Often I run into programmers who want want to think that all questions should have yes or no answers. Even if they don't, many of us have a deep sense that there is something right about seeing the world in terms of strict categorical statements.
Me? Well, as a programmer, citizen and human being, I'm suspicious of it. Deeply.
(I have degrees in law & CS)
No, it's not, and it's the nr 1 mistake armchair lawyers across the internet are making in commenting on this case. Law is much more common sense than many people give it credit for; except it's common sense in a very different way than many people want it to be. (e.g., the bickering elsewhere in this thread on the intricate details of the facts and Orin's analysis of it).
Which also implies that there is hardly any possibility for his analysis to be 'incorrect' because it is rooted to come out as correct within the provisions of existing laws.
Isn't that so?
If we learn the laws are far overreaching, it requires a different set of actions to attempt to change than if we find that the charges don't align with the law.
his analysis is about whether the charges the prosecutors levied against him were reasonable, based on case law. if he misinterpreted established case law or the charges levied against aaron, his analysis certainly could be incorrect.
This first post is to show how the charges fit the existing law...This is to tackle the first question of, Is what Aaron Swartz did illegal?
This is a wholly different question than whether the prosecution was justified in its aggression, which will be the topic of his second post.
But whether something was illegal or not, yes, generally, we want that question to be based on existing laws. You do not want to go to court, either as a defender or prosecutor, on the grounds that your case will be decided on what's made up during trial.
---
Someone noted that many HN readers are programmers and seem to have problems with seeing the world as too black and white...I'm surprised at how hard it is for professionals whose work is heavily governed by the concept of orthogonality not being able to understand why people like Kerr can dissect this controversy into two separate components. Both components, related as they are, are worth considering and involve different arguments and evidence.
Why? He is precise in what his post is doing: simply making an evaluation of whether the charges stack up with the law on the books. He neither promises nor tries to evaluate the legitimacy of the laws. I think that is perfectly fine and in fact I'd love if more qualified folks shared their specific interpretation of the law with minimal bias in either direction.