P.S. btw, please look up what "dichotomy" is. You can not have dichotomy of one thing, at least in the meaning of the word we're dealing with here.

Many people who violate the law think what they did wasn't wrong, but this has no bearing in the matter when it comes to sentencing.

To this, I can only add that there are a lot of bad laws and even more, much more, bad prosecutions, so sounding like every prosecution is right and if you don't like it, just don't break the law, is not only sounding mean and morally obtuse, but also very uninformed.

Most on HN are outraged with this type of sentencing because it's someone they liked, but if it was anyone else it would be perfectly acceptable.

Hence my comment above, if you can't do the time don't do the crime.

Essentially he was exploiting a vulnerability in JSTOR to mass download court documents, what if he was downloading credit cards instead? Or some sort of corporate secrets?

(Sure, credit cards and court documents are very very different. But the act here is the crime, not what he gains from it)

He was downloading academic articles, not court documents. You're mixing up the JSTOR download and the time he pulled down PACER documents. He did have legitimate access to the JSTOR documents, but was bypassing rate limiting. In the process, he did do some things that were illegal, but nothing that honestly justified the Feds charging him with CFAA or wire fraud charges filed, nor anything that justified a felony conviction. What he was doing wasn't the sort of crime those laws were written to address and that they were intended to stop. The Feds. abused the ambiguities in poorly written laws to charge him.

What if he was raping women? Or committing genocide?

> But the act here is the crime, not what he gains from it

Downloading scientific journals is not the same "act" as committing credit card fraud. It is an outrageous defect in the law that it doesn't adequately distinguish them.

Swartz had previously downloaded court documents from a service called PACER. An FBI investigation was opened, but closed with no charges being filed; he was not prosecuted for that.

We have constitutions and laws specifically to product/advance those interests. If that is the standard by which we judge actions, then it change how we should view the case.

This debate has fueled technological literacy among the general population/legislative/judicial. Much like the fappening is doing for crypto/personal_security (Re: Android/Apple announcements). It further underlines the critical role that technology plays in our civil life.