Difference between revisions of "Aaron Swartz"
(→Pro-Swartz) |
(→Pro-Prosection) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Obviously, the death of someone is tragic. However, disagreeing with Swartz's actions does not mean necessarily that there is agreement in the methods that the government went about prosecuting him. In fact, the reaction to the Swartz situation lead to revision in laws regarding internet usage. However, there is still discussion to be had and questions to be raised regarding the morality and ethics behind Swartz's actions and the underlying sentiment behind prosecuting him for those actions. Without a doubt, Swartz's death is a tragedy and the prosecution went too far. This being said, it is important to consider reasoning on both sides. | Obviously, the death of someone is tragic. However, disagreeing with Swartz's actions does not mean necessarily that there is agreement in the methods that the government went about prosecuting him. In fact, the reaction to the Swartz situation lead to revision in laws regarding internet usage. However, there is still discussion to be had and questions to be raised regarding the morality and ethics behind Swartz's actions and the underlying sentiment behind prosecuting him for those actions. Without a doubt, Swartz's death is a tragedy and the prosecution went too far. This being said, it is important to consider reasoning on both sides. | ||
| − | ===Pro- | + | ===Pro-Prosecution=== |
The work and labor put into academic research articles is time-consuming, difficult, and requires high levels of education, skill, and attention to detail. In addition, it is the case that many academic studies require significant investment in funding, and the knowledge created from academia is in many senses of the word, not free. Additionally, plagiarism and a lack of being credited with work is a concern that could have been felt. Intellectual property is difficult to protect because ideas are fluid, and information should be accessible. However, when trying to enforce the nuances of protection vs. openness, boundaries can often be crossed. I think it can both be true that Swartz was acting illegally and preventing proper compensation from reaching back to researchers, as well as true that he was unfairly punished for his actions. | The work and labor put into academic research articles is time-consuming, difficult, and requires high levels of education, skill, and attention to detail. In addition, it is the case that many academic studies require significant investment in funding, and the knowledge created from academia is in many senses of the word, not free. Additionally, plagiarism and a lack of being credited with work is a concern that could have been felt. Intellectual property is difficult to protect because ideas are fluid, and information should be accessible. However, when trying to enforce the nuances of protection vs. openness, boundaries can often be crossed. I think it can both be true that Swartz was acting illegally and preventing proper compensation from reaching back to researchers, as well as true that he was unfairly punished for his actions. | ||
Revision as of 22:21, 21 March 2018
Aaron Swartz was a computer programmer and activist, born November 1986. He is best known for his early involvement in being a partner at Reddit, development of RSS feeds, and academic work studying and participating in online activism. His most infamous act occurred when he was discovered illegally downloading thousands of academic articles from JSTOR, with intent to distribute the research to the public, resulting in his arrest and federal prosecution facing 35 years in prison. During the ensuing legal prosecution, Swartz committed suicide.
Contents
Background
Beginning at a young age, Swartz developed RSS feeds as a way to aggregate information from the Internet and easily access and track that information and content. Swartz was also involved heavily in the campaign for internet openness and against censorship in the mid 2000's when bills such as SOPA and PIPA were being proposed. In a similar vein, Swartz worked on the Internet Archives' Open Library and Creative Commons, both of which are concerned with information access and freedom. [1] It is clear that Swartz made it his mission in many ways to open information and allow equity in information.
Legal Troubles & Death
Swartz's story takes a dark turn after he was discovered to be downloading massive quantities of academic literature from JSTOR while he had an academic login credential from MIT. While JSTOR opted not to press charges, nevertheless Swartz was prosecuted by the government for his attempt to illegally share these articles. During the course of the proceedings, in fact right after Swartz's attempt to reduce his sentence was rejected, Swartz was found dead by suicide.
Ethical Discussion
Obviously, the death of someone is tragic. However, disagreeing with Swartz's actions does not mean necessarily that there is agreement in the methods that the government went about prosecuting him. In fact, the reaction to the Swartz situation lead to revision in laws regarding internet usage. However, there is still discussion to be had and questions to be raised regarding the morality and ethics behind Swartz's actions and the underlying sentiment behind prosecuting him for those actions. Without a doubt, Swartz's death is a tragedy and the prosecution went too far. This being said, it is important to consider reasoning on both sides.
Pro-Prosecution
The work and labor put into academic research articles is time-consuming, difficult, and requires high levels of education, skill, and attention to detail. In addition, it is the case that many academic studies require significant investment in funding, and the knowledge created from academia is in many senses of the word, not free. Additionally, plagiarism and a lack of being credited with work is a concern that could have been felt. Intellectual property is difficult to protect because ideas are fluid, and information should be accessible. However, when trying to enforce the nuances of protection vs. openness, boundaries can often be crossed. I think it can both be true that Swartz was acting illegally and preventing proper compensation from reaching back to researchers, as well as true that he was unfairly punished for his actions.
