Technology: A New Beginning or a
Dead End?
One of the most pretentious brains
in computer science falls to the United States’ Department of Justice. Aaron
Swartz, an internet activist, at age 24 was arrested and prosecuted for 13
felony charges facing 35 years in prison and $1 million in fines. He held
strong beliefs in free public access to information online motivating him to
download thousands of articles from JSTOR through the Massachusetts’ Institute
of Technology’s network. His case was
broadcasted by the news all over the U.S. receiving mixed reactions from
various groups as well as the public across the U.S. Swartz fought the
government for nearly two years until January of 2013 he committed suicide in
his apartment in Brooklyn, New York. From Swartz’s arrest until present day,
the various sources in the media released several stories depicting their account
of the authenticity and accuracy about Aaron Swartz and his crusade.
An article from Slate offers a look
into Aaron Swartz’s life and background. From a young age, Aaron Swartz took an
interest and manifested a great potential in computer technology. Swartz was
born and raised in a wealthy suburb on the north side of Chicago, Illinois. The
fact that his family was one of the first to have internet connection in the 20th
century provided him with an advantage in his interest in computer programming.
He went to great length to learn about computer technology often seeking help
from school officials to find information and books. Moreover, Swartz’s early
interest, personality, and beliefs led him to become a unique individual who
needed things to make sense to him.
Many characteristics that shaped
Swartz as a child remains eminent in Swartz as an adult demonstrating his
establishment of life values and beliefs from early on. Swartz was a curious
and intelligent child. He began to read at an age of three and picked up on
things very quickly. However, he was never easy to accept things. It had to
make sense to him. There had to be a factor of “Swartz logic” behind it.
(Justin Peters, 1). This became his philosophy in life. Many of his life
principles, values, and beliefs stem from it. Justin Peters, a journalist for
Slate, wrote, “This was the beginning of a lifelong pattern of impatience with
unpleasant situations. Instead of trying to adapt to what he believed were
rigid, broken institutions, Swartz would try to make those institutions adapt
to him. And if they didn’t change, he would leave.” Swartz was very strong
minded and he did not care for what others thought, including the federal
government, as long as it made sense to him.
As a product of his beliefs, Aaron
Swartz was strongly determined that information such as scientific and academic
articles should be free to the public that he went to great extents to download
them with the intent to share them. The New York Times published an article
describing how Swartz successfully downloaded all of the articles off of JSTOR
which stands for Journal Storage. JSTOR uploads scientific and academic
articles and reviews for institutions that subscribe and pay tens of thousands
per year. Thus, Swartz hacked into Massachusetts’s Institute of Technology’s
network and began downloading the data off of JSTOR. However, his intrusion was
detected and removed from the MIT’s network. Yet, he did not give up. He found
a custodial closet that contained the central broadband network and hooked his
laptop up to it. He left his laptop there for days checking on it from time to
time although he would cover is face with a bicycle helmet peering through the
holes to protect his identity from MIT’s cameras. A custodian discovered
Swartz’s laptop and reported it to MIT who then contacted the Cambridge Police.
However, the police were instructed by the Secret Service to leave to laptop
and install cameras in the closet to catch Swartz in action. Swartz was not
arrested until days later. At which point, he had successfully completed his
download.
The New York Times and Slate
published lengthy articles that were intended to provide information to the
public. Both were written by a corporate journalist in style that remained
unbiased to the story. The New York Times wrote the story with an emphasis on
the crime and how it was conducted whereas Slate focused on Aaron’s past.
Therefore, the New York Times provided an immediate report on raw facts from a
third person perspective including quotes from first handed parties such as the
custodian and the police. On the other hand, Slate did not publish their
article until February 28, 2013. At this time, Swartz has already passed away.
The article was a tribute to Swartz and offered information about Swartz to
public that may not have been clearly distributed upon his arrest and his
death.
The general depiction on how Swartz story was received by the public can
be seen in Brenden O’Neill’s blog on the Telegraph and Steven Hsieh’s article
on Rolling Stone’s Politics. Both coverages were published shortly after
Aaron’s death when the primary concern questions whether the government was
responsible for Swartz’ death. Yet, they portray totally different perceptions.
Brenden O’Neill’s blog post was titled “Only one person is responsible for Aaron
Swartz's death, and that is Aaron Swartz” which can be seen to strongly
affiliate with the law’s perspective of the issue. Under this perception, the
law is right and justified as supported principles and purpose of the
legislative branch of the government. O’Neill acknowledges the stress and
pressure that Swartz was put under by the authorities and he claims “But to make a leap from criticising the prosecution
for being heavy-handed, which it may well have been, to saying that the
prosecutors actually helped kill Swartz is bizarre – it robs Swartz of his
agency, treating him as an automaton who was programmed to self-destruct by
evil people in authority, and it makes prosecutors responsible for something
that they couldn't possibly have foreseen, far less desired.” O’Neill is
convinced that Swartz is responsible for his own death because, “It is reported
that he had struggles with
depression for a long time, even before this prosecution started; and no matter
how desolate and desperate suicides are – as they so often are – they still
make a conscious decision to end their lives; they are still human agents, the
authors of their destiny.” Moreover, O’Neill suggests that suicide is a choice
and Aaron Swartz’s death was his choice.
Contrarily, Steven Hsieh’s article was titled “Why Did
the Justice System Target Aaron Swartz?” which
supports the perspective of “Swartzites.” “Swartzites” are people who shared
Swartz’s beliefs and justifications for his actions. Hsieh demonstrated support
for his argument by stating:
Two zealous federal prosecutors handled Swartz's
case: U.S. district attorney Carmen Ortiz and assistant attorney Stephen
Heymann. In the days after his death, writers, tech experts, and many of Swartz’s
friends have called out Heymann and Ortiz for prosecutorial
overreach. A White House petition demanding
the removal of Ortiz garnered well over
25,000 signatures, reaching the level which guarantees an eventual response
from the Obama administration.
Heymman and Ortiz were believed to have stepped over their boundaries in
their efforts to prosecute Swartz. Although Heymman and Ortiz acknowledged that
Swartz was not financially motivated by his actions and JSTOR did not press any
further charges, they give Swartz any option but to plea guilty to all 13
felony charges and receive a prison sentence. Also, the government is believed
to have targeted Swartz because the Secret Service got involved from the very
start of the prosecution. Hsieh writes, “Some of
Swartz's advocates believe the prosecution sought excessive punishment to set
an example in the age of Wikileaks and Anonymous.” This portrays an unfair
system that suggests Swartz was targeted and severely punished to warn other
hackers. Futhermore, this notion suggests that he was trialed with preconceived
motives not solely on his “felonies.”
Whether
Aaron Swartz was trying to making a statement to the government and world with
his suicide or he could not brand himself as a felon because it did not make
sense to him as suggested by media sources, the White House was indefinitely
affected. Although the petitions to remove Heymman and Ortiz received over
40,000 signatures, it was ignored by the White House although actions and
reviews were suppose to be implanted if the petition received 25,000
signatures. Recently, the White House made federally funded research available
to taxpayers for free. Hence, an article on the Huffington Post covering this
story was titled “White House Grants Aaron Swartz's
Wish: Taxpayer-Funded Research Will Be Free.” Although Swartz is dead, he left
a legacy that was adopted by thousands of Americans who fought to implement
Swartz’s belief that research should be free for everyone to access.
All in all, Aaron
Swartz’s hacking gave him a national reputation. He is often referred to as “computer
genius” regardless on the different reactions his story received. While some such
as O’Neill who was critical of his choice, others support his beliefs as Hsieh portrays.
The New York Times and Slate shared an unbiased version of the facts about Swartz.
Aaron Swartz story developed in the media as readers took sides and time uncovered
more truths.
Bibliography
Cohen, Noam. “‘Free Culture’ Advocate May Pay High Price.” New York Times. WEB. 3 March 2013.
Hsieh, Steven. “Why Did the Justice System Target Aaron Swartz?” Rolling Stones. WEB. 3 March 2013.
O’Neill, Brendan. “Only One Person Is Responsible for Aaron Swartz’s Death
and That Is Aaron Swartz” The Telegraph.
WEB. 3 March 2013.
Peters, Justin. “The Idealist.” Slate.
WEB. 3 March 2013.
Smith, Gerry. “White House Grants Aaron Swartz’s Wish: Taxpayer-Funded Research
Will Be Free.” Huffington Post. WEB. 3
March 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment