Earlier quoted context omitted.
>but this should have no bearing on whether to prosecute or not. "We were just following orders" and "We were just doing our jobs" and "We were doing what the law told us to do" aren't the indefensible moral positions you seem to think they are. Laws are written by men and enforced by men. Just the idea that all prosecutors are slaves to these laws is so incredibly naive I almost don't know what to say to you, but I'…
> "We were just following orders" and "We were just doing our jobs" and "We were doing what the law told us to do" aren't the indefensible moral positions you seem to think they are. Careful; that's a double-edged sword. Would you prefer that individual prosecutors have the authority to ignore the law? That didn't work too well in the pre-civil-rights South, when lynchings went unprosecuted. It's far better to have a…
Prosecutor as bully
221–230 of 277 posts
Re: Prosecutor as bully
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or, you know, you could just call your local Congressperson and complain. This is far more likely to have a direct impact on her job (performance of, or continued employment) than some random internet "naming and shaming." It is also far more likely to bring about the structural changes necessary to prevent this from happening again. ...as they have disabled the voice of the people by routing around jury trials. Aaro…
> Aaron had the option of going to trial. It was his constitutional right. He chose to kill himself instead. It was not a real option. He had run out of money for an expensive, complex case. He was sure to lose.
For someone of Aaron's talent and reputation there is no reason that he could not have gotten past a felony conviction and lived a successful life.
I can only interpret Lessig's post:
"...the question this government needs to answer is why it was so necessary that Aaron Swartz be labeled a “felon.” For in the 18 months of negotiations, that was what he was not willing to accept..."
I don't know what the government actually offered, but it doesn't seem unreasonable that Aaron would have been able to get a deal with a relatively light sentence, maybe just probation. It sounds from Lessig's post like his hangup was that he wasn't willing to accept a felony conviction. I hope that's not the case because even with a felony record he most likely would have lived a long and successful life.
Re: Prosecutor as bully
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wasn't bin Laden's issue the American involvement/support of Israel? I'm not sure you can say he got shit done anymore than McVeigh did.
Actually, I believe that the biggest bee in bin Laden's bonnet was the Americans' use of Saudi territory for military bases. The story of the US withdrawal ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_S... ) reminds me a lot of the resolution of the Cuban missile crisis, where the US quietly agreed to withdraw similar missiles from Turkey and Italy. To the extent that bin Laden's ultimate goal was to…
Re: Prosecutor as bully
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Destroying her career and seeing her fired in disgrace will send a message to all other overzealous prosecutors, ... This is Timothy McVeigh thinking, and it makes you a loser just like it did to McVeigh. You can never kill or destroy enough people to defeat Washington, D.C. To win you have to think like Osama bin Laden: turn the system against itself. Wholesale, not retail. Scale up, not one off. TSA, not EFF.
First off, the connection between forcing a political firing and committing an act of mass murder is unclear. Why did you pick McVeigh as the metaphor? Why not Osama, or Jared Loghner, or Russia? Second, that you think calling the poster a "loser" is important is telling. What do you think that will accomplish? Has insulting people ever won them over to your position, in your experience? Or were you banking on everyo…
Nobody has ever won against Washington, D.C. by scoring a symbolic personal victory against a few minions. Even if you are like McVeigh and willing to accept a certain degree of collateral damage, it has no effect. It turns out that blowing up a Federal building is the political equivalent of putting itching powder in Uncle Sam's shorts.
So if that is the case, sending an outspoken email is a pre-defeated strategy. It is the action of someone who lost before they started, a loser.
Re: Prosecutor as bully
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whether Aaron is a "sympathetic" defendant depends strongly on your point of view. All the laws named after little white girls are named after dead little white girls who were the victims of brutal crimes. Aaron is the alleged perpetrator of a potentially serious felony. Moreover, he is the perpetrator of a crime that most people cannot distinguish from hacking (because unlike the HN crowd, most people are not techno…
I don't think you're getting the idea here. We have internets now. The prosecutor says Aaron was a bad man. Everyone who knows anything about him -- and that's tons of people -- says completely the opposite. The New York Times is writing largely sympathetic stories about him. This isn't 1950 anymore. You don't get to control the public discourse just because you have a suit and an office. It doesn't matter what they…
It is irrelevant whether Aaron is bad or good; the law addresses only guilt and leaves morality to others. Legally, what matters is (1) whether he committed the alleged acts and (2) whether those acts (which are currently crimes) should be crimes.
It doesn't matter what they say he did,
You're right, because now he's dead and we do not allow the prosecution of dead men.
* it matters what we say he did. And we say he did good. Which we can get people to believe, because we're right, and there are millions of us.*
You have people on HN, on reddit, and 4chan who agree with you, and the bloggers who work for the NY Times. As I already discussed, there's not a snowball's chance in hell that you will convince other people (i.e., the tecnically illerate supermajority of America) that what he did was "good" once they understand that what he did is considered hacking.
There are a lot of us. We're generally pretty smart. We control a lot of important stuff. We can fix serious problems if we collectively set out to do it.
People in SV keep saying that, and then they churn out yet another social network or photo sharing app. At this point, I'll believe statements like that, even if made on HN, once they are backed by actual action and not just words.
You can say "politics doesn't work that way" a hundred times, but politics works the way that people make it work. And we're people.
Yes, you are people. But you're a small minority of America that generally avoids politics and interacting with the rest of America. Until that changes, and you involve yourself in America beyond just relatively unimportant stuff, like unpaid access to academic journals, you won't have much success changing anything.
Re: Prosecutor as bully
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Stealing" in the sense of depriving you access to the documents should be prohibited, but I see no problem if someone requested you immediately copy all of your research. In fact this is exactly the case with anyone working directly for the federal government, doing research or otherwise. You're told in no uncertain terms that at any moment information on your work laptop can be FOIA'd in which case you will have to…
> I see no problem if someone requested you immediately copy all of your research. Academia can be extremely competitive. Like, if a competing lab got ahold even of the title of your upcoming paper, they would and do rush to duplicate your results, and try to publish before you to get the scoop. For that reason, I don't know if open access to everyone's hard drives would work.
Nobody gets to "own" an idea. This possessiveness and reputational greed is what is causing all of these problems.
Re: Prosecutor as bully
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need to reread that. Contact her professional network, and let them know you don't approve of her actions. No tar. No feathers. Just make your own opinion known in the circles that matter to her career.
Let me get this straight: you want to contact a group of judges and prosecutors and "let them know you don't approve of her actions." What exactly do you hope to accomplish by this? Federal judges and prosecutors already get this every day from people who do this for a living. And you know what? It doesn't work. Who cares if you don't approve of what they're doing? They don't measure themselves based on your approval…
Mr. President, one of your appointees made it to the top of the petition list...
No, sir, it's not good news
Shall we draft a response for your approval?
No you don't know her personally...
Hey, at least she's not Deval's Lt. Gov.
Re: Prosecutor as bully
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you're getting the idea here. We have internets now. The prosecutor says Aaron was a bad man. Everyone who knows anything about him -- and that's tons of people -- says completely the opposite. The New York Times is writing largely sympathetic stories about him. This isn't 1950 anymore. You don't get to control the public discourse just because you have a suit and an office. It doesn't matter what they…
The prosecution does not say that Aaron was a bad man. They merely alleged he committed acts which fall within the definition of a crime under statutes passed by Congress. It is irrelevant whether Aaron is bad or good; the law addresses only guilt and leaves morality to others. Legally, what matters is (1) whether he committed the alleged acts and (2) whether those acts (which are currently crimes) should be crimes.…
We are not in a court of law. We are in the court of public opinion, where it is very relevant whether Aaron is bad or good.
>there's not a snowball's chance in hell that you will convince other people (i.e., the tecnically illerate supermajority of America) that what he did was "good" once they understand that what he did is considered hacking.
Half the point of this exercise is to make those people understand that "hacking" doesn't mean what they think it means. By these prosecutors' definitions, what they each do every morning by logging into a website using an ad blocker in violation of its terms of service or filling in a fake name to a web form is just as much considered "hacking" -- which is the problem. These laws are asinine. They make us all felons. Normal people can understand that without having to know what curl is.
>People in SV keep saying that, and then they churn out yet another social network or photo sharing app. At this point, I'll believe statements like that, even if made on HN, once they are backed by actual action and not just words.
I read your other post where you attributed the SOPA defeat to lobbying rather than activism. I don't agree with you. If you talk to Congressional aids, it was the volume of letters and the phone calls from real people who did it. It broke records.
If you don't agree with that, how about the Arab Spring? The activists themselves attribute their success to social media. Granted many of them are now learning that being citizens in a new democracy is harder than it looks, but you can't deny that there are actions there rather than just words.
What kind of actions are you looking for anyway? We are not going to have that sort of semi-violent revolution in the United States. That just isn't in the cards. But we can have political change without violence -- which is going to involve a lot more "words" than "actions" but is more than capable of getting results.
And what do you care? If we're willing bust our butts trying to change things, why do you have to shit on the attempt?
I want to fix things. Other like minded people want to fix the same things. We have ideas. We have resources. We are going to try. You can help if you want, but if you don't want to help then please go away and if you encounter anyone more helpful on your way out the door then kindly send them back this way.
And let me say this: If you're arguing that we haven't been living up to our potential, I agree with you. We don't need "another social network or photo sharing app." But we are capable of more than that. So don't tell us that we can't do it -- it helps nothing for you to convince anyone to believe you and have them go back to making more social networks and photo sharing apps. This is more important than that.
Re: Prosecutor as bully
#229if what the government alleged was true — and I say “if” because I am not revealing what Aaron said to me then — then what he did was wrong. And if not legally wrong, then at least morally wrong. Morally wrong to download taxpayer-funded research? I'm sorry Larry, you lost me. More on the academic publishing "industry": http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/22/academic-pu...
Re: Prosecutor as bully
#230From the article: For in the 18 months of negotiations, that was what he was not willing to accept, and so that was the reason he was facing a million dollar trial in April — his wealth bled dry, yet unable to appeal openly to us for the financial help he needed to fund his defense, at least without risking the ire of a district court judge. Remember, this was on HN just a week ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?…