Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

unhandled.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 95 posts

Re: The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

#41

Post by drzaiusapelord »

rprasad wrote: post #23
todayiamme wrote: post #13

The only conclusion I can draw from his life and the events leading up to his demise is that he must have upset someone deeply entrenched in the circles of power. Otherwise the witch-hunt just doesn't make any sense. After all ask yourself what motive did the prosecutor possess for going after him like that?

No conspiracy, guys. The prosecutor was just doing her job. A simple case like Aaron's probably took up less than 1% of her week. It may have been a big case to Aaron, but compared to their normal cases, it was a relative vacation for the prosecutors working on it. The problem was not that Aaron "upset someone deeply entranched." The problem is that Aaron's activities fall into the definition of a particular form of…

So you're an up and coming prosecutor and handed the punk kid that took all those federal court documents and gave your colleagues a big middle finger when they tried to stop him.

Then JSTOR tells you to knock it off, but you proceed anyway.

And all this happens without Ortiz having any idea? Come on.

No one is saying Obama would know about this, but a bureaucrat on Ortiz's level does because its her job.

Re: The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

#42

Post by erichocean »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #41
rprasad wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No conspiracy, guys. The prosecutor was just doing her job. A simple case like Aaron's probably took up less than 1% of her week. It may have been a big case to Aaron, but compared to their normal cases, it was a relative vacation for the prosecutors working on it. The problem was not that Aaron "upset someone deeply entranched." The problem is that Aaron's activities fall into the definition of a particular form of…

So you're an up and coming prosecutor and handed the punk kid that took all those federal court documents and gave your colleagues a big middle finger when they tried to stop him. Then JSTOR tells you to knock it off, but you proceed anyway. And all this happens without Ortiz having any idea? Come on. No one is saying Obama would know about this, but a bureaucrat on Ortiz's level does because its her job.

Ortiz not only knew about it, but was rather zealously in favor of prosecuting Aaron (see the NYT article for more details).

She's at least as guilty as the actual prosecutors on the case.

Re: The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

#43

Post by SoftwareMaven »

I very seriously considered MIT for my undergrad work, including doing the requisite alumni interview. I eventually decided the nation's 16th ranked computer science program was good enough, especially since they wanted to pay for me.

This whole time, I've had a piece of me that wished I'd done it (a very small piece, since 1/2 of my kids were born in that timeframe). Today is the first day when I can honestly say I'm glad I'm in no way associated with MIT.

Re: The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

#44

Post by drzaiusapelord »

larrys wrote: post #16

"I know a criminal hack when I see it, and Aaron’s downloading of journal articles from an unlocked closet is not an offense worth 35 years in jail." Prosecutors regularly ask for outrageous sentences which from my observation are rarely granted. Here is the case of Mark Drier. Government asked for 150 years, he got 20 years: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/13/breaking-marc-dreier-sen... Michael Miliken theoreticall…

So in a best case scenario, let me repeat that - best case scenario, here we're going to take a delicate genius and put him into jail where there's a 7% chance of being sexually assaulted for about 5-10 years?

Look, you can judge him how you please, but don't tell me about about how horribly Turing was oppressed if you won't accept guys like Swartz got the same treatment.

Can you imagine working on a startup, clearing a couple mil, spending your life fighting for your ideals to only have EVERYTHING taken away by some overzealous prosecutor? Can you imagine watching your 2 million dollar nest egg go to lawyers who tell you that you probably will need to serve time? Can you imagine waking up and knowing that in 6 months you'll be telling everyone you know that you will be going away for 10 years? That all you've done will be taken from you? Or how utterly demoralizing it must be to realize that Ortiz cannot be stopped because of how powerful the federal government is? The level of defeat here and the stakes involved? That your reputation and the reputation of everyone and everything you touched will be destroyed the day you take the plea bargain? Knowing the coming storm will hit you soon and there's nothing you can do to stop it?

If there's any justfiable reason for suicide in this crazy world its being railroaded by a government with infinite resources and knowing that by the time you get out of prison you'll be 10 years older, never allowed to touch a computer, be seen as a horrible felon on par with Charles Manson, and come out deeply in debt and completely dead inside.

Re: The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

#45

Post by smsm42 »

omarchowdhury wrote: post #39
erichocean wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He returned all of the articles he downloaded to JSTOR when he was asked to. He did not distribute them. UPDATE: Here's JSTOR's confirmation of the above: http://about.jstor.org/statement-swartz

How do you return something that was downloaded?

You hand over the physical medium it is stored on and keep no copies.

Re: The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

#46

Post by todayiamme »

rprasad wrote: post #23
todayiamme wrote: post #13

The only conclusion I can draw from his life and the events leading up to his demise is that he must have upset someone deeply entrenched in the circles of power. Otherwise the witch-hunt just doesn't make any sense. After all ask yourself what motive did the prosecutor possess for going after him like that?

No conspiracy, guys. The prosecutor was just doing her job. A simple case like Aaron's probably took up less than 1% of her week. It may have been a big case to Aaron, but compared to their normal cases, it was a relative vacation for the prosecutors working on it. The problem was not that Aaron "upset someone deeply entranched." The problem is that Aaron's activities fall into the definition of a particular form of…

I think that the central assumption of your post is that I'm making the assumption that there was a systematic conspiracy to bring him to ruin. I am not alleging that. Neither am I stating anything towards the question whether or not his actions ran afoul of the spirit of the law. (indeed as this man asserts, there is reason to question that as well) I am simply stating an observation based upon the following;

a) the prosecutor's office has limited, finite resources to pursue cases

b) The prosecutor has discretion over the choice of cases

c) The office is judged by its record when it comes to the number of convictions and the quality of the cases pursued

d) It is reasonable to assume that the prosecutor acts as an agent, pursuing their own agenda versus the spirit of their duties. (the principal agent problem)

e) The legalities in Aaron's case are complicated and understood by a few.

f) It is also reasonable to assume that the case is inherently more risky than an open and shut guilty conviction, due to various factors such as, 1) the desire of MIT, JSTOR not to prosecute themselves, 2) expert witnesses such as the author of the article willing to provide testimony against the case, 3) the lack of a direct victim, and 4) questions over the inherent legality of the action itself.

g) In the above context it is reasonable to assert that the prosecutor without their well established tricks may have indeed lost this one if Aaron had the resources to have his day in court.

h) Aaron has a demonstrated previous track record of acting against the interests of the US govt. and the individuals it consists of.

i) Those individuals within the government have a social network

j) The said individuals are capable of and are willing to influence one another through this network

k) The prosecutor is a part of such a network by her very position within the government.

It is therefore reasonable to assume from the above assertions that it is likely the prosecutor was influenced to pursue the case with more rigour than necessary.

Re: The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

#47

Post by kanzure »

omarchowdhury wrote: post #39
erichocean wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He returned all of the articles he downloaded to JSTOR when he was asked to. He did not distribute them. UPDATE: Here's JSTOR's confirmation of the above: http://about.jstor.org/statement-swartz

How do you return something that was downloaded?

    > How do you return something that was downloaded?
There was a public gesture where his attorney physically handed over some hard drives. Then the US Secret Service allowed him to access it once in a while to build his defense.

Re: The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

#48

Post by jzone3 »

erichocean wrote: post #15
jzone3 wrote: post #12

Did Aaron release the articles, or just download them? If he released them, using what medium?

He returned all of the articles he downloaded to JSTOR when he was asked to. He did not distribute them. UPDATE: Here's JSTOR's confirmation of the above: http://about.jstor.org/statement-swartz

In that case, if the trespassing charge was dropped, what was he being charged with? Sorry, I do not know a lot about this story.

Re: The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

#49

Post by deadairspace »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #21
erichocean wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's that the U.S. got their asses handed to them in a previous case involving PACER, and were out for blood. Sadly, that's what they got.

I'm not seeing any reference to PACER in any obit articles and in a lot of the stuff on reddit and elsewhere. This is a very important point. Essentially, Aaron had already defeated the feds for open access and was trying again. I imagine the petty bureaucrats burned by PACER really were out for blood this time. Apparently, our government's mission is to destroy young people over petty grievances its employees have w…

I'm upset as well. It just all seems so absurd and unnecessary, like a cruel game.

>We live in a very unfair world.

I thought I already understood this. Today puts it in even sharper focus.

Re: The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

#50

Post by mjn »

larrys wrote: post #16

"I know a criminal hack when I see it, and Aaron’s downloading of journal articles from an unlocked closet is not an offense worth 35 years in jail." Prosecutors regularly ask for outrageous sentences which from my observation are rarely granted. Here is the case of Mark Drier. Government asked for 150 years, he got 20 years: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/13/breaking-marc-dreier-sen... Michael Miliken theoreticall…

Perhaps I've gone soft-European after living in Denmark for a bit now, but putting people in jail for double-digit numbers of years as the reduced sentences for nonviolent crimes seems bizarrely harsh. IIRC, studies don't find that particularly long sentences really increase the deterrent effect, either.
Post reply on HN