“Aaron Swartz, a 24-year-old programmer and online political activist, has been indicted in Boston on charges that he stole more than four million documents from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and JSTOR, an archive of scientific journals and academic papers.” The weird part? JSTOR dropped all claims against him, because “they’ve suffered no loss or damage, and asked the government not to prosecute”. Weird.
No. Bizarre, actually.
JSTOR is non-profit: http://about.jstor.org/
Since their mission is to broaden academic and student access to journal articles, Swartz did not cause any damage.
Also, they’re an archive, not the publishers who actually hold the copyrights who may pursue a cause of action.
And, I can’t imagine MIT caring more than wanting a misdemeanor charge for breaking-and-entering.
B&E (i.e. burglary) is a misdemeanor in Massachusetts? That’s surprising, considering it’s a felony pretty much across the board in the U.S. In fact, upon browsing malegislature.gov it appears the state does distinguish between B&E and burglary, and even nighttime vs daytime attempts, but it all looks to be felony class charges. Also, the nature of the computer theft charges associated would apply, which is probably why the article mentioned a 35 year sentence.
Anyway, the company he “stole” documents from is urging the state not to prosecute yet they are going ahead with the indictment anyway. Sounds like they have an aggressive DA trying to make an example. Nothing weird or odd about it, just really bad (corrupt?) government.
IANAL
Looks like in Massachusetts B&E/burglary is for dwellings only. What’s left, trespass?
I’m not a lawyer either, though I do work in law enforcement hence my interest in this case.
I noticed the same thing and I almost commented on that as well. I know here in Georgia it’s “burglary” no matter the type or status of the building, and “entering auto” when the burglary is done on a vehicle. Both are always felonies.
I think criminal trespass would apply if it happened in my state, since the subject already had legal access to the building proper. But, every state in this country is different, and it’s ultimately up to the DA to decide what to seek an indictment on.
One more thing: So far it’s just an indictment, which isn’t a conviction. He was released on a “$100,000 unsecured bond”, which sounds an awful lot like a signature bond here, i.e. the person signs a sworn statement to appear in court or risk a lien against his property after the fact. So they definitely don’t consider him a flight risk, at least.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the case is dismissed or the charges dropped before it goes to trial.
Kind of enjoyed the back and forth on Wired, NYTimes and Google+ as they tried to decide if he could be described accurately as a cofounder of reddit or not.
Apparently he joined as part of an acquistion 6-12 months after “launch” but has been calling himself a cofounder without any issue until now when reddit “launchers” were seeking to distance themselves/set the record straight.
Bizarre all around.