Apologies for nitpicking, but actually as a lawyer her highest responsibility is to the court. Secondary to that is her obligation to her client. The reason for this should be self-evident.
Honestly, the bigger culprit in denying the public access to legal materials, by shaking down law schools, law firms and government agencies for excessive licensing fees which get passed on to students, clients and taxpayers, are the two largest legal publishers: the private sector.
Anyone who has been paying attention to _access to court filings_ over the last decade or so would probably agree that in general governments, including the federal one, are continuing to make things easier and more open. In most cases, they are not fighting against the Internet, just trying to keep up with it within their limited budgets.
But those private sector publishers, one of which has been so profitable it has put its founder on the Forbes list, they control an overwhelming amount of the world's case law, and they are still making a stand against free legal information.
The paywall is not coming down.
Anyway, I understand your point, but it really does not apply to this area the way it does to others.
From the little I know, my bet is it's Swartz's _methods_ that have gotten him in trouble, not so much what he's trying to do. Although there's something to do with streaming he was involved with and I don't know much about that. What's the story behind that?
PACER I do know about, first hand. It is a low cost _public service_ that has historically operated at a surplus. I'm sure the goverment _wants_ the public to have better access to this information. This information is going to be free; it's inevitable. It just might take some time.
But I read that Swartz went into a _federal court_ library and installed some stealth software; maybe it was just a simple script, doesn't matter. If that's true, that is just a really DUMB thing to do, no matter how noble the objective. Is that really the only place he could do the downloads?
And as for this MIT incident, the facts speak for themselves. Most people have no idea what Python is. They have no idea how fast an http server can respond to requests. They don't understand the difference between open and closed data formats, or data that's easy to access versus data they have to click 25 times to get to. All they see is a kid sneaking around.
Whether the charges he's facing are commensurate with the damage he's caused is another question. But he does need to show more respect for existing systems no matter how slow to change they may be (even if he has to pretend).
He's definitely pushed the issue alright. I just hope for his sake and everyone else who knows their way around computers he hasn't pushed a little too far, too soon.
If his methods are deliberately extreme, if he meant to do things this way, then he's either got some huge cajonas and unparalleled advisors behind him, or he's just young and stupid.
Though I don't agree with the methods, I hope it's the former.
Surely there are some mplayer/ffmpeg experts here. I'm not one of them. There are no doubt more precise and efficient ways to do this but something like the above might work if the streaming is slow going.
Yup. You are making your own future. As the enablers, your choices are guiding what these companies can do. Zuckerberg's ethics (lack thereof) are well-known. But the upper management of Facebook, their lawyers, their financiers, the folks who buy access to the personal data, they cannot write code. You are not just some code monkey drone, following instructions from your boss or taking feature requests from naive end-users, _your_ choices, _your_ ethics, make a difference.
What was it that Dennis Ricthie said about his move to Bell Labs? Something like "It was 1968 and working on military projects just didn't feel right." He went on to make an enormous contribution and, we hope, preserved his peace of mind at the same time. You will never regret taking the high road. Just an opinion.