{"id":1395,"date":"2013-01-18T22:20:42","date_gmt":"2013-01-18T22:20:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=1395"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:54:03","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:54:03","slug":"anti-hacking-law-criticized-after-suicide-of-internet-activist","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/anti-hacking-law-criticized-after-suicide-of-internet-activist\/","title":{"rendered":"Anti-Hacking Law Criticized After Suicide of Internet Activist"},"content":{"rendered":"

Friday, January 18, 2013, by Anu Madan
\nOn January 11, 2012, software programmer, Internet activist, and computer prodigy Aaron Swartz was found dead in his Brooklyn apartment.\u00a0 According to New York City’s chief medical examiner, Swartz committed suicide by hanging.\u00a0 As an advocate for Internet freedom, Swartz strongly believed that information, which could potentially benefit society, should be made available to the public at no cost.\u00a0 In 2011, Swartz played an instrumental role in helping block the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).\u00a0 That same year, Swartz was indicted<\/a> for wire fraud, computer fraud, and unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, among other charges.\u00a0 Swartz allegedly broke into the computer system at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and downloaded an estimated 4.8 million documents from JSTOR, subscription-based academic research database.\u00a0 \u00a0If convicted, Swartz could have faced more than 30 years in prison and up to $1 million in fines.\u00a0 It is alleged that Swartz committed suicide after prosecutors refused further negotiations o his plea bargain.
\nAlthough Swartz had been coping with depression for many years, the family blames his suicide on a “criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach<\/a>.”\u00a0 The family criticized the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Massachusetts for pursuing “an exceptionally harsh array of charges . . . to punish an alleged crime that had no victims.”\u00a0 The U.S. Attorney’s case was based on the 1984 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)<\/a>, a broad anti-hacking measure, which some legal commentators suggest, has limited applicability today.\u00a0 CFAA punishes individuals for “having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access.”<\/p>\n

Rep. Lofgren stated that CFAA “criminalize[s] many every activities and allow[s] for outlandishly severe penalties” and calls for “dangerous legal interpretation.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California recently proposed “Aaron’s Law<\/a>,” a bill that seeks to update and amend the CFAA by excluding terms of service violations. \u00a0Rep. Lofgren stated that CFAA “criminalize[s] many every activities and allow[s] for outlandishly severe penalties<\/a>” and calls for “dangerous legal interpretation.”\u00a0 Many tech commentators have contended that CFAA has been widely abused by prosecutors.\u00a0 Additionally, given the vague wording of the statute, federal courts have interpreted the CFAA differently.\u00a0 Despite the confusion, prosecutors have brought nearly 300 federal criminal cases<\/a> under CFAA from 2010 through 2012.\u00a0 An additional 300 civil suits<\/a> were brought in private disputes citing CFAA.
\nSince Swartz’s tragic death, Carmen Ortiz, the prosecutor who pursued the charges against Swartz, has defended the case against him.\u00a0 In a statement<\/a>, Ortiz defended her conduct, and stated that U.S. Attorney’s office was “appropriate in bringing and handling this case.”\u00a0 Ortiz contended that the office never sought or intended to seek the maximum penalties under the law.
\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Friday, January 18, 2013, by Anu Madan On January 11, 2012, software programmer, Internet activist, and computer prodigy Aaron Swartz was found dead in his Brooklyn apartment.\u00a0 According to New York City’s chief medical examiner, Swartz committed suicide by hanging.\u00a0 As an advocate for Internet freedom, Swartz strongly believed that information, which could potentially benefit …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1395"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1395"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1395\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7642,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1395\/revisions\/7642"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1395"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1395"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1395"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}