I'm not sure we should glorify Jonathan James or even compare him to Aaron Swartz. His "hacking" of the DoD was undeniably illegal, and his sentencing seemed appropriate for his actions. We will never know if he was innocent or not of the TJX case. It's tragic that he killed himself, but, at least to me, his actions seemed on the whole more malicious than Swartz's ever was.
"I'm not sure we should glorify Jonathan James or even compare him to Aaron Swartz."
I just posted the Wiki article in no way did I glorify him. However, to suggest I am in error to even compare his story to Aaron's is well....an error.
"His "hacking" of the DoD was undeniably illegal, and his sentencing seemed appropriate for his actions."
Illegal is an absolute term, an act is either illegal or not, there are not degrees such as "undeniably illegal." As to your observation that the sentence was appropriate, keep in mind that James was 15 at the time of his alleged hacking and he was the first minor tried by the US federal government. Further, the federal prosecutors (Janet Reno, in particular) used James story as a political gain by threatening James with adult charges carrying more than 10 years, all so they could "prove the Justice Department is willing to get tough on juveniles offenders accused of cyber crime." So James took a plea deal and at 16 was on 6 month house arrest and probation to 18 and he had to stop using computers for recreational use, shit even drunk drivers can drive again.
"It's tragic that he killed himself, but, at least to me, his actions seemed on the whole more malicious than Swartz's ever was."
I only want to address this as devil's advocate, but in terms of James' act being malicious, James acquired $1.7 million in NASA software, he did publish it or sell it, rather he did it to learn more coding. Further, he said he only pursued his exploits because he wanted to explore, which seems to be the very opposite of malicious, after all anyone who was malicious and in control of the Space Stations life sustaining systems could surely have caused more damage than copying the code if they were truly malicious. Whereas Aaron breached a system and copied information with the intent to redistribute it in mass to the detriment of the system itself, which fits the very definition of malice. I am in no way justifying anyone's actions and condemning another's actions, simply highlighting that your word choice of malicious really does not seem fitting for James as much as curious, whereas Aaron intended to destroy a system albeit one that many feel unethically controlled the flow of knowledge which should otherwise be open and free. Besides assuming Aaron did have intent and malice toward the system, is he any more legally culpable than say someone who takes bread to feed the hungry where they are otherwise being starved?
