you see the term "justice" applied, you can infer it to mean, "Whatever the government wants."

    4. Re:14500 pages? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What the hell? How much of 14500 pages could have been relevant to the trial?

      Are you guys competing with Stasi?

      Don't underestimate the arousal experienced by many a government bureaucrat as they compile volumes of information about any person of interest. And the malicious behaviour of government employees is rarely punished; in fact, such behaviour is encouraged.

    5. Re:14500 pages? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Be careful when you are publishing something entitled "Manifesto" or "Guerilla"
      This people takes this words just as serious as saying bomb in a plane.

    6. Re:14500 pages? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Actually I think they are.

      Read the Guerilla Open Access Manifesto. This is what got the feds' attention on Swartz. Now what in there could possibly have anything to do with state security?

      Why were the feds interested in someone because they said these things? I can only come up with three possibilities, and none of them are good:

      1. They are policing IP issues
      2. They are acting as rent-a-cops to protect the profits of certain corporations, on taxpayer money (this is subtly different than #1)
      3. They simply see anyone not happy with the increasing secrecy and private ownership of the world as a potential security threat who should be crushed with the full weight of the legal system at the first opportunity, to cripple any of their future endeavors.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    7. Re:14500 pages? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      It might include copies of some of the documents he illegally copied and it may contain many files that partially duplicate each other.

    8. Re:14500 pages? by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Dot Matrix?! Hey!

      If you can't afford a good laser printer then a dot matrix one can be useful. Inkjets suck, they dry out or the timer chips in the cartridges expire. They collect dust inside and start leaving streaks on the paper requiring difficult cleaning processes (or more likely just buying a new one) Ink is rediculous expensive!!

      I was really regretting that I didn't keep a dot matrix printer myself. For a while I was looking for a nice used one to print out pdf manuals, ebooks and stuff like that. Tractor fed paper is great if you want to print out reams of it at a time without having to babysit. Just place the printer on a high shelf so the paper has plenty of room to go down as it prints. You can let it go all day. Most newer consumer grade printers will just jam up if you try that.

      My work decided to get rid of an old HP LaserJet so I don't need a dotmatrix any more but otherwise I probably would have one by now.

      Then again, now that I have a tablet I don't print books so often as I used to. It's still nice to know that I can though.

      Oh... and Dot Matrix printers are great for printing receipts!

    9. Re:14500 pages? by RoknrolZombie · · Score: 1

      That's the same reason the NSA doesn't think there's anything wrong with spying on the world. Still believe that?

    10. Re:14500 pages? by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      You'll be fine as long as you don't mention pressure cooker and explosive device in the same sentence.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
  4. Missing info from the summary by mutube · · Score: 3, Funny

    It was in an 86pt font.

  5. Help an uneducated by buck-yar · · Score: 1

    How was Swartz charged with unauthorized access when he had a JSTOR account?

    1. Re:Help an uneducated by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act treats both "unauthorized access" and "exceeding authorized access" as essentially equivalent. The second case is where you had an account but used it in unauthorized ways. This has some obvious vagueness and overreach problems. Did the CFAA drafters really mean to criminalize ToS violations, for example?

      Here [pdf] is a proposed amendment to the law from law professor Orin Kerr.

    2. Re:Help an uneducated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He (allegedly) violated the terms of service by downloading articles in bulk automatically, hammering JSTOR's servers. It was a distinctive enough pattern of misuse that JSTOR asked for it to be stopped and MIT tried to implement local blocks on his access (i.e. some kind of network filtering), which Swartz then circumvented by eventually plugging a laptop directly into the MIT network in a data closet. None of this was settled in court, because it never got to trial, but I think those basic facts of the situation were not in dispute.

    3. Re:Help an uneducated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There are so many rules, regulations and laws in the USA that one must "break" one of these. Many of these rules, regulations and laws contradict others so that to keep one of these is to break another of these rules, regulations and laws.
      This has, at least, two purposes:
      (1) Every person is made a "law-breaker" and can be persecuted at any time for a wide variety of "crimes".
      (2) Every person, being a "law-breaker", can be fined (Government and/or Business), disciplined (G&B), or imprisoned (G & B with the help of G)
      The individual, having gained notoriety by the Government and/or Business, can be destroyed or raised-up at any moment or incident.

      Swartz broke one of these contradictory rules and the Business (MIT) induced the Government to persecute him. The Government jumped on him with hob-nailed boots and broke him. His brokenness end in his death. The Business had their "thief" punished and the Government had their "threat" eliminated.

      If one keeps up with the news in the USA, one will see in Federal tax-preparation time planted news stories about taxpayers (no longer citizens) who have run afoul of the IRS and "broke" some Federal tax rule, regulation, and law. The individual is way-layed; prison terms are routinely handed out to these "criminals". If a Business does this, it receives a penalty but, being only an "entity" and not an actual person, receives no prison time and rarely admits its "crime".

      Poor Mr. Swartz was caught up in a process that ate him up and spit him out. It ended in his death and now the Business (MIT) that started the entire process wants to claim innocence. Regrettably, most people will "buy" the propaganda. Every person has lost something with the death of Mr. Swartz.

    4. Re:Help an uneducated by Nyder · · Score: 2

      The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act treats both "unauthorized access" and "exceeding authorized access" as essentially equivalent. ...

      Isn't that what the NSA has done to us?

      --
      Be seeing you...
    5. Re:Help an uneducated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There's nothing contradictory about the laws in question. It was copyrighted material. JSTOR had it on their site. Access to that material was under specific terms, including not using automated bots to download articles in bulk. He broke those terms. When MIT tried to block his access as they were obliged to do according to JSTOR's license contract, Swartz entered a closet with network gear and plugged a computer directly into the network to circumvent the blocks.

      This is a very simple law: you don't copy other people's work without permission, and you don't enter unauthorized parts of private property or plug into their network without permission. How is this situation different from if it was your home network and files, and you granted access to some of the content to a friend under certain terms? And then your friend copied everything and started putting it out on the web, contrary to your stated wishes? The government's persecution of Swartz was flagrantly over the top and it had tragic results, but these were NOT hard rules or regulations to understand. It's common sense, not "contradictory rules". Where the flaws exist are is in the outrageous punishments for breaking them.

      MIT is not innocent, but they did sign contracts they were obliged to uphold. Likewise for JSTOR, who signed contracts with the copyright holders. They had to do something, and they did. And then Swartz circumvented those efforts. What were they supposed to do? Give up, sit back, and let it happen? I mean, seriously. They tried to stop him with technical solutions. He found ways around it including going into unauthorized locations. What next? Legal solutions. Unfortunately that unleashed the government.

      I have a *lot* of sympathy for Swartz's cause, and I have even more for him because of how the government abused the situation and tried to make him agree to ridiculous plea bargains over something so small. The magnitude of the punishments for breaking these laws are wrong. But if you think Swartz did nothing wrong himself then you don't have a balanced view of the situation.

      I know people won't like hearing this, but think about the situation if these were your files on your network and someone did this without your permission. What would you do if you were unsuccessful with technical solutions?

    6. Re:Help an uneducated by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      Possibly, but the FISA statute probably supersedes the CFAA.

    7. Re:Help an uneducated by stenvar · · Score: 2

      Did the CFAA drafters really mean to criminalize ToS violations, for example?

      I don't see how that is relevant here. Swartz evaded attempts to remove him from the network and he installed hardware on a physical network on private property. Neither of those is a ToS violation, it's gaining access illegally. The copying itself also wasn't just a ToS violation, it was a criminal copyright violation (but he wasn't even charged with that AFAIK).

      CFAA is far too vague and far too expansive. But Swartz would have run afoul of pretty much any computer fraud statute.

    8. Re:Help an uneducated by pellik · · Score: 1

      Haven't you been paying attention at all here? It was PUBLIC DOMAIN material. He did not violate copyright, he merely exceeded/broke the ToS in downloading all of it instead of tiny bits. He broke a wall between the public and things that belong to the public already.

      Besides, most states have laws ensuring property owners have access to their property. That's why you can't keep the power company off your land when they want to read your meter. Why can't that apply here, too?

    9. Re:Help an uneducated by Creepy · · Score: 1

      FISA applies to foreign surveillance and signed into law by Carter and was actually put in place because Nixon used federal resources to spy on domestic activities in violation of the Fourth Amendment. So the original intent was to make sure federal resources were only used for international spying. CFAA was put in place to prevent computer crimes such as hacking (the bad kind) and protect ATM transactions. Politicians had very little idea what (peer-to-peer) modems were, much less packet networks when they signed that into law, but it was pushed through quickly to protect banks and businesses as these technologies emerged.

      So technically, FISA and CFAA have nothing to do with one another, though they could be intertwined today with FISA's broadened scope.

    10. Re:Help an uneducated by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Hmm... I had heard the documents were in the public domain, but MIT charged 10 cents a page to see them. Swartz wanted to make the public domain documents publicly available on the internet and not blocked by MIT's ivy wall and MIT went to find out what could be done to stop it. Someone (not sure who, prosecutors or the United States government) suggested using CFAA, which essentially makes terms of service a binding contract, and making these documents available on the internet violated that contract. They also got him for wire fraud, a provision put in for ATMs back when modems were considered a new technology, since he was stealing "financial transactions" that MIT could have made for these documents.

  6. The only way to get the NSA off your back by Required+Snark · · Score: 4, Interesting

    is to die.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:The only way to get the NSA off your back by borl · · Score: 1

      ...and that's when the RIAA begin their court proceedings!

    2. Re:The only way to get the NSA off your back by kav2k · · Score: 1

      Don't be so sure. You may still be a valuable link on another person's web of contacts, so information collected about you will still be extensively mined.

      I guess, with even more impunity. Are dead people protected by the Fourth?

    3. Re:The only way to get the NSA off your back by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      This case does not involve the NSA.

    4. Re:The only way to get the NSA off your back by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      yet

  7. Redacted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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

  8. Feds had good reason to be investigating by mysidia · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Feds had good reason to be investigating by mysidia · · Score: 1

      As you're apparently unaware of the difference between "of" and "have," I wouldn't go making fun of the intellect of others...

      Are you claiming an ability to draft a 133 word comment on the first go, that nobody will ever claim there is an 'error' in?

      Come try writing your comment in my native Basque or Ainu (Japanese).

      If you claim your writing is deemed error-free by everyone; then you are not taking on enough challenges, which is intellectually tragic.

    2. Re:Feds had good reason to be investigating by mysidia · · Score: 1

      good reason or not i have a feeling that the rest of the world has just about had it with us.

      The whole world has a lot to learn; including the US, and including the rest of the world that is not the US.

      Anyways; it doesn't matter other country's opinions about how the US handles its internal affairs.

      The US is sovereign. If they want to abolish free speech; and prefer copyright.... It would be very disappointing and contrary to their founding ideals ---- however, it would be their rights to do so as a sovereign nation.

      And the "rest of the world" could be fed up with it all they want; short of war, it's outside their rights or ability to interfere with internal governance of another country.

  9. Re:Nobody cares about this suicidal loser by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Evidence by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    Generally the officers making arrests or searching homes are not trained computer forensics experts, so they can't be expected to know what is and isn't of potential interest. The policy then is to just take everything vaguely computer-related just in case, and have the specialists back at the station look at it all to find the real evidence.

    Plus is can financially and personally cripple the suspect, applying more pressure for them to agree to a plea bargain. Prosecutors love that bit.

  11. obquote by xiphmont · · Score: 1

    "It is a damn poor mind indeed which can't think of at least two ways to spell any word."
    --Andrew Jackson

  12. Re:Swartz same as NSA by Creepy · · Score: 1

    This is more like you having the complete works of William Shakespeare including four previously unknown plays and I happened to see it and quickly copy it taking phone snapshots of each page for the benefit of the public and then you accused me of stealing it and having me arrested for it. I didn't actually take anything from you, and the document was in the public domain, just not freely available.

  13. Stephen Heymann & Carmen Ortiz by runeghost · · Score: 3

    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.

  14. The OP is false. by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

    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.