
Critics of the indictment view it as part of a campaign by the US government to place increasing restrictions and controls on internet activity. However one views Swartz’ actions, the government may have difficulty proving the wire fraud charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 based on the lack of intent to defraud. Section (a)(4) was meant to prosecute individuals who stole information for the purpose of fraud. It is unlikely that Swartz, a long-time open access information activist, downloaded millions of research papers from JSTOR with the intent of defrauding people. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(B) requires that the prosecutor prove the defendant recklessly damaged a protected computer. Yet JSTOR “explained they’ve suffered no loss or damage.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2), the strongest claim against Swartz, makes it illegal for anyone who “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains … information from any protected computer.”
Lawrence Lessig, a mentor of Swartz, in a comment on the case said "Even if the facts the government alleges are true, I am not sure they constitute a crime. There is considerable uncertainty in this area of the law. Many wonder about the quick conversion of terms-of-service into criminal prosecution. But that’s a question the courts will ultimately have to resolve."
David Segal, executive director of Demand Progress, says the persecution makes no sense, comparing it to “trying to put someone in jail for allegedly checking too many books out of the library.” Online activist Gregory Maxwell, showed support for Swartz’s actions by releasing a 32-gigabyte collection of almost 19,000 documents from JSTOR to the Pirate Bay, a site which, in the past, has been accused of encouraging illegal downloading. Maxwell, points to the fact that all of the documents were written before 1923 and should therefore be under public domain. See the Wired article Huge Trove of Academic Docs Posted Online in Response to Activist Arrest.
No comments:
Post a Comment