Description of Case: I am going to be analyzing the case of how and why Aaron Swartz downloaded 98% of JSTOR’s data; JSTOR is a nonprofit digital library of academic journals, books, and primary sources. It is important to mention that academic writers that have contributed to the data of JSTOR are remunerated through salaries and grants, they do not get any financial profit from the publication of their work. When somebody pays for access to an article online through JSTOR, the money goes to the publisher, not the author or JSTOR. Aaron’s action has been considered by many as an act of civil disobedience in order to protest the privatization of education and information. He was charged with hacker crimes and not copyright infringements crimes since he didn’t actually distribute any documents, plus JSTOR didn’t even want to press charges (they reached a civil settlement).
Important facts in the case:
- He didn’t commit any illegal act in order to gain access to the MIT network, anybody was able to get access to it by signing in as a guest and this gave them access to JSTOR. MIT at the time had an open network policy which did not even require agreement to any specific set of rules before getting access to it. On his last attempt to download more data from JSTOR, he used a laptop connected to a networking switch in a wiring closet at MIT but the access he had to the room was not forced since there was no lock, there was no sign restricting access and anybody could easily access it. Also, MIT ended up dropping the charges for trespassing this unlocked room with easy access to anybody.
- At the time of this case, JSTOR did not have any procedure to prevent/control a specified number of downloads from an individual within the MIT network.
- Aaron did not hack or manipulated in any way JSTOR’s website in order to download all these files, he created a code to download the files faster (to download more information) which functioned in the same way as simply right-clicking to choose “SAVE AS” from a browser.
- He used MAC address spoofing which is not illegal. Even apple has started using it in some of its new gadgets in order to protect the privacy of users. People also use this when connecting to a public network in order to protect their privacy.
- There was no actual damage to either MIT or JSTOR since he returned the copy of the documents in its entirety to JSTOR. Revising finance damage to MIT the only clear record found is one listed in the records at the time of arrest (see link below) for about fifty thousand dollars. This amount was nowhere near the punishment that the Federal Government sought after indicting him: up to 35 years in prison and a fine of one million dollars. http://mitcrimeclub.org/SwartzFilings-state.pdf
-The inside story MIT and Aaron Swartz:
-Documents and statement by JSTOR regarding the case:
-Was Aaron Swartz stealing?:
-The Truth about Aaron Swartz’s “Crime”:
Claim and Moral Reasoning: In a statement released the day of the indictment of Aaron Swartz, U.S. Attorney Ortiz said: “Stealing is stealing, whether you use a computer command or a crowbar and whether you take documents, data or dollars. It is equally harmful to the victim, whether you sell what you have stolen or give it away.” The prosecution team stated that Aaron Swartz’s motive to commit the alleged crimes was found in this Manifesto for Open Access he posted years before:
I think it is imperative to start this moral reasoning by emphasizing about how he was indicted under the wrong laws, the whole process to prosecute him shows an unfair treatment and overreach by the authorities in charged. Even though MIT claimed neutrality in the case, many of its employees initially gave many records of the case to the FBI and federal authorities without a subpoena in violation of the Fourth Amendment. However even if Aaron actually committed a crime under any law, the motive found in his Manifesto for Open Access is morally right because he was not seeking any financial or personal gain, his only motive was to raise awareness about the privatization of academic information and its negative effects in our societies: a limitation to the development of imperative ideas that would help us attain social and scientific progress. He was a prodigy programmer and outstanding political activist, who was involved in many innovative projects like Reddit, Creative Commons, web feed format RRS, the website framework web.py, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, the fight against internet censorship legislation SOAP and many more important developments. The guardian describes him as “The internet activist who paid the ultimate price for his combination of genius and conscience”. This a very important case to analyze because it shows how we are currently living in a political system that has significantly inverted society values in a scale of importance: economic values are first and moral values are last. This reality has materialized even more with the rise of a citizen like Donald Trump to the Executive Power of our government. The analysis of this political system was very important to Aaron Swartz hence he participated as a fellow at the Harvard Ethics Center Lab on Institutional Corruption. He dedicated most of the last years of his life to analyzing the corrupting influence of big money on institutions and public opinion.
Argument and Principle: I believe that Aaron’s action to commit this act of civil disobedience was justified based on the fact that this is necessary when you see the values of a democratic society under threat. Such values which embrace the right to equality for all the people translate to equal access to academic information. Just like it is the right of any citizen to have access to the public library, every citizen should have access to JSTOR because it contains information which involves the world’s culture and academic research compiled throughout centuries.
American Philosopher John Rawls defines civil disobedience in ‘Theory of Justice’ as an act through which: “one invokes the commonly shared conception of justice that underlies the political order. It is assumed that in a reasonably just democratic regime there is a public conception of justice by reference to which citizens regulate their political affairs and interpret the constitution”. Careful analysis of how Aaron Swartz lived his life and searching through his many blogs and projects can allow anybody to conclude that his main goal was always to contribute to the betterment of society through his intellect and by motivating others to engage more in the democratic process by participating in protests, signing petitions, holding public meetings, connecting with other citizens in order to stay informed, etc. In one of his posts titled ‘A Short Course in Ethics,’ he states: “The conclusion is inescapable: we must live our lives to promote the most overall good. And that would seem to mean helping those most in want—the world’s poorest people. Our rule demands one do everything they can to help the poorest—not just spending one’s wealth and selling one’s possessions, but breaking the law if that will help. I have friends who, to save money, break into buildings on the MIT campus to steal food and drink and naps and showers. They use the money they save to promote the public good. It seems like these criminals, not the average workaday law-abiding citizen, should be our moral exemplars”. In his following blog (The Honest Theft) he talks about how such acts do not erode the social contract but actually raise questions among citizens which encourages healthy debates to strengthen our moral sense instead of just following rules blindly without the proper critical thinking when necessary. As the great Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stated in a letter about civil disobedience, I believe that “to a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because of Socrates practiced civil disobedience. Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist - ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal’. So the question is not whether we will be extremist but what kind of extremist will we be. Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or will be extremists for the cause of justice?” (Birmingham City Jail, April 16, 1963). Through moral analysis, I think that Aaron Swartz should be considered a hero that sacrificed his many privileges in order to encourage a more passionate and much-needed debate about the access to academic information. He fought for the rise of Free Culture through such a powerful tool as the Internet because he knew it could benefit not only a small group of people but every society around the globe. As he stated in his Manifesto for Open Access, information is power and if this is kept away restricting the majority of people, then the majority of the people will live powerless believing they are limited by their destiny of inferiority. 
No comments:
Post a Comment