Russ Allbery: More on Aaron Swartz
I got some feedback that the analogy I used in my last
post was a bit confusing, and indeed I blew the phrasing of the analogy
(also now corrected). So let me try this again, since I think there's a
subtlety here that may be missed.
I should note for the record that my understanding of what Swartz did that
started the process is apparently somewhat based on the description from
the prosecution, so it may not be the complete or accurate facts. Since
there will now be no trial, we may never find out what the defense was,
and whether those facts would be challenged. So it may be best to think
of this as a hypothetical. We never established, or will establish, in
court exactly what happened.
Swartz was, generally speaking, charged with two things that I consider
quite distinct, at least from an ethical perspective. Most of the focus
is on the copyright part: downloading JSTOR articles with an intent (never
acted upon) to distribute them to the world. There are a bunch of reasons
why this may or may not be justified, which are tied into the origin of
those articles (many of them were publicly funded) and the legitimacy of
copyright licensing agreements. I think there is significant room to hold
a variety of opinions on this, although I don't believe that "crime worth
35 years in prison" is even remotely close to justifiable under any
interpretation.
However, there is a second part of what he was charged with, and that's
primarily what I was commenting on, not the copyright part. He
allegedly hooked up a laptop in an unlocked MIT wiring closet without
permission and then used MIT's network and JSTOR license to download
information. This is, to me, a subtlely but entirely distinct act from
the question of whether taking JSTOR's data was ethically or legally
wrong. Whether or not one believes that JSTOR's copyrights are not
legitimate, it's still not okay to use someone else's network and license
or to trespass in their wiring closets without permission. (I work in
central IT for a university, so this strikes closer to home.)
And this is where the analogy came in, which I flubbed. I had originally
said that this was akin to "traipsing into someone's barn or backyard shed
without their permission and taking some of their tools because you want
to use them." The word "taking" was wrong; it falsely implies that you
weren't going to return the tools. I had been thinking "taking and then
returning" when I wrote that, and the important second part didn't make it
into the post. So let's try this again:
Swartz's actions at MIT, as I understand them (and many things could
change this, such as a revelation that he had MIT's prior permission), are
akin to going onto someone's property and into their barn without
permission, borrowing their hedge trimmer for a while because you want to
use it, and returning the hedge trimmer without any damage when you're
done (and without them noticing it was gone).
I'm quite fond of this analogy, since I think it clearly establishes two
things:
- Most people are going to be unhappy about this happening and will intuitively feel like it should probably be illegal. Not everyone; there are folks who don't believe in personal property, or at least wouldn't extend it to tools in a barn. But most people will feel that someone should ask first before they come borrow your tools. Even if they don't damage them, even if they return them before you notice they're gone, you might have wanted to use the tool at the same time or they might have damaged them without intending to, and they should just ask first. It's common politeness, and depending on the circumstances, someone who doesn't ask and is covert about borrowing tools might be worth calling the police over.
- There is absolutely no way in any reasonable moral system that doing this should result in 35 years in prison. Or even 10, or even 1. Yes, most people would consider this a crime, but most people would consider it a minor crime. It's the sort of thing where you might have to impose some consequences just to make sure the message of "knock it off" is delivered firmly, but someone doing this is rude and inconsiderate, not evil.
The Debian package of the Linux kernel has some additional features
not present in mainline Linux 3.2. This continues from
As I couldn t retain my curiosity for Ubuntu s Raring Ringtail release, I ended up having a dual boot with Ubuntu 13.04 and Debian Sid.
Even thought at the moment 13.04 is only 
With significant assistance from Steve McIntyre and some judicious delving into the
Since 2004, I ve used the blogging software