...is that what the prosecution was doing was disproportionate response to activist mischief, potentially motivated by the desire to score another conviction against haxxorz. And that got emotionally complicated by Swartz' suicide, essentially providing a worst-case scenario that the opposition could use to weaken the CFAA and Espionage acts...
...efforts that have yet failed to bear fruit, and aside from the fact that the CFAA and Espionage laws are really only used to prosecute and nail whistleblowers and other undesirables by the current administration (whoever the current admin is).
Dead bodies are always accellerant for the fires of activism and even revolution, as demonstrated by the Boston Massacre.
Say I am an official who wants you out of the picture for a few days. Is it right for me to be able to declare you a fugitive and send some marshals after you? (an error, of course, for which you'll have my sincerest apologies after a few days in jail)
If you're lucky, none of the marshals will fear for their safety, and you'll know not to resist, lest they perforate your nice clothes.
Heck Dotcom is a fugitive having never stepped foot on US soil, because he's providing legal resistance to extradition. We're already seeing how fugitive is turning into a catch-all to deprive human beings of life and liberty.
So, yes. Someone accused of a crime should be able to have access at any time to the records that detail how and by whom he is accused and what evidence informs the warrants against him.
Or we're back to the state of lords, in which people in nice suits get to choose who does or doesn't retain life and liberty at any time.
We've already seen that plenty of judges not only participate in this contempt of justice but do so enthusiastically. We've heard of judges caught conspiriing with prosecutors to secure a conviction.
My guess is that these agencies are ganbling on their likelihood that they'll get a friendly judge, rather than one who still has dignity and a modicum of decency. I suspect they're waging on good odds.
If the person in question was participating in their due process proceedings I would agree with every point you make.
If that was the case then law enforcement would merely have to decide that someone was not participating in due process proceedings in order to deny anyone of the public access.
However, you appear to be stating that a fugitive has a right review every piece of information the government has collected against her before deciding whether or not she will turn herself in or appear in court.
I'm saying exactly that. If not, then all law enforcement need do is state (not prove) someone is a fugitive in order to deny them their right to Habeus Corpus.
As demonstrated by the abuse by police of good faith exceptions in order to secure unreasonable searches, or civil forfeiture laws in order to unreasonably seize property, there is no reason we should give anyone in the DoJ the benefit of doubt. They will abuse any exception we give to allow them circumvention of due process.
To the contrary, this is exactly how mafias get started.
Modern police forces are not the first time those with authority have developed a taste for unwarranted brutality. In fact, our declaration of independence indicts King George for allowing it to go on too long in the colonies.
The mafia's first service to the people has been protection from a rampaging guard service. That whole bit with making booze was a side-gig.
Or in other words, when someone is in the country illegally and is evading immigration proceedings (aka a fugitive), the government maybe doesn't want to explain to that person on the lam where or how it's been looking for her.
Part of due process is Habeus Corpus, the right of the accused to understand in detail the crimes for which he is accused, and the legitimacy of the court and enforcing bodies to act to deprive him of life and liberty.
So yes, it is necessary for a fugitive to have full access to his files, those files, and the fugitive's access to them are the what declares that person a fugitive. If those files are lost by the state or inaccessible to the public, the fugitive is an ordinary person, and his detention becomes extrajudicial.
Persuing officers are not (or rather shouldn't be) just a bandit gang looking to perform a hit on the behalf of some capo. There needs to be a thorough paper trail that leads all the way back to the laws broken, the evidence showing it was broken by the fugitive, and a preciding judge whose signature authorizes officers to hunt the fugitive down.
These records, and their free and available access to the public without obstruction, is essential to the legitimacy of the state.
The idea that fugitives shouldn't have full access to their files isn't that crazy.
It is if you're wanting to live in a state of laws. Without it, you're living in a state of lords. What our Constitutional framers would call a tyranny.
Whatever: The meth lab. Where are you making the dope?
Missy: Lay off him, Dad. He's six.
Whatever: Shut up, harlot!
If only you applied your assumptions evenly, Whatever. The police have means, motive and opportunity in this case to arrest falsely to seize the truck in bad faith, but you don't suspect them of anything.
Why is it that people believe that law has meaning?
Dude. You are breaking the law. Today. Every day. Three felonies on average. They could indict you in three minutes and would have a 90% chance of giving you prison time for years.
If we enforced all laws, every soul considered competent (and many who aren't) would be in prison. Perpetually.
Only prosecutorial discretion and the lack of interest by officials keeps you free.
So if you're calling someone else illegal or demanding laws be enforced, you better be doing so from behind bars or another nation. Or the only reason you're where you are is because law isn't being enforced.
Human society continues to function both by forcing people into circumstances directly (I'm taking your house. Resist and my squad will gun you down.), or by encouraging them to make decisions without being fully informed (Your new job requires a cell phone? Just sign here. Note and agree to abide by the 60K word TOS.)
We only learn to overcome specific instances of these tactics after enough people fall victim to them, much like we only developed a cure for polio after enough people died from it (or were permanently crippled from it) that we sought out a cure (...in some cases by experimenting on human orphans, but that's another story.)
Or maybe you were speaking in a more cosmic sense, that all these notions of justice and fairness are silly mammal / ape bullshit, and the universe doesn't even notice. In which case, I can only suggest that that silly mammal / ape bullshit is the best lead we have in making a civilization that the universe might notice, and without it, we're going to go extinct on this rock for sure. Deserve doesn't even figure.
Google Now's ability to guess at my interests in news (or products) or where I'm trying to go is based on a system monitoring my data and habits. The problem is when entities (whether commercial or government or even personal) abusing the consolidated data for their own gain, to the detrement of those monitored.
I wrote a blog piece about tracking devices (which appeared in Star Trek TOS a couple of times) and how they might be made appealing if they monitored health concerns and could detect problems early. Also if they informed the wearer when they were about to break law.