Dan Purcell, one of Swartz’ lawyers, writes
about the spiteful and unreasonable charges that led to his suicide—and
MIT’s gutless support of his prosecutors.
I am a lawyer in San Francisco with a firm called Keker & Van
Nest. I was one of Aaron’s lawyers in his criminal case, in 2012 and
early 2013.
I didn’t know Aaron that well, and our interactions were always
colored by the fact that he didn’t really want to be talking to me. I
was a criminal defense lawyer after all, and the only reason we knew
each other was because he was facing a federal criminal indictment under
the CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) for computer fraud.
Those of you who knew Aaron don’t need me to tell you what kind of person he was. Brian Knappenberger’s excellent movie, “The Internet’s Own Boy,”
will tell you more about Aaron than I could. But one thing Aaron was
not was a criminal, and I’m here to clear up a few misconceptions you
may have about what he did and what he was charged with.
One thing that drives me crazy is when people refer to his criminal
case as a case about “hacking.” And they do it in sort of a pejorative,
scary way. And it’s just nonsense. Aaron was, of course, a hacker in the
broad sense of the term: he was an innovative thinker, looking for
creative ways around problems. But in the criminal sense of the word, as
somebody who breaks into a secure computer system for nefarious
purposes, Aaron was no hacker, and he didn’t do anything like that.
One thing that Aaron strongly believed was that the advances, the
discoveries and the secrets we’ve collectively unlocked over the past
millennia, about how the world works, belong to all of us. Aaron greatly
resented people or entities who try to lock up scientific knowledge and
keep it away from general use, so they might monetize it for personal
gain.
You might be surprised at how much money is being made in this world
by entities that follow just that business model. They take things that
are in the public domain, and take them out of the public
domain, and then charge for access to them. One field where this happens
a lot is academic publishing. Obviously, there is so much information
in so many books that it’s not practical to just have physical copies of
them all. Digitizing all that data is an easy solution, and indeed
there are many places to look up scholarly content online. But when you
go to try to do that, you’ll generally find that there’s a subscription
fee, or you can’t access them unless you are affiliated with a certain
institution. They’re in the public domain—meaning that everyone is
entitled to read it—but they’re not actually public or available for
public use.
This bothered Aaron. It bothered him a lot. And he had fought against
this problem throughout his life. He wanted to teach the system a
lesson. So, he went to MIT, a university that had, and still has, one of
the most permissive computer networks in the world—certainly for an
institution of that size. At the time he did what he did, in 2010-2011,
anyone in the world could walk onto MIT’s campus. With or without a
student ID. With or without any affiliation with MIT at all. They could
log on to MIT’s system as a guest. They didn’t have to use their real
name. And then they could do whatever they wanted on MIT’s system.
One thing that MIT made available to its users was access to JSTOR,
an online database of scholarly materials. So anybody in the world could
go to MITs campus, they could get on to JSTOR, and they could download
articles from JSTOR. Anyone.
That’s what Aaron did.
He went to the MIT campus, like anyone could have done. He logged
onto the system, like anyone could have done. He went on to JSTOR, like
anyone could have done. And he downloaded articles.
That is not hacking. That is walking through a door that MIT, the owner of the door, deliberately left open for anyone to walk through.
Of course, the story’s not exactly that simple, because Aaron didn’t
want to take the time to manually download thousands of articles, which
would have been impractical. He wrote what experts have confirmed was a
fairly simple computer program to automate the downloading. So he left
his laptop behind, and he went on his way. He downloaded the files, but
he didn’t steal anything; he used the access freely given at MIT. All
the articles that he downloaded stayed in the JSTOR database. They were
still available to anybody with access to JSTOR. If you have a JSTOR
subscription, and you go to the database, they are still there today. He
didn’t deprive anybody of access to that material.
After a while, JSTOR noticed the downloading activity and JSTOR
shut down access to their database from MIT’s network. For a few days,
nobody could get onto JSTOR using the MIT network. That was an
inconvenience, for sure, but it was temporary, and MIT’s access to JSTOR
was soon restored.
What Aaron did, whether you call it a prank or a
consciousness-raising exercise, was not a crime. He downloaded a bunch
of articles he was permitted to access using an automated program that
made it easier. The idea that anybody could think that was a crime was
insane to me. Was it inconsiderate? Possibly. Many acts of civil
disobedience and conscious-raising are, and I think Aaron probably would
have pleaded guilty to that.
JSTOR was the ostensible victim here, but JSTOR made it clear from the start that they didn’t see this as a Federal case. They didn’t want Aaron to be prosecuted; they just basically wanted it to be over.
So, why all the fuss? Why did this terrible thing happen?
The first reason is prosecutorial discretion. The prosecutor was
Steve Heymann, the head of the Computer Crimes division of the United
States Attorney’s office in Boston. You’ll hear a little from him, and a
little about him, in Brian’s movie, but I have nothing good to say
about him. You might ask, like I did, what Aaron’s actions had to do
with “computer crimes.” Aaron hadn’t broken into a secure network and
stolen credit card numbers. He hadn’t stolen anyone’s healthcare data.
He hadn’t violated anyone’s privacy. He hadn’t caused anybody to lose
any money. There are things that are “computer crimes” that we all
recognize are invasive and dangerous, and this was not one of them.
But Steve Heymann did what bureaucrats and functionaries often choose
to do. He wanted make a big case to justify his existence and justify
his budget. The casualties be damned.
Unfortunately, he had a lot of weapons on his side, in addition to
having the power of the Federal Government. He had the Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act, which is an over broad federal statute that has been made
more broad by federal prosecutors trying to stretch its terms. But
under the indictment in Aaron’s case, the government still had to prove
that Aaron had gained unauthorized access to a computer system. Our
defense was really pretty simple. There were going to be other nuances,
and we were going to talk a lot about Aaron’s motivations and the type
of person Aaron was, but our bottom line was going to be that Aaron had
done only what MIT permitted him to do. He hadn’t gained unauthorized
access to anything. He had gained access to JSTOR with full
authorization from MIT. Just like anyone in the jury pool, anyone
reading Boing Boing, or anyone in the country could have done.
We hoped that the jury would understand that and would acquit Aaron,
and it quickly became obvious to us that there really wasn’t going to be
opportunity to resolve the case short of trial because Steve Heymann
was unreasonable.
Of course, after Aaron’s passing, it’s really easy for them to say
“35 years. That was a bluff. It was never gonna happen.” That was not
what they were telling us. Heymann always insisted on a sentence of
hard time in Federal Prison. We said, “this is really a very trivial
thing. Can’t we resolve it with probation or some other thing that made a
little more sense and would make it possible for Aaron to go on with
his life?”
He said “no.” He insisted that Aaron plead to a felony and
serve prison time. And of course, what he said, as prosecutors often do,
is that if we go to trial, it won’t be so easy, and if we lose, well,
this is a tough judge, and the prosecution is going to recommend a very
difficult sentence. Aaron may end up having a term of years.
These after-the-fact statements they’re making in the media, to try to make them seem more reasonable? That’s all they are.
It really goes to show you how much power prosecutors wield in our
Federal system. They dictate the charges that are brought. They dictate
how serious the sentence will be, because the sentence depends on how
the crime is charged, and there are sentencing guidelines that limit the
judge’s discretion. And if a prosecutor has bad judgment, as Steve
Heymann did—blowing out of all proporition a harmless effort to point
out a problem with how public-domain information is being locked
up—there isn’t a lot you can do about that other than fight, and the
consequences can be terrible.
The second reason for this terrible outcome is MIT.
As a defense attorney, I never expect the prosecutors to do the right thing, but I did
expect MIT to do the right thing. JSTOR, as I said, came out and said
“We don’t want to see Aaron prosecuted. We consider the matter closed.”
MIT never did that. MIT carries a lot of water in Boston. I don’t know
if they could have stopped Heymann from prosecuting Aaron, but they
could have done a lot more than they did.
MIT is an institution that was known for creativity, for hacking, for
pranks, for pushing the boundaries—and for showing that good can come
out of it. In this case, they responded like a typical corporation. They
were entirely gutless. They were supplicants to the government, and
they did whatever they could to help the government’s case. They were
not cooperative with us. A lot of people in the MIT community are
furious with MIT, and I think they have good reason to be.
There’s no question that Aaron paid a price because of who he was,
because he was in the habit of sticking his thumb in the eye of the
government, of challenging things, and of challenging certain things
that were happening that weren’t fair. He was an activist, and he wasn’t
afraid to ruffle a few feathers.
We’ll see what the FOIA requests come to. I don’t think there were
orders from on high to hurt Aaron, and that Steven Heymann was just the
arm of the law. But there’s no question in our society, those that go
along, get along better, and Aaron wasn’t willing to go along, much to
his credit.
In the end, the whole thing makes me very sad. It is sad for all of
us that Aaron is no longer with us. Sad for his family and friends, most
of all. I’m sad I didn’t have the chance to try to help him, and walk
him out of the courtroom a free man. We could have done that, and it was
certainly what he deserved. But I’m glad to honor Aaron’s memory, and
to think about what we can do for our own sakes, and our country’s sake.
There’s a great deal of misinformation about climate change. Some people say the climate isn’t changing; they say that we’ve always had weather. And when we have colder snap, they insisted it proved global warming isn’t happening.
But weather is not synonymous with climate.
Weather is the day-to-day state of the atmosphere, and its short-term variation in minutes to weeks. People generally think of weather as the combination of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, visibility, and wind. … Climate is the weather of a place averaged over a period of time, often 30 years.
Antti Lipponen’s animated visualization does a lovely job of demonstrating the pattern of climate change over time.
So rather than trying to fight the naysayers, those trying to sound the alarm about global warming stopped trying to fight this battle, and instead started calling the problem Climate Change.
This video is slightly longer than 30 seconds, but I needed it to be much shorter so I could use it to demonstrate the changing climate for a 1 minute campaign video I was producing for my husband’s 2019 election campaign as the Green Party of Canada candidate for Brantford—Brant. Since Antti Lipponen released the visualization with a free culture license, I was not only able to use it, under the terms of the CC-By licence I was able to reduce it to fit. The short version works brilliantly in my Green Wave video, but in order to shoehorn it into the necessary space, I’d needed to reduce each year to a single frame. But the original video is very well worth seeing as well, because of the increasing frequency of multiple temperature anomolies over the years as climate change picks up speed.
CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL
Despite everything, the “climate change skeptics” continue to deny the existence of human caused Climate Change. Not because the science is faulty— Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) has been accepted by at least 99.9% of publishing climate scientists— but because the fossil fuel industry (and those profiting from it) want to wring as much money out of their holdings as possible, much like the cigarette industry wanted to suppress the science indicating smoking was hazardous to human health as long as possible so they could continue profiting.
This week I had my first lecture on Mesopotamian history. At one point, the professor was talking about ancient texts. As an example, he told us that if we read an ancient inscription of a king who conquered other peoples, we could just take it as that, as a king telling us about something he did. Then he said this: “But most importantly, ask yourselves: “Why is he telling me this?””.
This, I think, is why Ancient History and all the other fields of the Classics department are more important than ever. I’ve studied other things before but never was there such an emphasis on the critical evaluation of sources. In my first semester, we critically analyzed Pericles’ funeral speech in Thukydides’ Peloponnesian War. In my second semester, we talked about historians’ interpretation of the past and how they were influenced by the events of their own times. I’m in my third semester now.
In the times of “fake news” and “alternative facts”, this skill is the most valuable tool we have. I’ve started studying Ancient History because of my love for the ancient Greeks but this is living proof that Classics is much more than just the study of long dead civilizations.
So always ask yourselves: “Why is that person telling me this?”
I have seen the sun break through
to illuminate a small field
for a while, and gone my way
and forgotten it. But that was the pearl
of great price, the one field that had
the treasure in it. I realise now
that I must give all that I have
to possess it. Life is not hurrying
on to a receding future, nor hankering after
an imagined past. It is the turning
aside like Moses to the miracle
of the lit bush, to a brightness
that seemed as transitory as your youth
once, but is the eternity that awaits you.
Amazon’s best selling wholesales have long accused the company of mining
their sales data to discover which products are most profitable; then
Amazon clones the product and offers it for sale at a lower price than
the wholesales can afford (because Amazon doesn’t have to worry about a
wholesale-retail markup when it’s both wholesaler and retailer at once)
and tweaks its search and recommendation system to drive sales to its private-label versions of its partners’ products.
This is the kind of thing that US antitrust regulators have turned a blind eye to for 40+ years, since University of Chicago economists dripped poison in Ronald Reagan’s ear,
shifting antitrust enforcement to the “public harm” standard, in which
companies are only punished for monopolistic activities that raise
prices, not those that limit competition.
But the EU is emerging from this “public harm” standard to a more robust
antitrust framework, driven by the crusading trustbuster Margrethe Vestager, who has capitalized on the EU’s delight at a covert trade war with the US to visit stonking great fines upon US Big Tech.
Now the European Commission has announced that it will subject Amazon’s
predatory private-label practices (say that six times fast!) to
antitrust investigations, relying in part on insider/whistleblower
confirmation that the Amazon’s suppliers’ theories are correct.
Given the multibillion-dollar fines the Commission has smacked other US
companies with, this is a pretty significant announcement.
This antitrust announcement pairs very well with Stacy Mitchell’s analysis of how Amazon’s #HQ2 search process
resulted in the company amassing mountains of useful market
intelligence on the plans cities have made for their futures, which the
company can use to outmaneuver its competitors, even in cities where it isn’t going to build a new headquarters.
