I wasn't aware the closet was unlocked. And apparently used by a homeless guy to store his stuff. So, even the <i>bare</i> minimum real crime that I thought he was guilty of (Breaking into a closet) which is a crime serviceable by community service in this context - turns out not to have occurred.<p>I've been sad all morning. Reading this article just makes me angry.
To people wondering if prosecutors have a choice, they absolutely do. I was recipient of an NSF check of over $10,000 from a guy with a history of writing bad checks(a criminal offense). It is a clear cut case with ample proof and victims. Yet the DA's office in neither NYC or San Francisco has taken action against him for over a year.<p>Meanwhile the guy continues to scam more and more people, pushing one woman to brink of shutting down her business. I know because I made a site(<a href="http://cliffkaplanfraud.com" rel="nofollow">http://cliffkaplanfraud.com</a>) and the stories that trickle in are gut wrenching and infuriating.<p>So yes, the DA's office seems to have a lot of power to pursue someone unlike what some people here suggest.
I very seriously considered MIT for my undergrad work, including doing the requisite alumni interview. I eventually decided the nation's 16th ranked computer science program was good enough, especially since they wanted to pay for me.<p>This whole time, I've had a piece of me that wished I'd done it (a very small piece, since 1/2 of my kids were born in that timeframe). Today is the first day when I can honestly say I'm glad I'm in no way associated with MIT.
The only conclusion I can draw from his life and the events leading up to his demise is that he must have upset someone deeply entrenched in the circles of power. Otherwise the witch-hunt just doesn't make any sense. After all ask yourself what motive did the prosecutor possess for going after him like that?
Of all the great stories and memories on Aaron that have been shared all day today, I believe this story is the one that the general public should really read. Until yesterday, most Aaron vs USA stories had a negative angle on Aaron, and this one really shines a light on the ridiculous witch-hunt lead by the US Attorney.
"I know a criminal hack when I see it, and Aaron’s downloading of journal articles from an unlocked closet is not an offense worth 35 years in jail."<p>Prosecutors regularly ask for outrageous sentences which from my observation are rarely granted.<p>Here is the case of Mark Drier. Government asked for 150 years, he got 20 years:<p><a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/13/breaking-marc-dreier-sentenced-to-20-years-in-prison/" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/13/breaking-marc-dreier-sen...</a><p>Michael Miliken theoretically could have faced 520 years:<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/30/business/junk-bond-leader-is-indicted-by-us-in-criminal-action.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/30/business/junk-bond-leader-...</a><p>This is what happened (he got 10 and that was reduced):<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/06/business/milken-s-sentence-reduced-by-judge-7-months-are-left.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/06/business/milken-s-sentence...</a>
I can't remember a specific incident, but I'm fairly certain I've done things more "inconsiderate" than this.<p>Cripes, this reads like something Larry and Sergey would have done in the early days of Backrub (later Google), not something that you get prosecuted for and face the possibility of 35 years in jail for.
The 9th circuit, followed by the 4th, has been limiting the CFAA's scope precisely due to the concern about prosecutorial abuse and criminalizing simple unauthorized system access. I wonder if this case would have moved forward if the alleged events happened in San Francisco.<p>From US v. Nosal, 676 F. 3d 854 (9th Cir.):<p>"The government assures us that, whatever the scope of the CFAA, it won't prosecute minor violations. But we shouldn't have to live at the mercy of our local prosecutor. Cf. United States v. Stevens, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 1591, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010) ("We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the Government promised to use it responsibly."). And it's not clear we can trust the government when a tempting target comes along. Take the case of the mom who posed as a 17-year-old boy and cyber-bullied her daughter's classmate. The Justice Department prosecuted her under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) for violating MySpace's terms of service, which prohibited lying about identifying information, including age. See United States v. Drew, 259 F.R.D. 449 (C.D.Cal.2009). Lying on social media websites is common: People shave years off their age, add inches to their height and drop pounds from their weight. The difference between puffery and prosecution may depend on whether you happen to be someone an AUSA has reason to go after.<p>In United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 108 S.Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788 (1988), the Supreme Court refused to adopt the government's broad interpretation of a statute because it would "criminalize a broad range of day-to-day activity." Id. at 949, 108 S.Ct. 2751. Applying the rule of lenity, the Court warned that the broader statutory interpretation would "delegate to prosecutors and juries the inherently legislative task of determining what type of ... activities are so morally reprehensible that they should be punished as crimes" and would "subject individuals to the risk of arbitrary or discriminatory prosecution and conviction." Id. By giving that much power to prosecutors, we're inviting discriminatory and arbitrary enforcement."<p>*disclaimer: I am not a lawyer
It's even lower than what I expected. I remember having read one time there was allegedly a copied cookie involved (which already wasn't what I would call a hack), but it seems that's not even the case. I'm astonished how such a small offense could bring such huge charges.
Many people have wondered who to point the finger at within MIT. I find it incredibly enlightening that he chooses to point a finger by linking to MIT's Office of the General Counsel.
The United States are broken beyond repair, this is just the beginning of the shitstorm of corruption that has been building up since the end of the 19th century.
Is this the reason why he committed suicide? As far as I understand, there really was no crime at all. Hell, by these standards, Mark Zuckerberg should get 70 years in prison for downloading some pictures. It's hard to believe he was persecuted for years because of <i>that</i>. Still, a part of me believes there had to be a stronger reason to commit suicide. I mean, we're not talking about a random stranger.. it's Aaron. He's fought all his life for things and menaces way bigger than that. This is odd.
>> The JSTOR application lacked even the most basic controls to prevent what they might consider abusive behavior<p>Was he allowed to download the documents? It doesn't matter what controls were in place. The question is basic, did he get something he was not authorized to take?
I remember reading about this 'hack' at the time.<p>I just can't believe that it ended in Aaron taking his own life. I'm sure anyone paying attention to this will be very angry and sad.