Sign in / up

back to article Judge orders redacted Aaron Swartz prosecution docs to be revealed

A US judge has ordered that documents from the criminal hacking case against internet activist Aaron Swartz should be unsealed, after they've been redacted by MIT and JSTOR. Swartz took his own life in January just ahead of the trial over the theft of academic articles from online reference library JSTOR using a computer at …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. btrower

    It's something.

    This stinks (what they did to Aaron) on its face. Anything or anybody that lifts rocks is likely to show what monsters his tormentors were.

    I am torn about redacting names, especially of the people who had and excersized power to harm Aaron. They are sure as hell morally culpable for my money. Anyone with a lick of moral decency would know the charges were improper and excessive. However, I am very reluctant to say that the state should go against principle to reveal more than is strictly proper.

    We *do* have some idea of the name of the person ultimately responsible for the ferocity of the legal assault on Aaron . Anyone who can reasonably do so should lodge a complaint against that person. Someone whose judgment is that severely flawed does not belong in that kind of position of power.

    7 4
    1. PT
      Reply Icon

      Re: It's something.

      While the assault in this particular case can probably be attributed to one person, unfortunately this kind of prosecutorial overreach is ubiquitous throughout the US "justice" system. Persons with such flawed judgement not only belong, but advance rapidly in their careers, by carrying out exactly this kind of ferocious assault - providing it results in the patsy taking the plea.

      6 1
    2. LarsG
      Reply Icon
      Meh

      Re: It's something.

      Uncomfortable is it is, I can understand the need to protect witnesses.

      However

      If redacting the names also means redacting the information then the whole exercise in openess is futile. One other point is that it would not be necessary to redact information corresponding to those who have already been outed in the press.

      It's always easy to make the rules when you are in charge.

      1 1
      1. Tom 38
        Reply Icon

        Re: It's something.

        Protecting "Witnesses"?? What witnesses?

        This is solely about blocking out the names of anyone who thought they could fuck up someone's life for political gain, and is now terrified of the political loss if their names are released.

        Cretins, the lot of them.

        2 1
  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    <tinfoil>

    My only concern is; Have a bunch of "your" people make threats that result in those involved having their names redacted "for their safety".

    </tinfoil>

    Re Aaron Swartz: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/13/03/life-inside-the-aaron-swartz-investigation/273654/

    2 0
    1. C 18
      Reply Icon
      Black Helicopters

      re: <tinfoil>

      Hey, is there room under that hat for two?

      I read 'http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/13/03/life-inside-the-aaron-swartz-investigation/273654/'...

      'A week before the Secret Service came to the door, my car was rear-ended by a school bus. The car itself was totaled,...'

      Hmm, coincidence...?

      0 1
  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The real villains

    are the legislators who continue to further the separation of law and justice.

    3 1
  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The only time a witnesses name should be redacted is a rape case, for obvious reasons.

    If you have nothing to hide, then hide nothing.

    0 5
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      How naive...

      and how ironic that you posted as AC.

      8 0
  5. Homer 1
    Holmes

    "Theft"?

    Aaron Swartz was legally entitled to those documents, so in what sense could this be described as "theft"?

    1 1
  6. tom dial Silver badge

    Redact not!

    From the article it appears that MIT and JStor want names redacted so their owners can be free of the consequences of their statements and actions. I don't see any justice in this: those statements and actions led, perhaps without intending to do so, to terrible consequences. Let the names out, and let the public censure and shunning begin. If protection is necessary it should fall on the Federal government that kept the Swartz prosecution going beyond all reason.

    6 1
  7. gnufrontier

    Clear as mud

    The "transparency" buzz word is heard plenty these days. What is transparent, is the lack of it.

    1 1
    1. Katie Saucey
      Reply Icon

      Re: Clear as mud

      Agreed. One thing that's clear to me though, is that who ever is receiving or printing theses documents had better be well stocked in toner cartridges.

      1 1
  8. corestore

    "Although the public has expressed a strong interest in the investigation and prosecution of Mr Swartz, that fact does not bestow upon his estate the right to disclose criminal discovery materials…"

    The kid is *dead*.

    If I had been close to him, if I had anything to do with his estate, 'disclose and be damned' would be the order of the day.

    6 1
  9. teebie

    'disclose and be damned' ?

    'disclose and be threatened with disproportionate punishment', surely?

    1 1
  10. JaitcH
    FAIL

    Any country who sentences someone to life, no parole, for stealing a slice of pizza ...

    or a pair or $2.50 socks is nuts at best, given the daily cost of jail.

    The US has the highest world population, per capita, of incarceration, too.

    And the very self-same country declares itself to be the leading defender of human rights ad protector of the poor.

    Utter crap.

    2 1
This topic is closed for new posts.