He used the Internet as it was meant to be used. MIT had no security, JSTOR had no security. Issuing a GET request to a web server is not, and should not be a crime.

http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartz...

> Issuing a GET request to a web server is not, and should not be a crime.

A DDoS is also "the Internet as it was intended" by your logic.

Did MIT and JSTOR really have no posted TOS? That is not my recollection of MIT wifi.

Does violating a few TOS's warrant 35+ years in prison?

That's a separate matter entirely. The point being discussed is whether Aaron did in fact violate the law. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone here who believed Aaron deserved the sentence or the prosecution brought upon him, but personally I find it incredible how quick people are to absolve him entirely.

First, he wasn't using wifi. Second, JSTOR does not have a click-through ToS on university campuses, so he never had to agree to anything.

Then why is it the backbone of your appeal?

Every persecution of a hacker invariably emphasizes how they created some scary powerful tool in furtherance of their goal. It's the modern day witch hunt. Your average slob thinks "I can't even write a program to download one file, he must have dangerous knowledge and powers". If they knew it was one step beyond rightClick->saveAs, and felt like anybody could do the same with little effort, they would wonder why the plaintiff had failed to secure something so simple if it really were as important as claimed.