One can never know what drives another person to suicide, especially someone who, like Internet-freedom activist Aaron Swartz, suffered from crippling depression. In the aftermath of his death last week, it is unfair for his supporters to pin the blame on US Attorney Carmen Ortiz, whose office was prosecuting Swartz on a variety of criminal charges, or the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which by some accounts encouraged the government to take a tough line.
At the same time, the fact that Swartz’s death was his own choice does not mean the US Attorney’s Office and the university acted properly. Ortiz’s office, at least, did not; the government was far too intent on giving Swartz prison time for offenses that appear quite minor on close examination.
Comments
MIT and Ortiz may have technically acted within their rights to prosecute but certainly not within the purview of ethics and morality. If Ortiz does not have the sagacity to distinguish or discern between behavior that comprises a serious malevolence and behavior that is inconsequential -- a necessary requirement fro her job -- she should not be accorded such a position of power.
Successfully hacking into a secure file system or other information systems to PROVE that it can be done IS serious malevolence. Behavior unpunished is an incentive for other hackers to continue their quests to rip off the world, steal identity or compromise secure systems.
Carmen Ortiz's prosecutors were doing their sworn duty. Aron Swartz was mentally ill while immersed in life, death and accomplishment decisions. His tragic death was to punish those assigned to punish him.
@fordfalcon Adam Swarz did not "hack into a secure file system or other information systems to PROVE that it can be done", "to rip off the world, steal identity or compromise secure systems", and "His tragic death was" not "to punish those assigned to punish him". You clearly know absolutely nothing about the case you are commenting on.
I know I would not be OK with someone in a closet hacking into My computer network. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
He did nothing at all akin to hacking into restricted computer space. Read up before you pass judgment.
This comment has been removed.
I don't know all the details about this case except what I read. But it sounds like he clearly broke the law. All this outrage comes because the guy committed suicide. But does that mean we should handle each defendant with kid gloves becuase they may also commit suicide rather than face prosecution and possible conviction? I say no. This man would have had his day in court and a jury of his peers or the judge might agree that the charges are too tough for the crime. He didn't give it a chance. And then there is the appeal process. It's sad when anyone takes their life - but it shouldn't stop prosecutors from enforcing the laws out of fear of retribution.
The real issues to investigate are whether (i) Ms. Ortiz's aggressive over-reaching in this prosecution amounts to an abuse of power and, if so, remove her for office, (ii) whether new safeguards, guidelines, and trainings for U. S. Attorneys should be developed to ensure their decisions are guided by the values of fairness and justice, and (iii) whether the Swartz case is an isolated case or whether there is a pattern of other troubling prosecutions coming from that office.
Why do I say that the Swartz prosecution was troubling:
1. There are many bad guys breaking federal laws that Ms. Ortiz can prosecute. Ms. Ortiz’s central task is to direct the limited resources of the U.S. Attorney's Office on prosecuting the most "worthy bad guys" in our society. No one...and I mean no one...not even Ms Ortiz...can say that the 26 year old Swartz falls into the category of a "worthy bad guy." He did not steal money; he did not physically harm anyone, he and the alleged victim worked out a settlement between them.
2. The core mission of the U.S. Department of Justice is to further a more fair and just society. Whether or not that mission is achieved depends upon how U.S. Attorneys chose to enforce federal laws. Many laws can be enforced to achieve unjust results not intended by the people that drafted the law. It's the job of the U.S. Attorney to make sure that does not happen. The main question a valued-centered U.S. Attorney must ask before prosecuting a case: Will this prosecution further a more just and fair society? Does Swartz's prosecution and incarceration further fairness and justice in our society? I think most reasonable people would agree that Ms. Ortiz's decision to prosecute Swartz was not guided by those criminal justice values.
3. If Swartz is not a "worthy bad guy" and his prosecution and incarceration does not further a more just and fair society, then why did Ms Ortiz decide to prosecute Swartz? She knew prosecuting a 25 year old "open access" internet activist would generate a lot of media attention. How does media attention benefit her? I can think of many possibilities including her political, professional and ultimately her future financial interests.
At a minimum, let's hope a Congressional Committee investigates the practices of the Boston U.S. Attorney Office --- these issues involve core values of a just and free society.
I am glad the globe editorial eluded to he fact that the scientific journal market needs to be scrutinized and changed. Most of the articles are based on research paid for with public money the journals charge the reasearchers to publish the papers which comes from public funds, and then they want to charge folks like me, a biolgist in private practice, betwween $25 and $50 per article (which might only be 4 pages long), and there is a 90% chance the artice does not have thei nformation I was looking for, but you can'tknow that till you have ponied up the doe. Pure usury.