Aaron was accused of a variety of charges, because he'd committed the “crime” of intending to violate corporate copyright on other people's academic papers – but the law was blatantly immoral and the prosecution even more so.
He was not a victim of cybercrime; he was the “perpetrator” of something that was retroactively classed as cybercrime. I know you're upset, and angry – we all are – but that just isn't relevant to this discussion.
I said: "It seems like there should be well-known victims of being made an example of."
"Victim of being made an example of."
I never said he was the victim of a cybercrime. And it IS relevant because because it makes it unavoidably clear what I wrote that someone didn't read with proper care: The financial sector doesn't have this experience. - They don't have their own Aaron Swartz.
He was not a victim of cybercrime; he was the “perpetrator” of something that was retroactively classed as cybercrime. I know you're upset, and angry – we all are – but that just isn't relevant to this discussion.