Do you always make a habit of deliberately misrepresenting what people have written that is already on the public record, Mr. Anonymous? Again, I haven't said he is guilty of a misdemeanor. I believe he has committed a serious crime -- yes, a felony, that yes, involves the crimes of breaking and entry, theft, possession of stolen property, and so on. Do you always try to bully and railroad people into saying something they don't really believe or trap them into saying something that you
want them to say?! Der, we get it that people are innocent until proven guilty. In this case, however, he's victory-danced about his crimes, as have his supporters and he doesn't deny them, but has a whole geeky theology to go with the offenses about how "information wants to be free".
This is an interesting statement, confronting Lessig about his influence on Swartz:http://mediafreedom.org/2011/07/statement-%E2%80%9Cfree%E2%80%9D-guru-larry-lessig-should-condemn-the-alleged-actions-of-aaron-swartz/
As for this bit about how I "seem to be a liar," what sort of ridiculous tripe is that?! Aaron Swartz is indeed a repeat offender:http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/10/swartz-fbi/
With the typically mendacious cockyness we're used to from your lot, he brags about it, using that "library" analogies being wheeled out now, back in 2009:
“I think its pretty silly they go after people who use the library to try to get access to public court documents,” Swartz said. “It is pretty silly that instead of calling me up, they sent an FBI agent to my house.”
To be sure, In my above post, I mistakenly wrote that he was "sentenced" when in fact he was only investigated
and the case was closed. I simply didn't recall the information correctly, it isn't that I somehow deliberately "lied" -- and it would be pretty silly to "lie" about something that is easily discovered on the Internet -- duh. I said he was a repeat offender; he's a repeat offender, and doesn't deny it himself. Why do you
Back then, following the EFF party line, he cooked up his fake excuse that it wasn't really wrong; but that's not why the case was closed. The FBI rightly described what happened as "exfiltration". It's not just borrowing a library book. It's screwing the court system out of 8 cents a page. Do you have any idea what enormous costs court systems face?! Just because the Justice Dept. decided not to pursue a case then doesn't mean that what he admitted doing then was right or lawful; it wasn't.
You know, this arrogant notion that you have (and he obviously has) that you hackers can just keep lying and misleading and distracting and dodging and acting in bad faith is ultimately unfounded. Perhaps he can lead the FBI around by the nose once. Perhaps he can get the Justice Department to close a case once. But then next time, he can't. Or maybe his big friends in Silicon Valley will get him off this time, too. But then, maybe not the next time, or the next hacker in his posse. Ultimately, the FBI just doesn't appreciate the trolling, and they get their man:http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/01/18/fbis-lesson-to-alleged-ipad-hackers-dont-be-a-troll/#comments
To which I can only say: good! Because hackers don't just harm companies by destroying their business and propertly, temporarily or permanently, they harm society by their incessant bad faith and lying about their own motives and actions. Eventually, the truth catches up.