The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz Page #8

as if this was like a commercial criminal violation,

like stealing a whole bunch of credit card records, that it was that kind of crime.

I don't know what he was going to do with that database,

but I heard from a friend of his that Aaron had told him

that he was going to analyze the data for evidence of corporate funding of climate change research

that led to biased results, and I totally believe that.

I was just told that Steve wanted to talk to me,

and I thought maybe this was a way I could get out of this,

just exit the situation,

and I didn't want to live in fear of having my computer seized.

I didn't want to live in fear of having to go to jail on a contempt of court charge

if they tried to compel me to decrypt my computer.

When they came to me and said, "Steve wants to talk to you,"

that seemed reasonable.

They offered Norton what is know as a "Queen For A Day" letter or a proffer.

It allowed prosecutors to ask questions about Aaron's case.

Norton would be given immunity from prosecution herself,

for any information she revealed during the meeting.

I didn't like it. I told my lawyers repeatedly

that I didn't...this seemed fishy, I didn't like this, I didn't want immunity,

I didn't need immunity, I hadn't done anything,

but they were really, really stringent that there was--

they did not want me meeting the prosecutor without immunity.

[Interviewer] But just to be clear, this is a "Queen For A Day" deal, a proffer.

Right, a proffer letter.

-In which you basically handed information to them in exchange for protection from prosecution.

-So, it wasn't handing information over. It was--at least that's not how I saw it--

it was just having a discussion, having an interview with them.

-Well, they're asking you questions...

-They're asking me questions.

-and they can ask about whatever they want...

-Right.

- and whatever they learn...

-I really...

-They can't have you prosecuted.

-Right, and I repeatedly tried to go in naked.

I repeatedly--I repeatedly tried to turn down the proffer letter.

I was ill. I was being pressured by my lawyers.

I was confused. I was not doing well by this point.

I was depressed, and I was scared, and I didn't understand the situation I was in.

I had no idea why I was in this situation.

I hadn't done anything interesting, much less wrong.

We went out of our minds.

Aaron was clearly very distraught about it. We were very distraught about it.

Aaron's attorneys were very distraught about it.

We tried to get Quinn to change attorneys.

I was very unused to being in a room with large men, well-armed,

that are continually telling me I'm lying, and that I must have done something.

I told them that this thing that they were prosecuting

wasn't a crime.

I told them that they were on the wrong side of history.

I used that phrase. I said, "You're on the wrong side of history."

And they looked bored. They didn't even look angry. They just looked bored,

and it began to occur to me that we weren't having the same conversation.

I mean, I told them plenty of things about, you know, why people would download journal articles,

and eventually--I don't remember what was around it--

I mentioned that he'd done this blog post, the "Guerilla Open Access Manifesto".

This is the "Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto",

supposedly written in July, 2008 in Italy.

"Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves."

"The world's entire scientific and cultural heritage,

published over centuries in books and journals,

is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of private corporations."

"Meanwhile, those who have been locked out are not standing idly by."

"You have been sneaking through holes and climbing over fences,

liberating the information locked up by the publishers and sharing them with your friends."

"But all of this action goes on in the dark, hidden underground."

"It's called stealing or piracy, as if sharing a wealth of knowledge were

"the moral equivalent of plundering a ship and murdering its crew."

"But sharing isn't immoral it's a moral imperative."

"Only those blinded by greed would refuse to let a friend make a copy."

"There's no justice in following unjust laws."

"It's time to come into the light and, in a grand tradition of civil disobedience,

declare our opposition to this private theft of public culture."

The Manifesto itself was allegedly written by four different people, and also edited by Norton.

But it was Swartz who had signed his name to it.

When it's over, I go immediately to Aaron and tell him everything I can remember about it,

and he gets very angry.

The things that I'd done shouldn't have added up that way.

I hadn't done anything wrong, and everything had gone wrong,

but I was never...

I'm still angry.

I'm still angry that you could try your best with these people to do the right thing,

and they'd turn everything against you.

And they will hurt you with anything they can.

And in that moment, I regret that I said what I did.

But my much larger regret is that we have settled for this.

That we are okay with this.

That we are okay with the justice system,

a system that tries to game people into little traps so they can ruin our lives.

So yeah, I wish I hadn't said that.

But I'm much, much angrier that this is where I am.

That this is what we, as a people, think is okay.

They used every method that I think they could think of

to get her to provide information which would be unhelpful to Aaron,

and helpful to the prosecution of Aaron,

but I don't think she had information that was helpful to the government.

Months go by, as Swartz's friends and family await a looming indictment.

In the meantime, Swartz was becoming a go-to expert on a series of internet issues.

...a question to you then: Do you think that the internet is something

that should be considered a human right, and something that the government cannot take away from you?

Yes, definitely, I mean this notion that national security is an excuse to shut down the internet,

that's exactly what we heard in Egypt and Syria and all these other countries,

and so, yeah, it's true, sites like WikiLeaks are going to be putting up some embarassing material

about what the U.S. government does, and people are going to be organizing to protest about it,

and try and change their government. You know, and that's a good thing,

that's what all these First Amendment Rights of free expression, of freedom of association are all about,

and so the notion that we should try and shut those down I think, just goes against very basic American principles.

A principle, I think, is one that our Founding Fathers would have understood.

If the internet had been around back then,

instead of putting "post offices" in the Constitution, they would have put "ISPs".

[RT interviewer] Well, it's definitely interesting to see how far...

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes