While Kevin does a great job of demonstrating how the Media are spreading xenophobia, the Media forgoes any naval gazing and prefers instead to chastise “social media” for getting “it” wrong.

In LA Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fi-boston-bombings-media-20130420,0,19541.story

Across the pond:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10006028/Boston-marathon-bombings-how-social-media-identified-wrong-suspects.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22214511

Adding to the tragedy, lots of groups run the Boston Marathon to raise money for charities.
The people at the finish line would be family members of these golden souls. A wildly inappropriate target for terrorism (even as if there is never an appropriate one).

I like to bring up the late Mary’s discussion of this topic every chance I can:

Here’s one such discussion from 2011, where Mary mentions the Constitution prohibits Bills of Attainder (killing its enemies on its own:

In September 2011 after al Awlaki was killed
http://www.emptywheel.net/2011/09/30/lots-of-senior-officials-spilling-state-secrets-today/#comment-323026

In October 2011:
“This is the gist of the bill of attainder prohibition – – the Executive can’t execute its enemies on its own fiat and the Legislature can’t give the Executive that power either.”

http://www.emptywheel.net/2011/10/01/anwar-al-awlaki-assassination-double-secret-illegitimacy/#comment-323181

oops. meant to write “(e.g., Swartz)” , not “i.e.”

My point is that the government, even without a conviction, can already destroy a person (i.e.. Swartz) with claims of unauthorized access by using the fuzzy definition of “authorized access.”

It is possible the government could more easily make “mass arrests” of everyone if, as you say, Swartz went to trial and lost his case.

But more likely than mass arrests in that above scenario, the government would selectively prosecute only those whom it deemed worth its time. In a politicized DOJ it could easily be people criticizing the government. But that is what we are claiming the government did to Swartz already. The fuzzy language needs to be clarified to protect us. Swartz’s death is not a permanent bar to that scenario you mention.

Looks like you were on it in real time, as the story broke. Nice link.

But the hazy definition of “authorized access” remains in the law of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act even after Swartz’s death.

yes.
http://www.boston.com/business/innovation/blogs/inside-the-hive/2013/01/15/attorney-carmen-ortiz-husband-attacks-swartz-family-twitter/vzxbY5lrrG7BvGjQGnNDtJ/blog.html

…, but he may [see] similarities in their two cases…

Good question.

There may have been multiple reasons why Swartz was a target.
Not only did he have political enemies after trouncing SOPA with the help of the little people (against the machinations of Democratic and Republican politicians, mainstream media, etc.), but the DOJ was looking for people to help them with the Manning/Assange wikileaks investigation. One in four hackers have cut deals with the government to reduce jail time, perhaps this overzealous persecution/prosecution was the government’s plan to turn Swartz into one of their informants.

Here’s a brief synopsis of another person (the first person) to be indicted under the same law as Swartz.
http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/21/did-the-mit-police-stake-out-aaron-swartz-home-on-january-6-2011/#comment-506495

I wonder whether 47 year-old MIT Professor Robert Tappan Morris has already or is willing to weigh in on the Feds’ treatment of Swartz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Tappan_Morris

Harvard and Cornell educated Morris was the first person to be indicted (1989) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 for releasing a worm (ironically releasing it from MIT while he was a grad student at Cornell) which caused computer system disruption across the country.

He was sentenced to 3 years probation, paid a $10K fine and performed 400 hours community service.

Morris subsequently became a partner in the company Y Combinator which helped the company Reddit which then merged with Aaron Swartz’s company Infogami.
And as mentioned above, today Morris is an MIT professor.

I don’t know. Maybe they cycle through words to prevent boredom.

Then again cameras were filming. Maybe after the Nova film crew leaves, the word reverts back to “bug splat.”

Splash splash! Splash, splash, splash!

Agree with Kevin’s assessment that it begins as an infomercial for drone manufacturing.
I was surprised that the show did highlight criticism of drone use and included the CODEPINK clip.
As an aside, I marveled at how Ms. Benjamin used her feet on the door frame to slow down her bouncer just long enough to finish a sentence, before her bouncer carried her out of the auditorium.

I do not think NOVA ever uttered the phrase “signature strike” or provided any explanation that, in addition to extra judicial “targeted killing,” the US kills unknown people whom it believes exhibit, by their actions, the “signature” of a terrorist.

BTW, the term of art for a kill using a drone is a “splash.” Sounds like a happy word to utter over and over in a controller’s bunker all day, don’t you think?