Peters couldn't confirm that detail, saying that other workers in his office were the ones looking through those records. MIT officials, who are conducting their own investigation into the university's role in the case, declined to comment. Peters said MIT had improperly allowed federal prosecutors access to Swartz's computer without a subpoena or warrant.
Orin Kerr, a George Washington University law professor and an expert on computer crime, said in a blog post Wednesday that he believed prosecutors had not overreached in their charges or in calling for prison time for Swartz, who Kerr said was trying to change a bad policy undemocratically. Kerr said the prosecution's bargaining tactics were also nothing new.
"These sorts of tactics have been going on for years, without many people paying attention," Kerr wrote. "If we don’t want a world in which prosecutors have these powers, we shouldn’t just object when the defendant in the cross hairs is a genius who went to Stanford, hangs out with Larry Lessig, and is represented by the extremely expensive lawyers at Keker & Van Nest."
When asked what he wanted the public to know, Bob Swartz fell silent. After a few moments, he replied: “That the evidence showed clearly that Aaron did not break the law, that the network was open, that access was not unauthorized by MIT, and that he was not guilty of any crime."
He added, "No one was harmed, no one was damaged."