[deleted]
Jonathan James
41–50 of 125 posts
Re: Jonathan James
#42Looks like Steve Heymann has a history of this: "The case was picked up by Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Heymann in Boston, the cybercrime prosecutor who won a record 20-year prison stretch for TJX hacker Albert Gonzalez. Heymann indicted Aaron on 13 counts of wire fraud, computer intrusion and reckless damage. The case has been wending through pre-trial motions for 18 months, and was set for jury trial on April 1."…
Kill THAT prosecutor !
Re: Jonathan James
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have hope. The generations born since the early to mid 80s have been raised in a world where change has become at least constant if not accelerated. These generations, as they age and take over the roles of the higher echelons of business and government, may prove more adaptable to an ever changing world. But this may just be a dream
One problem is that the elderly are living longer than ever, and continuing to vote. At the same time, the birth rate is not too high. However, the internet has proven to be a very effective way of getting people to go to the polls, and you can target your campaigns much more specifically, so as to include young people and exclude the elderly (who don't use the internet much anyway). This is an important thing to kee…
You know, I honestly think we should hack a few years off one side of the voting population and slap it onto the other. Let people start voting 5 years earlier, and forbid people from voting once they are five years younger than the current average life expectancy.
A vote in our system is a vote for what should be. The concept of a vote is inherently tied to the future; the young have the most to win or lose because the vote is for something in their comparably massive future, while for the elderly it represents little more than an opportunity to influence a world they will (again, comparatively) soon have zero stake in.
Of course that is more of a pipe-dream than owning my own bartending unicorn.
Re: Jonathan James
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "who won a record 20-year sentence" I know this is common verbiage, but it's frankly sickening. Do they view their targets as people, or are they merely a collection of scalps?
Gonzalez stole real money, I'm sure causing many people a great deal of trouble and distress. He said in chat logs that he aimed to steal $15 million and retire. It's really not that much different from pickpocketing or bank robbery, except on a much larger scale, and I'm quite happy if pickpockets, bank robbers, insurance scammers, and other criminals get serious time. This is quite different from Aaron Swartz who w…
Oh, I'm certainly not arguing Gonzalez should not have been prosecuted.
What I am reacting to quite specifically is the notion that "winning" a higher sentence is somehow a goal in and of itself.
Having worked quite closely with the legal community over the last half decade, I have to say that the mercenary attitude many hold continues to jar me.
Re: Jonathan James
#45"I have no faith in the 'justice' system. Perhaps my actions today, and this letter, will send a stronger message to the public. Either way, I have lost control over this situation, and this is my only way to regain control. I die free." That is a sad and powerful statement.
It is a testament to how control of this country has been completely wrested from the hands of the middle class since the 60s and 70s and taken over by megacorporations, the military-industrial complex, and the ultrawealthy. I recently read about this phenomenon in the book Who Stole the American Dream? , by Hedrick Smith[0]. I highly recommend it. The first signs of change appeared in the 2012 election, as the young…
>viewpoints are largely stagnant, so this change will probably have to occur one funeral at a time.
There's a good argument out there that a lot of the recent social change has nothing to do with Obama, the internet, education, awareness, etc but the fact that so many of the old guard are dying out and that what we Americans call "liberal" or "progressive" is the new norm. It just too many conservatives had too much sway in politics. I mean, look at the desperate Texas and other red state gerrymandering. These guys are certainly scared of something.
If you look at recent progressive victories, they're often of a slight majority. Votes that come in real close like 48-52 or 47% vs 48%, and losses are pretty narrow too.
I guess until a lot of the boomers start dying out, this stuff will continue. Heh, by the time I'm old and gray I won't have to worry about no-knock raids on harmless potheads and computer nerds being roughed up by the DOJ. Oh well, maybe I'll feel better about my country when I'm retired.
Re: Jonathan James
#46We cannot see into Aaron's thoughts of course but if I had to guess, maybe he thought he was going to be Bradley Manning-inged which might drive anyone over the edge.
Stripped naked and thrown into a cell "for his protection" (he got a whopping 100 days off his 30 years to life sentence for that abuse btw, so that will teach the people that did that right?)
Perhaps we should use this energy to help the living Bradley Manning in protest as it does little to help Aaron or his loved ones now.
Re: Jonathan James
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
One problem is that the elderly are living longer than ever, and continuing to vote. At the same time, the birth rate is not too high. However, the internet has proven to be a very effective way of getting people to go to the polls, and you can target your campaigns much more specifically, so as to include young people and exclude the elderly (who don't use the internet much anyway). This is an important thing to kee…
You know, I honestly think we should hack a few years off one side of the voting population and slap it onto the other. Let people start voting 5 years earlier, and forbid people from voting once they are five years younger than the current average life expectancy. A vote in our system is a vote for what should be. The concept of a vote is inherently tied to the future; the young have the most to win or lose because…
Lets not give thirteen year olds the vote.
Re: Jonathan James
#48Anyone who argues for any punishment, should first have experienced a sample of the same treatment. How can someone who doesn't know what it means and feels to live through a punishment wish to inflict it upon others. Seems like the behavior of a beast.
Re: Jonathan James
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know, I honestly think we should hack a few years off one side of the voting population and slap it onto the other. Let people start voting 5 years earlier, and forbid people from voting once they are five years younger than the current average life expectancy. A vote in our system is a vote for what should be. The concept of a vote is inherently tied to the future; the young have the most to win or lose because…
Lets not give thirteen year olds the vote.
I have more faith in the average 13 year old than the average 75 year old. Worse case scenario we'll (continue to) have no coherent or thought out economic policy, but I really don't see such a shift being anything but good for social policy.
The only real issue I see with it is that it could allow conservative religious parents who pump out kids to add a multiplying factor to their own vote. Efforts would need to be taken to ensure parents could not influence the votes of their children (improved voter privacy, and improved education).
Really though, with the amount of 18 year olds currently voting, the 13-18 demographic would only have token representation. The important part of this change would be the age cutoff.
Re: Jonathan James
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know, I honestly think we should hack a few years off one side of the voting population and slap it onto the other. Let people start voting 5 years earlier, and forbid people from voting once they are five years younger than the current average life expectancy. A vote in our system is a vote for what should be. The concept of a vote is inherently tied to the future; the young have the most to win or lose because…
Lets not give thirteen year olds the vote.
I disagree. Whilst I don't think that voting rights should be taken away from the elderly, I do think that giving a greater range of ages the ability to vote (say, optional voting between 13 and 18) could be beneficial to society. That extra 5 year gap isn't a large enough number of people to reshape the political landscape in most Western nations, but it is sufficient to stimulate a healthy interest in politics at a young age, thus (hopefully) producing better informed voters who can in turn elect better governments.