Hackers claim attack on Justice Department website

Comments (7)
Joe-The-Guy wrote:

Last I checked, it was 35 years (max of 50 years) in jail and a $1 million fine.

Also last I checked, he was legally granted access to those documents. They were charging him with the potential that he was going to release them, but he had not actually made any attempt to release them when he was being charged. Also MIT had no intentions of pressing charges, it was federal lawyers who were going to press charges.

Another important point, it would have cost him a minimum of $1 million to defend himself in court. The government bullied him into committing suicide, and that is the issue here.

Please check your facts before posting them.

Jan 26, 2013 12:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
datsneefa wrote:

Whatever it takes to get real justice and democracy.
Freedom isn’t free.
My guess though is that instead of actually making any changes to our corrupt government, they will use this to justify further persecutions of our citizens and strip even more of our Constitutional rights that so many have fought and died for.

Jan 26, 2013 1:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
sjfella wrote:

“We are always concerned when someone illegally accesses another person’s or government agency’s network.”

Uh huh, and I have some terrific swampland for sale, cheap!

Jan 26, 2013 1:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MarshallR wrote:

It would be nice if the newspaper would do some research prior to writing an article and understand that the US Sentencing Commission is not a component of the US Department of Justice. It is a part of the judicial branch.

Jan 26, 2013 1:22pm EST  --  Report as abuse
chkb4uwrite wrote:

You would think a news organization like Reuters might do a little research before publishing an article like this. Last I checked, the Sentencing Commission was part of the Judicial Branch and not affiliated with the Justice Department which is part of the Executive Branch.

Jan 26, 2013 1:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TxCharlie wrote:

From what little I know about Swartz, his main intent was to make public government records free to access. That’s not exactly the crime of the century, since they were PUBLIC records, paid for already by taxpayers.

The difference was, that instead of lawyers and defendants having to dig through moldy courthouse basements looking for records, the government eventually took the hint from people like Swartz, and scanned many of the documents into their system – Which they charged for access.

Remember, these were public documents paid for by taxpayers, being accessed for a hefty fee for search and retrieval on systems that were also paid for by taxpayers. I’m sure the hope was for the fees to offset costs to the taxpayers, but just the system that was set up to handle counting and auditing of the fees cost a lot of money as well. I’m not familiar with the actual cash flow situation, but my guess would be that both tax money and fees ultimately went to government contractors.

That is where Swartz ran afoul of the law, inventing ways to bypass the fees to access the public documents. It could easily be argued that he did the country a favor, and it could easily be argued that he was a thief.

I think the bottom line is that the Government SHOULD have stepped back and let Swartz’s volunteer group completely open-source public documents from scanning and indexing to serving them up for free on a public web site, thus saving the government millions in the long run – much as the open-source of things such as the LINUX operating system development (one of the few viable Windows alternatives, available for free) and Wikipedia (the free web encyclopedia which rivals World Book and Encyclopedia Britannica in content and accuracy) has done.

If government bureaucracy and law enforcement formed more volunteer alliances instead of treating them like criminals and vigilantes, I think only government contractors would be unhappy with the results.

Jan 26, 2013 2:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
UnderRated wrote:

Reuters, where is your usual depth and analysis? If this article was found on wikipedia, it would be called a stub! Perhaps it does not behoove you to discuss, at length, the actions of an organization whose operations are explicitly against the ‘shadow government’ of America. Kudos to Anonymous, the lovable rogues of the digital age. Keep up the good work!

Jan 26, 2013 8:31pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.