I saw this post circulating around facebook and, of course, the word “library” caught my eye. The Boston Globe has a longer explanation about what all the kerfuffle is about, but still uses words like “hacking.” The Demand Progress blog, the organization that Aaron directs, has this statement and some additional blog posts. The New York Times seems to have the most comprehensive explanation of what happened when and has the text of the indictment.
What we do know is that the US Government has indicted Aaron Swartz [who you may know around the internet for any number of things] for, apparently and allegedly, downloading 4mil articles from JSTOR without (I think?) the proper credentials. Aaron turned himself in. At issue are many points of JSTORs terms of service and what sort of access is given to guests of the university. As Aaron is a net activist, I’m certain this is some level of intentional move on his part, I’m quite curious to see where it goes.
Update: JSTORs official statement, Wired article with more details
With Wikileaks, Anonymous, the “phone hacking” in England, and so on, there’s a sense of dread among powerbrokers in the financial, military, and political sectors around anything involving “hacking”.
Obviously, most people don’t really have a sense of the differences between Stuxnet-level hacking and “walked into an unlocked room and plugged into a spare ethernet cable” “hacking”. And, of course, there’s a host of media outlets that are all-too-eager to hype it up to the public and sell ad space, with no real incentive to steer people away from FUD. (I don’t know the particulars of Aaron’s situation … just giving two opposite ends of the spectrum.) Just trying to get to my point:
I suspect that the government wants to present themselves as being on top of “hackers”, to reassure citizens that the US’s data structures and computer systems are safe from meddling or attack (both foreign and domestic). Perhaps that’s what you were getting at with your “shot across the bow” title. I hope they don’t make an example of Aaron, but the fact that they made this a federal criminal charge, rather than, say, a civil charge of contract violation (or something similar) … that doesn’t bode too well. Like you, I’m curious to see what happens with this.
From all I’ve seen tracking stories and reactions today..Mr. Swartz is very much so being made an example of. Information may want to be free but there are still costs in the production and dissemination of it.