Hacker News Reader

No it isn't. The sworn duty of the prosecutor is not to get a conviction, it's to get the truth. Trying to force someone to confess to a crime they didn't commit by threatening to lock them away for most of their adult life, is only a very small step away from torturing someone or threatening them with execution to obtain a confession.

View on HN

Nobody thinks he didn't commit the crimes he was charged with. He clearly accessed MIT's network without permission, and he clearly downloaded copyrighted documents with intent to distribute. The debate isn't about whether he did those things, it's about whether those actions should be crimes at all and even if they should be, whether the associated penalties were reasonable.

I think he committed no crime other than maybe trespassing.

* MIT network was open * Everyone on this open network had access to the JSTOR articles * No EULA or any other agreement or license was presented to the user that would define what constitutes abusing the above mentioned privileges

Nobody is discussing whether he did the things he did. What we are discussing is whether anyone in their right mind would consider this a crime.

So there.

(edited to expand on my point)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com