"I'm really not sure that anyone in this country would
disagree that computer hacking is a problem," says
Washington defense lawyer Jeff Ifrah, who has been
following the case. "Should it be a crime? That's an issue
for Congress. But Congress decided to make it a crime, and
prosecutors have an obligation to enforce those crimes."
This is so absurdly pointless and dumb -- in the context of this case, he's talking about how law is binary.
Most of it seems to be written from the view point of that random unrelated lawyer they decided to interview, Jeff Ifrah who's connection is that he "has been following the case."
NPR News is very aware of the persistent bias allegations and often works hard to "balance" the presentation, sometimes to the point of creating an unreasonable false equivalency between points of view.
I didn't see any glaring factual inaccuracies, nor was it sensationalized. It seems to be a good intro to the case for a non-technical audience.
"No glaring factual inaccuracies" is a high standard indeed. :)
I think NPR erred when they repeatedly quoted a man who has about as much connection to the case as you or I do. I also think they erred in repeatedly describing what Swartz did as "hacking." They even dropped the obligatory "alleged" after the first mention.
Someone reading this article would come away thinking that Swartz "hacked into" the MIT network and "stole" millions of documents. That he was prosecuted for this crime, and that his "friends" feel that the punishment was too harsh.
I don't see any reason not to believe it. Lawrence Lessig is often interviewed by NPR, and I wouldn't be surprised if he used exact same language as his blog posts. Legal people like precision in language.
"Should it be a crime? That's an issue for Congress. But Congress decided to make it a crime, and prosecutors have an obligation to enforce those crimes."
