The Justice Department’s treatment of Internet activist Aaron Swartz relative...
The Justice Department’s treatment of Internet activist Aaron Swartz relative to other people accused of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) violations requires an explanation, House Oversight Committee leaders told Attorney General Eric Holder in a letter dated Monday. The…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
prosecution of Swartz, who died of an apparent suicide Jan. 11 after a year and a half under indictment for allegedly downloading a huge archive of academic papers without authorization, may have been affected by his leading role in fighting “Internet-related censorship bills,” said the letter by committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Ranking Member Elijah Cummings, D-Md. Swartz founded Demand Progress in 2010 to fight the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act, many of whose supporters backtracked following coordinated blackout protests across the Internet. The congressmen also want an explanation for why Justice pursued the prosecution after JSTOR, the academic subscription service allegedly hacked, declined to pursue charges, and why the U.S. attorney in Boston filed a “superseding indictment” in September with 13 felony counts -- up from four in the original indictment. “It appears that prosecutors increased the felony counts by providing specific dates for each action, turning each marked date into its own felony charge,” and increasing Swartz’s “maximum criminal exposure” to up to 50 years in prison and $1 million in fines, the letter said. Press reports suggest prosecutors pressured Swartz to plead guilty to all 13 counts in exchange for seven to eight months in prison, in contrast to seven to eight years if he lost at trial, Issa and Cummings said. They want Justice to schedule a briefing with them no later than Feb. 4, to answer: (1) What factors led Justice to prosecute Swartz and make decisions around which crimes to charge him with and the superseding indictment’s filing. (2) Whether Swartz’s opposition to SOPA or association with advocacy groups affected Justice’s decisions. (3) What plea offers were made, and what factors went into them. (4) How charges against Swartz, sought penalties and plea offers compared to others in CFAA cases. (5) Whether the federal investigation revealed evidence of other hacking by Swartz. (6) Factors in sentencing proposals. (7) Why it was “necessary” to file the superseding indictment.