The federal judge who would have overseen the trial of Aaron Swartz on computer hacking charges has ordered the prosecution to reveal much of the evidence it had against him. However, the government and MIT will be allowed to keep most of the relevant names redacted.

Swartz killed himself in January, not long before he was scheduled to defend himself in a trial that could have resulted in several years of prison time. Swartz famously used MIT's computer network to download millions of academic papers published in the JSTOR archive, and prosecutors said those actions violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

In the wake of Swartz's death, the Internet activist has become a symbol and rallying cry for those who want to reform CFAA. Swartz's attorney accused the prosecutors handling the case of misconduct, and in March family members moved to unseal the evidence against him. Members of Congress have also asked to see documents related to what happened in the Swartz case.

For the most part, the government agreed to provide that information, but the two sides disagreed about whether disclosure of "identifying information" should be included.

In this case, the judge sided with the government. The presumption of public access doesn't apply to evidence that was only reviewed in the course of pre-trial discovery, wrote US District Judge Nathaniel Gorton.

In addition, there have been "threatening communications" with the US Attorney's Office and MIT employees who were involved in the Swartz case. In February, "an unidentified individual called MIT and reported that a gunman in armor was on campus seeking to harm the President of MIT in retaliation for his involvement in the events surrounding Mr. Swartz's death," notes Gorton. The call turned out to be a hoax, but more than 30 police officers responded to lock down the campus for several hours.

That incident weighed heavily on the judge's decision. The Swartz estate's interest in disclosing the identity of individual names in various documents "is substantially outweighed by the interest of the government and the victims in shielding their employees from potential retaliation," wrote the judge. Gorton allowed redactions that were related to information about MIT network security.

Even without names, the soon-to-be-released documents should shed plenty of new light on what happened behind the scenes during the contentious Swartz prosecution. The two parties have until May 27 to propose the exact wording of the changes to the Protective Order. The documents could see the light of day as early as next month.