Could someone who knows about such matters comment on whether this is the usual consequence for what he did, or if it's likely that he's been given "preferencial" treatment for his political activism?
It's likely the government doesn't like him because a few years ago he released 18 million pages of public court records that the government ordinarily charges 8 cents per page to access.[1] As these were public records, what he did was not illegal nor, in my opinion, immoral. But the government didn't like being undercut, and now they have a good opportunity for some payback.
I'm pretty confident all the data in PACER will be made public at no cost at some point in time. I think the $.08/page charge is supposed to cover the administrative costs (like paying for photocopies) but the PACER program actually runs at a surplus. I think this may have even been part of the rationale for the trial they ran which Swartz used to do the downloads. The government wants to open up PACER.
But what struck me as partularly stupid about what Swartz did (besides the fact that the data will probably be released anyway, in due course, without the need for "activism") is that he installed stealth code on a computer in a Federal Court Law Library. Of all places he chose a federal building, and a Federal Court Law Library. This just sounds idiotic.
And the irony of it all, at least to me, is I just downloaded his Superceded Indictment for free from archive.org. It appears others are succeeding in making court documents publicly available without installing stealth code on federally-owned computers. Maybe they do not have everything in PACER yet, but I think it's only a matter of time. Courts are perhaps a little slow to change with new technology but despite their budget constraints they are definitely making progress. And publicresource.org seems to be getting bulk data with the blessing of the courts and without installing any stealth scripts on Law Library computers.
If one really wanted to engage in some sort of activism to free up (what should be free) legal documents, maybe a better focus is Lexis-Nexis. A true monopoly, founded on a dubious intepretation of copyright law. Can you copyright court decisions? They managed to do it. And the founder is on the Forbes list.
PACER is partially open now; for example, I went looking a little while ago for filings relate to modafinil prosecutions, and wound up paying nothing at all because I fell below their $10/monthly cap or whatever.
JSTOR have said that once they had a guarantee the articles had been secured--which I believe means that Aaron claims he no longer has them and has not, and will not distribute them--they had no more interest in pursuing the case. This is the feds acting on their own.
JSTOR said that publicly, and they could well have said that privately. But I'd be interested to know what the various journal companies have said, either to the prosecutor or to the various politicians they lobby and contribute to.
Yeah, it would definitely be interesting to know that.
But even so, is it really that hard to believe that the feds have their own agenda and are acting on their own for this one? I realize I have no proof to back up my assertion that this is all them, but it's not outside the realm of possibility, that's for sure.
They could have their own agenda, sure. But given how much money there is to influence American government these days, I think it's also worth asking "who could benefit financially from this action?"
JSTOR is a non-profit. They dropped their charges once it was clear the data had not been re-distributed. The state of Massachusetts also dropped its charges. Only the federal government is pursuing him now.
