If someone plugged in an unauthorized machine into a switch inside a secured network closet with the intent to gain access to content that they had been blocked from - I would want them prosecuted AND to serve jail time AND to have a felony on their record. No matter how you twist it, no matter what the goal, it was a criminal security breach at that point.

There is just no way around the fact that he was actively and knowingly trying to circumvent security and would NOT stop trying well past the point of reason.

MIT nor JSTOR did not care when it was wifi, they blocked him and blocked him over an over all without involving authorities. When he broke into their closet and hardwired in a laptop - authorities got involved.

I fully agree that the "maximum" 30 year sentence would have been outrageous had it been the sentence that was given. For all I know, he may have been given a very lenient peal bargain had he waited.

30 years in prision at 26 is hardly a terminal illness and nobody expected him to get or serve the full term.

The keyword in the charges has always been UP TO.

So you don't think breaking into a network closet and hooking up a hidden unauthorized laptop to a switch is a criminal act?

Seriously, read the posts when he was first indicted - most people agreed that he WAS commiting criminal acts.

He kills himself - and suddenly the public is upset about trumped up charges on an innocent kid.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/07/19/1839237/aaron-swartz-indicted-in-attempted-piracy-of-four-million-documents

No - and I'd be really REALLY surprised if he didn't end up with a plea deal for less than 4 years and end up getting out on probation in 2 or less.

Had he been found guilty and sentenced to 30+ years - he could have easily killed himself at that point. As a non violent offended he would proably have been given several weeks if not several months before reporting to prison to serve his time.

Aaron Swart did not make a rational decision by killing himself nor did he make a rational decision messign with MIT and JSTOR.

Also - seriously - stop trying to play suicide as rational in cases other than terminal illness. It's seriously offensive and fucked up.

Seriously?

Please don't try to split hairs.

It WAS unauthroized access - as he was certainly NOT authorized to download gigs from JSTOR. Furthermore - it was unathorized because JSTOR and MIT both kept trying to block him over and over and he kept circumventing their blocks. If you have to constantly change IPs and mac addresses and finally end up breaking and entering to get physical acceess - you don't get much more unauthroized than that.

He entered the MIT wiring closet, and plugged in a laptop - where once again he was unauthorized to plug in. The time MIT and JSTOR both had to spend trying to kick him off their network was probably totaled hundreds of hours. I'd hate to have been their admin.

He was commiting what he MUST have known was a criminal act. What did he expect?

What he did with the laptop was gain access to an unauthorized network and download data that he did not have legitimate access to.

He obviously knew that he was tresspassing as he used his helmet to block his face from the camera as he entered the closet.

Just because he killed himself does not mean that he was innocent of what he was charged with.

He was repeateldy kicked off the wifi network, he broke into their network closet and hardwired in a laptop which he hid under a box. He used a bycicle helmet to obscure his face from the camera as he entered the closet.

There is a lot more to the case than some kid downloading a bunch of articles.

The case is about someone gaining unauthorized access to the system - repeateldy, tresspassing and wire fraud.

If I hop on to your wifi and start downloading your media collection, you kick me off, so I break into your house and hardwire a laptop in your basement - I doubt you'd complain about charges being pressed.

The suicide is unfortunate - but the case agaisnt Aaron Swartz IS sound and legitimate. He had full knowledge of what he was doing being a criminal act.

I am sure that had he been willing to put up a fight he could have easily secured a high caliber lawyer at little or no cost due to the high profile of the case. EFF and others may have been willing to help and if not - all he'd have to do is start a fund raiser.

The problem isn't that the charges are overblown, or that he ran into a career prosecutor - the problem is that the evidence is damning. He'd have a very tough time getting out of this without a felony conviction - which he actually does deserve because he DID knowingly, intentionally and repeateldy gain access to a system that he was not authorized to use in the manner he used it in.

I am sorry that he killed himself, I am even more sorry that he chose to comit acts that should have been obviously criminal to him. When you are breaking into a network closet while using a bycicle helmet to cover your face - it's kinda hard to blame anyone but yourself.

He tried to use a wifi connection to download the articles. He was kicked off wifi - over and over and over. So instead he broke into a network closet, and hid a hardwired laptop in to continue downloading the articles.

The university installed a camera - which he was aware of and used a bicycle helmet to block his face from the camera.
I am as unhappy with the outcome as anyone here - but come on - to even imply that he is not guilty of knowlingly trying to gain unauthorized access REPEATEDLY is insane.

I have lived in Australia. Seriously - it's the most laid back country in the world as far as I can tell. I don't think they'd be shooting eachother if they all had gattling guns and free ammo.

It would be ironic if not unexpected if tighter gun regulations resulted in more Oklahoma City style bombings.

If the number was all that mattered, than the countries that have 30-40/100 should still be seeing at least a killing spree a year. They are not.

It IS too easy to buy a gun - but fixing that alone won't make killing sprees go away.

You could also kill 28 people with bare hands if they had nowhere to run, especially if they're kids...but it would be much much much harder.

Making this kind of thing HARD to do is the idea.

"The idea that the gun used in the Sandy Hook Shooting is somehow more dangerous than your grandpa's .30-06 is absolute bullshit. The idea that these "military style" weapons are somehow more dangerous demonstrates a lack of knowledge or a willful ignorance to the facts."

No it isn't.

I'd love to see you shoot 30 rounds out of a bolt action .30-06 as fast as I could should out of any semi automatic assault rifle, be it an AK, AR-15 or whatever you want.

Please, you're putting up a straw man with those guns.

The hunting rifle isn't semiautomatic and unwieldy.

Going on a killing spree with a hunting rife at close range would be impractical.

You don't need "power" to kill people. A .22LR to the head will do the job.