Seems like we should be focusing more attention on the Department of Justice. They were the ones really pressing the ridiculous charges. MIT definitely shares some blame, but the DoJ is where we really need to see some reform.
It has been a year. Can we stop tiptoeing around family and pseudo friends? Good comment from reddit discussion on a recent swartz story that was trying to blame MIT:
[begin quote]
An adult (Aaron) who was NOT affiliated with the University, broke the law using MIT's network. MIT suffered damages because of his actions (temporary loss of access to JSTOR), and moved to stop his activity. Because his activity was criminal, he was arrested.
Now his father blames MIT and the prosecuting attorney apparently almost entirely for the death of his son. How about when he, as a father, understood the fragility of his son's condition and didn't do more to encourage him to perform his activism without breaking as many laws? You know, so as not to put himself in a position where he might be faced with jail time? How about the father getting him serious psych help so that he could understand that 3 months in jail wouldn't be the end of the world, even for someone with Crohn's disease, and if anything, serving time would add to his status as a hacker activist?
NOPE, never a mention of that, only slinging hate and blame at MIT for not assuming the position of legal defender of someone who was never a student.
I genuinely wish that MIT had done more for Aaron, but blaming the University for Aaron's suicide is ludicrous. Absolutely ridiculous.
One final thought. The dad says "Bob reasons that MIT chose not to cross Heymann so as not to alienate the New England Electronic Crimes Task Force—or endanger its federal grants".
WELL! How dare MIT not endanger it's lifeblood of federal grants by intervening on an unaffiliated adult's behalf!
[end quote]
MIT's behavior was fine in foresight. In hindsight they may have had better options. The DOJ charges were not ridiculous. Again, in hindsight, had they known they were dealing with an unusually fragile person with a defective personal support network, they should have toned things down a little.
The ridiculous part is trying to slap him with 35 years in prison (worse than murder in many cases) when the victim, JSTOR, chose not to even press charges.
No one tried to slap him with 35 years in prison. If the prosecution was able to win on all counts, and convince the court that Swartz had caused a very high amount of monetary damages, he was looking at around 7 years.
See Orin Kerr's detailed look at the charges and the possible sentences at [1].
If he opted for a plea bargain, he was looking at 3 months.
