Comment by 1vuio0pswjnm7

https://www.wired.com/2009/10/swartz-fbi/

It's possible the JSTOR charges were in some way motivated by the earlier PACER incident

In the JSTOR case he installed a python script on his own laptop, connected it to MIT's network and left the script running for months

In the PACER case, the computer he used did not belong to him. It was a government computer in a federal building primarily used by lawyers. He installed a perl script on the government's computer and left it running for weeks

It does not appear he ever asked anyone for permission to do this

It's surprising he avoided CFAA charges for the PACER incident

Did he exceed authorized access to a "protected computer"

For purposes of the CFAA it does not matter if the documents were public information

Perhaps there are libraries that welcome patrons installing scripts on their publicly accessible computers without permission, then leaving the scripts running on their networks, downloading 1000's of documents

Maybe MIT would not care. But there is every reason to believe the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals would care

This is not to suggest he deserved his fate, only that the PACER incident mattered. Perhaps more than the JSTOR one

The blog author does not mention it