Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: As Aaron Swartz's case fades, new ones arise!

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty50
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/why-matthew-keys-is-not-the-next-aaron-swartz/2013/03/20/0eae21f4-90c7-11e2-9abd-e4c5c9dc5e90_story.html# Why
    Message 1 of 11 , Mar 21, 2013
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/why-matthew-keys-is-not-the-next-aaron-swartz/2013/03/20/0eae21f4-90c7-11e2-9abd-e4c5c9dc5e90_story.html#

      Why Matthew Keys is not `the next Aaron Swartz'

      By Caitlin Dewey
      March 20, 2013

      (excerpts)

      Matthew Keys is no Aaron Swartz.

      But the Reuters social media producer will face decades in jail under the same law used against Swartz if convicted of helping Anonymous hack the Los Angeles Times Web site in late 2010 — a parallel that has Keys's lawyers and some commentators grouping the two as twin victims of America's mangled computer crime laws.

      Their cases may look the same, but they involve entirely different sections of a controversial cyber crime law.

      Keys was recently charged with different computer crimes under the same law.

      Prosecutors allege the 26-year-old journalist, who has been suspended from Reuters with pay, helped Anonymous deface the Los Angeles Times Web site by giving log-in credentials to a hacker in an Anonymous chatroom, shortly after Keys was fired by the company that owns the Times.

      But legal experts caution that the cases are different, despite their apparent parallels.

      And bloggers like Jason Gooljar are finding out exactly how controversial it is to call Keys "the next Aaron Swartz" — Gooljar quickly updated a post with that title after Redditors slammed the comparison as an "insult" to Swartz's memory.

      > "Aaron Swartz and Matthew Keys are very different,"

      said Orin Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University and a respected expert on cyber crime.

      > "They were charged under completely different
      > parts of the law."

      The law in question is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the much-maligned, much-amended 1984 computer crime law that governs many government and commercial cases. The CFAA has not gotten much love from legal experts in the past few years: it's "outrageous," "bullying" and "shockingly vague," depending on whom you ask, and its sweeping terms have been used to charge people for crimes ranging from hacking a Playstation 3 so it could run third-party programs to downloading the client database of an ex-employer.

      But while it's easy to see the CFAA as one monolithic relic, Kerr says, the law actually has several parts, and Keys was charged under the least controversial one.

      That's because the CFAA's biggest problem lies in its use of the phrase "unauthorized access" — a vague, only loosely defined term that has left prosecutors and courts to their own interpretations.

      Keys's part of the law doesn't mention that term.
      Swartz's does.

      Aside from the difference in their alleged crimes, there's also a split in apparent motives.

      As many of Swartz's defenders have pointed out on social media, Swartz was a documented Internet activist who fought publicly for freedom of information.

      On the other hand, in chat room transcripts released by the Department of Justice, the user alleged to be Keys urges an Anonymous hacker to "go f--- some s--- up."

      That isn't just a public-relations issue: motives can factor into sentencing, too, Kerr says.

      --------------------------------
      --------------------------------
    • Ned Netterville
      Robert, Voluntaryists would do away with the silly, statist concept of intellectual property, which would, of course, exonerate Aaron Schwarz. Lots of
      Message 2 of 11 , Mar 21, 2013
        Robert, Voluntaryists would do away with the silly, statist concept of "intellectual property," which would, of course, exonerate Aaron Schwarz. Lots of literature on the wisdom of this position at mises.org
        r enemies; it befuddles 'em!--Ned Netterville
      • rlbaty50
        ... Similarly, if we would only repeal laws against..., we could eliminate prison over-crowding and exonerate rapists, bank robbers, Bernie Madoff, Charles
        Message 3 of 11 , Mar 21, 2013
          --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
          Ned Netterville <nednetterville@...> wrote, in part:

          > Robert,
          >
          > Voluntaryists would... which would, of course,
          > exonerate Aaron Schwarz.

          Similarly, if we would only repeal laws against..., we could eliminate prison over-crowding and exonerate rapists, bank robbers, Bernie Madoff, Charles Manson, etc., etc., etc.

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty
        • Ned Netterville
          The similarity is not logical. Real crimes, like those you name, have victims. Who was victimized by Aaron Schwarz s crime? ... -- Love your enemies; it
          Message 4 of 11 , Mar 21, 2013
            The similarity is not logical. Real crimes, like those you name, have victims. Who was victimized by Aaron Schwarz's crime?

            On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:13 PM, rlbaty50 <rlbaty@...> wrote:
             



            --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
            Ned Netterville <nednetterville@...> wrote, in part:

            > Robert,
            >
            > Voluntaryists would... which would, of course,
            > exonerate Aaron Schwarz.

            Similarly, if we would only repeal laws against..., we could eliminate prison over-crowding and exonerate rapists, bank robbers, Bernie Madoff, Charles Manson, etc., etc., etc.

            Sincerely,
            Robert Baty




            --
            Love your enemies; it befuddles 'em!--Ned Netterville
          • rlbaty50
            Ned, It would not seem to me to be productive to quibble with you about real crimes and victim/victimless crimes . You spoke of exoneration, and that was
            Message 5 of 11 , Mar 21, 2013
              Ned,

              It would not seem to me to be productive to quibble with you about "real crimes" and "victim/victimless crimes".

              You spoke of exoneration, and that was the subject I addressed.

              I think my logic was impeccable, valid and sound.

              That is, criminals of all stripes can be exonerated if the laws which they transgress are repealed, retroactively.

              Ned, are you now proposing that some Government is appropriate, some laws justified and subject to enforcement by "the long arm of the law/Government", and maybe even some taxes levied to pay for the operations thereof?

              Sincerely,
              Robert Baty

              --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
              Ned Netterville <nednetterville@...> wrote:

              > The similarity is not logical.
              >
              > Real crimes, like those you name,
              > have victims.
              >
              > Who was victimized by Aaron Schwarz's crime?
              >
              > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:13 PM,
              > rlbaty50 <rlbaty@...> wrote:
              >
              >> --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
              >> Ned Netterville <nednetterville@> wrote, in part:
              >>
              >>> Robert,
              >>>
              >>> Voluntaryists would... which would, of course,
              >>> exonerate Aaron Schwarz.
              >>
              >> Similarly, if we would only repeal laws
              >> against..., we could eliminate prison
              >> over-crowding and exonerate rapists,
              >> bank robbers, Bernie Madoff, Charles Manson,
              >> etc., etc., etc.
            • Ned Netterville
              Robert, OK, I see. I should read more carefully. You are right! (Add a Ned notch.) But the analogy was onerous because of the Grand-Canyon size distinction
              Message 6 of 11 , Mar 21, 2013
                Robert, OK, I see. I should read more carefully. You are right! (Add a Ned notch.) But the analogy was onerous because of the Grand-Canyon size distinction between actions that harm people and victimless crimes.

                No, not proposing as you suggest. No need for government or its laws,

                Ned



                On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:01 PM, rlbaty50 <rlbaty@...> wrote:
                 

                Ned,

                It would not seem to me to be productive to quibble with you about "real crimes" and "victim/victimless crimes".

                You spoke of exoneration, and that was the subject I addressed.

                I think my logic was impeccable, valid and sound.

                That is, criminals of all stripes can be exonerated if the laws which they transgress are repealed, retroactively.

                Ned, are you now proposing that some Government is appropriate, some laws justified and subject to enforcement by "the long arm of the law/Government", and maybe even some taxes levied to pay for the operations thereof?

                Sincerely,
                Robert Baty

                --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                Ned Netterville <nednetterville@...> wrote:

                > The similarity is not logical.
                >
                > Real crimes, like those you name,
                > have victims.
                >
                > Who was victimized by Aaron Schwarz's crime?
                >
                > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:13 PM,
                > rlbaty50 <rlbaty@...> wrote:
                >
                >> --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                >> Ned Netterville <nednetterville@> wrote, in part:
                >>
                >>> Robert,
                >>>
                >>> Voluntaryists would... which would, of course,
                >>> exonerate Aaron Schwarz.
                >>
                >> Similarly, if we would only repeal laws
                >> against..., we could eliminate prison
                >> over-crowding and exonerate rapists,
                >> bank robbers, Bernie Madoff, Charles Manson,
                >> etc., etc., etc.




                --
                Love your enemies; it befuddles 'em!--Ned Netterville
              • rlbaty50
                ... Just for clarification, Ned, in proposing the exoneration of Aaron Swartz, you did not mean to limit your exoneration proposal; right? That is, your
                Message 7 of 11 , Mar 22, 2013
                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                  Ned Netterville wrote most recently, in part:

                  > No, not proposing as you suggest.
                  > No need for government or its laws.

                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                  Ned Netterville wrote, in part:

                  > Voluntaryists would do away with...which
                  > would, of course, exonerate Aaron Schwarz.

                  Just for clarification, Ned, in proposing the exoneration of Aaron Swartz, you did not mean to limit your exoneration proposal; right?

                  That is, your proposal would exonerate the likes of drunk drivers, rapists, shop lifters, graffiti artists, speeders, bank robbers, Bernie Madoffs and Charles Mansons as well; right?

                  --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
                  Ned Netterville wrote, in part:

                  > Real crimes, like those you name,
                  > have victims.

                  That kinda sounded like you were in favor of "real crimes", but now you sound like you are for not having any crimes or criminals.

                  Sincerely,
                  Robert Baty
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.