Did The DOJ Do The Same Thing They Were Prosecuting Aaron Swartz For Doing Decades Ago?

from the low-court,-high-court dept

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community. Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis. While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Ben Huh points us to a Wired Magazine article from its very first issue back in 1993 (20 years ago, which makes me feel old, since I had that magazine!) concerning the accusations by software company INSLAW that the Justice Department had made illegal copies of its software, which it then sold to many other countries. Huh suggests that this is a situation where the DOJ did decades ago what it was accusing Aaron Swartz of doing more recently. Actually, it was almost certainly. If you're unfamiliar with the Inslaw case, it's a wild roller coaster ride of government corruption, espionage and coverups spanning many decades. Oh, and there are even some random accusations of murder thrown in as well, though those get mighty close to pure conspiracy theory territory. The Wikipedia entry is not a bad place to start , though that Wired article is good too. The only issue is that so much happened after the Wired article as well.The story is so complex that you really ought to explore not just the Wikipedia version, but some of its sources, which will take you down quite a rabbit hole (warning: it may take a lot of time). While there remain some denials of wrongdoing, and there were (along the way) findings that the software in question was actually in the public domain, it seems pretty clear that what the government was doing was significantly more questionable than any action by Swartz. Swartz was seeking to download a vast trove of academic research. It has been suggested, though never confirmed, that his intention was to release them to the public (some have argued this might not have been his plan at all, or he might have only released the portion that was in the public domain). At no point has anyone -- even the Justice Department -- suggested that he sought to profit from the plan.That is not true of the accusations that were made against various Justice Department officials, some of whom were accused of getting their hands on an unlicensed copy of Inslaw's PROMIS software and then selling it to other countries, sometimes for personal profit. Furthermore, accusations were made (and at least one court agreed) that the DOJ then sought to force Inslaw into bankruptcy, forcing it to liquidate, so that it couldn't take them to court.I had read about the Inslaw case many years ago, but it's been a while since I've been reminded of it, and I had really forgotten most of the details until recently refreshing my memory. While it was actually a very, very different kind of case than the Swartz case, it is fairly incredible when you think about just how much the Justice Department itself was able to get away with... and then think of how minor Swartz's own activity was in comparison. It really does seem like yet another example of the high court/low court principle in action.

Filed Under: aaron swartz, copying, doj, history, software

Companies: inslaw