Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

news.ycombinator.com

31–40 of 63 posts

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#31

Two things. Firstly, please spell his name correctly. It's Aaron Swartz. That respects him and makes sure that your audience isn't distracted by that tiny detail and can focus on your message. Secondly, the petition was too narrow and targeted the individual prosecutor for that case. Even if she was removed, it wouldn't prevent the same sort of thing happening again. The larger issue (and one closer to the point) is…

>Secondly, the petition was too narrow and targeted the individual prosecutor for that case. Even if she was removed, it wouldn't prevent the same sort of thing happening again.

Targeting the individual is crucial.

Carmen Ortiz has already done significant damage to her career over this. She hasn't been fired (yet), but in all likelihood she is never going to rise above her current position. She's damaged goods. That's a good thing.

Any future prosecutor is already likely to approach a similar case with trepidation instead as they weigh up the risks of the public backlash vs. the possibility of making some powerful friends. That's a (small) measure of success.

>Let's not make it about one prosecutor.

To be honest, this is probably the lever that is most likely to achieve results. Indeed, it probably already has. Muted grumbling about 'the system' does not achieve results anywhere close to making a powerful individual fearful of a ruined reputation.

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#32
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree strongly with the first half of your comment, but the second half, from consecutive sentencing on, is simply incorrect. Swartz faced nothing resembling 35 years, because federal sentencing does not work by simply adding the counts up for every charged offense. Like charges "group", and the convicted are sentenced according to the most severe of those charges. The prosecutors threatened Swartz not with 35 year…

Thanks for the popehat link. Very enlightening. From it: > When the government quotes the maximum sentence, they are trying to scare you. > When the press quotes it, they are uninformed or lazy. The first is what I intended to imply: Prosecutors are permitted to scare the bejaysus out of defendants by quoting statutory maxima (not, as could be inferred, that they can present that to the judge .) The second is what I…

OK, but Swartz wasn't scared by the 35 year number, for two reasons: first, despite what the press release said, they were overt with Swartz about what their worst-case sentence actually was (the 7 year figure was their threat about what would happen if the case went to trial and he lost), and second because Swartz had very good legal representation.

A 1-2 year worst case sentence follows pretty straightforwardly from the actual sentencing guidelines if you look at them. However, there are mitigating factors in the Swartz case: first-time offender, non-remunerative offense, unenthusiastic victims. Probation was a real possibility. 7 years was not.

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#33
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree strongly with the first half of your comment, but the second half, from consecutive sentencing on, is simply incorrect. Swartz faced nothing resembling 35 years, because federal sentencing does not work by simply adding the counts up for every charged offense. Like charges "group", and the convicted are sentenced according to the most severe of those charges. The prosecutors threatened Swartz not with 35 year…

Thanks for the popehat link. Very enlightening. From it: > When the government quotes the maximum sentence, they are trying to scare you. > When the press quotes it, they are uninformed or lazy. The first is what I intended to imply: Prosecutors are permitted to scare the bejaysus out of defendants by quoting statutory maxima (not, as could be inferred, that they can present that to the judge .) The second is what I…

And that's why it's important for defendants to have their own counsel, to inform them of how the system actually works, as Aaron's counsel would have done.

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#34
post #9
post #3

Stop paying taxes, stop voting. Stop enabling the government altogether. If they refuse to accept that the people own the government, and not the other way around, then there is no reason to recognize its supposed authority. Live a moral and ethical life, but live as though the government does not exist. It will never willingly relinquish its power. You cannot change the system from the inside out. Every politician i…

>Stop voting. Being "apolitical" actually turns out to be a pretty naïve stance on politics. There's a great David Foster Wallace quote about "protest by non-participation" like this: “If you are bored and disgusted by politics and don't bother to vote, you are in effect voting for the entrenched Establishments of the two major parties, who please rest assured are not dumb, and who are keenly aware that it is in thei…

If you attend a protest you probably have 100x as much impact on the political system as somebody who votes.

If you strike you probably have 200x as much impact on the political system as somebody who votes.

If you are ready and willing be tear gassed, arrested or beaten up for your beliefs you can help shape politics in a way no voter ever has or will.

Non voting isn't some radical new way of showing your disapproval in politics. It doesn't show that they don't have to give a shit about what you think. It's just tacit recognition of the truth. Individual votes are close to insignificant. Real politics happens elsewhere.

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#35
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That or in the face of majoritarianism, gerrymandering and electoral colleges - you realize that the odds are stacked against you, and simply choose "not to play".

The fact that your vote may have less impact than you might wish doesn't mean that it has literally zero value.

In U.S. politics (and I suppose generalizing to other majoritarian voting systems), the only realistic option for a major party shift to occur is a schism in the ruling dichotomy - as happened with the Whigs being torn on issues of slavery and fizzling out to Republican and Democratic. Or, more recently, the Southern Strategy morphing the Republican Party's platform into a more populist one, taking over the role of the Democrats prior to the 1960s, and dramatically transforming the formerly blue Deep South into a firmly red bloc.

Trying to break a third party in any other way is remarkably difficult, as a result of the inertia caused by reasons I listed previously. It's been engineered this way for well over a century by now.

Until you reform ballot access laws, introduce proportional representation on the federal and state level (which will break so much shit it's not funny) and have fairer debate coverage, trying to wrestle in third party candidates through mere vote will be exceedingly implausible/impractical.

Entryism, I suppose, is another option, though it has not been used effectively at all thus far.

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#36
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that your vote may have less impact than you might wish doesn't mean that it has literally zero value.

In U.S. politics (and I suppose generalizing to other majoritarian voting systems), the only realistic option for a major party shift to occur is a schism in the ruling dichotomy - as happened with the Whigs being torn on issues of slavery and fizzling out to Republican and Democratic. Or, more recently, the Southern Strategy morphing the Republican Party's platform into a more populist one, taking over the role of t…

Here's the thing with voting: the person with the most votes wins. Even if they're a third party candidate and even if they weren't "supposed" to win. I think this is a really cool!

There are examples of this happening. Surprise progressive wins. The system doesn't make it easy, but it's possible. It will happen again. But it's a whole lot harder when their supporters choose not to vote.

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets call our two-party-government "democracy". It will be fun. Is it the same as voting for mtv awards ? If i don't like any of the "chosen" artists do I still have to vote ? It can surely save me countless hours of mind numbing music.

We don't have a democracy in the United States. We have a representative republic. There is a big difference. Not being involved in the political process just completely removes any influence you have on the process and the outcomes. However, if your belief is that not voting is the right thing to do, then by all means, please abstain from voting. I'd rather only have engaged people vote anyway. EDIT/Clarification: W…

What you have, in particular, is a "I'd rather only have engaged people vote anyway"-cracy

Not very democratic eitherway.

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#38
post #3

Stop paying taxes, stop voting. Stop enabling the government altogether. If they refuse to accept that the people own the government, and not the other way around, then there is no reason to recognize its supposed authority. Live a moral and ethical life, but live as though the government does not exist. It will never willingly relinquish its power. You cannot change the system from the inside out. Every politician i…

If every politician is a liar, then why don't you run for office? If all of the honest people that complain that politicians are dishonest actually got off their butts and started taking over their local governments, then you wouldn't have that problem. Almost all of the state and federal politicians have started at local levels, especially the congressmen. The issue is that it is easier to say they are all corrupt t…

>If every politician is a liar, then why don't you run for office? If all of the honest people that complain that politicians are dishonest actually got off their butts and started taking over their local governments, then you wouldn't have that problem.

In the off chance you see this (since this post has been flag-killed), I'll answer this question for you.

I worked on the tech team of a well-known political consulting firm for a few years out of college. While I was not a consultant myself, nor have I run for office, I have seen up close what it takes to get elected.

First of all, by far most politicians are egoists to the point of being sociopathic. This is not a coincidence, this is who our current political system favors. It's not necessarily all the fault of our forefathers, however (who definitely had the right idea, just the wrong implementation). It's the particular combination of two-party democracy with mass media that has led to this state of affairs. To get ahead in this environment, it's a huge help if you believe that you are dramatically smarter, better-looking, and more charming than the next guy or gal.

Rational people, who are able to quantitatively and honestly say to themselves, I'm pretty smart, but X and Y are better analytic thinkers, and Z and W have better social intelligence, are at a distinct disadvantage in this kind of system.

And then, there are a handful of true idealists who have succeeded in this environment. Without exception, and regardless of party, all of these people have compromised at least some of their core values, and few of them are able to even accomplish the smallest of tasks to further their ideals, because of all the moral and ethical compromises that they have made to get to where they are.

And then there are a very small handful of idealistic people who hang on to most of their ideals, and manage to gain a respectable number of followers. When they move to make big gains, the system crushes these outliers. I give you Howard Dean and Ron Paul as examples of this phenomenon on opposite ends of the political spectrum.

So no, individual honest people, by their very nature, have very little chance at winning elections in this kind of system. Collectively, they have no chance.

The system is fundamentally broken, and the sooner smart, intelligent people are able to admit this, the sooner we can fix things.

Edit: I will add one thing that you're absolutely correct about. Local (county and municipal) government is the last bastion of honest people (and the only elections I still vote in), because it's the one place where traditional campaigns are not run. Particularly in small counties and cities, people are elected on their actual reputations instead of how they run a campaign.

But when they try to move up to Congress, they have little chance against a well-funded politician of the type I describe above (and absent self-funding by a wealthy candidate, the dishonest politician will inevitably raise more funds, since it's easier to raise funds if you have no moral or ethical boundaries about who you accept funds from, and how you raise them).

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#39
post #19

Two things. Firstly, please spell his name correctly. It's Aaron Swartz. That respects him and makes sure that your audience isn't distracted by that tiny detail and can focus on your message. Secondly, the petition was too narrow and targeted the individual prosecutor for that case. Even if she was removed, it wouldn't prevent the same sort of thing happening again. The larger issue (and one closer to the point) is…

I agree strongly with the first half of your comment, but the second half, from consecutive sentencing on, is simply incorrect. Swartz faced nothing resembling 35 years, because federal sentencing does not work by simply adding the counts up for every charged offense. Like charges "group", and the convicted are sentenced according to the most severe of those charges. The prosecutors threatened Swartz not with 35 year…

> Swartz faced nothing resembling 35 years, because federal sentencing does not work by simply adding the counts up for every charged offense. Like charges "group", and the convicted are sentenced according to the most severe of those charges.

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines work that way, but the federal sentencing guidelines are not mandatory (due to U.S. v. Booker) and sentences which exceed what the guidelines allow but which are within the range specified in law for the specific crimes the defendant was convicted of are issued and upheld. So unless there is some mandatory requirement outside of the guidelines for concurrent sentencing or grouping, the maximum potential sentence is, in fact, not the maximum supported by the guidelines grouping rules, but the maximum supported by adding up the punishments for the individual offenses.

The most likely sentence may be one within the range provided by the guidelines, but that's not the maximum potential.

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#40

Two things. Firstly, please spell his name correctly. It's Aaron Swartz. That respects him and makes sure that your audience isn't distracted by that tiny detail and can focus on your message. Secondly, the petition was too narrow and targeted the individual prosecutor for that case. Even if she was removed, it wouldn't prevent the same sort of thing happening again. The larger issue (and one closer to the point) is…

Right, Swartz. Moving onto more important matters..

I don't agree with your general overtone. Is it fair that they can make an example out of us, but we can't make an example out of them? Should my ire really be with the law (a tool) or the person executing the law (using her tool) to aggressively vilify an innocent, bright kid? We're humans living amongst humans; let's not forget that.

Your assertion that "the larger issue is that the law is broken" gives us nowhere to go, no way to express our discontent, and really just supports the perpetual armchair bravado. How is the law going to change if no one does anything about it? Do you think having an intelligent debate right now will solve anything? As if some senator is going to catch wind of our discussion, and think he's found himself a calling. No, the government doesn't do anything unless you make a scene; I learned that from Aaron and SOPA.

Ortiz is not just some innocent victim who was blindly following the law. She made this her case and went after it vigorously. Ortiz is the representative we use to express our hatred on because it's impossible to "make it about all of them." There's plenty of good prosecutors out there who aren't scumbags who want to see a genius rot in jail to prove a point or make an example. What're we going to do? Point our finger at all prosectuors and say "Look what you did to Aaron!" No, there's one person here who's most responsible and all eyes are on her for a reason.

I argue we want to use Ortiz the way they wanted to use Aaron. We make an example. Hopefully then, people will actually work on changing the law.

EDIT: For what it's worth, I did still find your post very enlightening and informative. I'm just not convinced Ortiz is not to blame.

Post reply on HN