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

MIT President on Aaron Swartz

pastebin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 223 posts

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#91

Post by tankenmate »

masklinn wrote: post #40
objclxt wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"he was threatened with spending a life in jail and being bankrupted, without the option to get off without pleading guilty." ...I don't quite understand this. Surely he did have an option to "get off without pleading guilty" - to be found not guilty by a jury of his peers.

> Surely he did have an option to "get off without pleading guilty" - to be found not guilty by a jury of his peers. 1. That would have bankrupted him anyway. 2. He was guilty, as far as the law book is concerned.

I'm not sure but weren't all the charges he was accused of require mens rea?

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#92

Post by 3825 »

potatolicious wrote: post #18
kristenlee wrote: post #7

Aaron Swartz was mentally ill and committed suicide as a direct result of his mental illness. He comtemplated suicide in 2007 long before any of this DOJ stuff happened. http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/dying Furthermore the "glorification" of his suicide is doing nothing more but encouraging other suicidal "hackers" to go over the edge so they have their "story" and inconsequential blog posts plastered all of Hacker Ne…

The witch hunt angle has been bothering me a lot, and should be ample evidence that the people of Hacker News are no better than the reactionaries of Reddit or even 4chan. No sooner had the man's death hit the news that people started foaming at the mouth, writing long manifestos and diatribes, and calling for the head of everyone and anyone related to the prosecution. We are better than this. Actually, evidently, no…

>But we should be better than this.

I am ashamed to be a part of the same community that you claim to embody.

>calling for the head of everyone and anyone related to the prosecution

Not everyone. I think Lawrence clearly named ONE name. An appointed office. Not an elected representative. Her superior can politely ask her if she'd like to step down.

This is not supposed to be the most difficult part, people.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#93

Post by tptacek »

jacquesm wrote: post #90
tptacek wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jacques, I hear you, and I'm sorry. But can we ask her questions? There's so much I want to know about how this happened.

Go for it, I don't think anybody ever stopped you from doing anything you wanted to do. My biggest question is this: was there any link at all between the PACER case and the way Aaron was hit over the JSTOR issue? And if there wasn't what was the reason that Aaron was prosecuted when the aggrieved party was already satisfied that no harm had been done? I'm pretty sure that with Hal Abelson as the head of the MIT inte…

I'd like to know if there was a link between PACER and this, too. Other people seem to suggest that there's some kind of grudge between the MA US Attorney's office and the Cambridge hacker community. I'm not familiar with either, but the PACER case wasn't managed by Heymann or Ortiz.

Other people seem to suggest that the prosecution in this case was driven by gamesmanship and an urge to "make their numbers". But Heymann is a nationally acknowledged authority on the prosecution of electronic crimes and a deputy chief. Is by-the-numbers quota- style prosecution so endemic to the US Attorney's office that it reaches that level?

I agree that the Abelson appointment is a heartening development.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#94

Post by pekk »

danso wrote: post #2

I will not attempt to summarize here the complex events of the past two years. Now is a time for everyone involved to reflect on their actions, and that includes all of us at MIT. I have asked Professor Hal Abelson to lead a thorough analysis of MIT's involvement from the time that we first perceived unusual activity on our network in fall 2010 up to the present. I have asked that this analysis describe the options M…

The message and promise to stall any meaningful discussion until after some meaningless 'investigation' expertly designed to exculpate MIT?

MIT used Federal law as a weapon against Aaron Swartz, and all it takes for you to excuse them is an assurance that they will investigate themselves.

But no such thing with respect to the government, of course. This makes it plain to me that you are using the Swartz case as a vehicle for anti-federal politics

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#95

Post by kamkazemoose »

wilfra wrote: post #9
michaelfeathers wrote: post #3

Why pastebin?

For anonymity. The person who posted it is likely an MIT Student/Alumnus/Faculty who received the email and others might not like them sharing it.

Either that, or they don't have a blog. Pastebin is an easy way to share an e-mail or some other text if you don't have some other method of publication easily available.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#96

Post by lawnchair_larry »

kristenlee wrote: post #7

Aaron Swartz was mentally ill and committed suicide as a direct result of his mental illness. He comtemplated suicide in 2007 long before any of this DOJ stuff happened. http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/dying Furthermore the "glorification" of his suicide is doing nothing more but encouraging other suicidal "hackers" to go over the edge so they have their "story" and inconsequential blog posts plastered all of Hacker Ne…

Do you post such absurdities because you are guilty of similar bullying in your role as a state prosecutor, and this is what you convince yourself of in order to sleep at night?

On behalf of the public, I'll say that you don't serve our interests.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#97

Post by rprasad »

dialtone wrote: post #89
arrrg wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not what jury nullification is for – not in the sense you are talking about it. The possibility of jury nullification is an inevitable consequence of how the US justice system is set up. There is no way around it. It’s a property of the system, not a intentionally designed feature. Put another way: For juries to have meaningful power, jury nullification has to be a possibility. I also think it’s illusory to be…

You are wrong and it is intentionally designed in the system. Why then have the verdict of a jury be final, with impossibility of re-trial, even in the eyes of Congress, if not to defend the Constitutional Right of Jury nullification? From the same article[1] I quoted in another reply: Theophilus Parsons, first Chief Justice of Massachusetts, explained: The people themselves have it in their power to resist usurpatio…

As a former defense attorney, I would have loved it if jury nullification was intentionally designed into the system.

Unfortunately, it's not. It's just a great side effect of the right to a trial by jury.

In the American legal system, the modification of laws is left to the legislature. A jury can express its displeasure with a law by nullifying, but this has no legal import, since a different jury could easily convict. Thus, the primary method of expressing displeasure in a law...is to express displeasure in a law (by calling your local legislator).

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#98

Post by jacquesm »

weisser wrote: post #70
danso wrote: post #2

I will not attempt to summarize here the complex events of the past two years. Now is a time for everyone involved to reflect on their actions, and that includes all of us at MIT. I have asked Professor Hal Abelson to lead a thorough analysis of MIT's involvement from the time that we first perceived unusual activity on our network in fall 2010 up to the present. I have asked that this analysis describe the options M…

I was shocked because I too was expecting spin and instead got a promise of action. The fact that they are taking this so seriously speaks volumes...too bad it took Aaron killing himself for them to analyze their actions.

> too bad it took Aaron killing himself for them to analyze their actions.

The art of understatement is alive and well I see.

The appointment of Hal Abelson is the first little bit of good news in two days, and the promise of being completely transparent with his findings the second.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#99

Post by rikacomet »

Today, I have this feeling again, the same I had when I heard about Micheal Jackson's death. He too struggled in a way from false accusations caused by reasons we all know. What I did learn today, which I did not knew earlier, was how while living, a man may not achieve something, but in death WHY exactly he would achieve even more. I do not in any way, justify the loss of life here, but instead that after what has already happened, what will we do? His ideas can no longer be ignored by me, us & those who caused this, and they must take a present stance, & retrospect for the good, that, what exactly were the things that went wrong and still are in the wrong, similarly to what Mr. Reif said. I feel, that even though I didn't knew who Aaron Swartz was until yesterday, I will know him for the rest of my life. What I can say today is, that yes, I have heard you, and if I can, I will try to make others hear the same. (Rest in Peace)

PS: 26 years, is too short of a life, you deserved much more than this. For the least, I will try on my part, to not let something similar to happen to even a enemy.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#100

Post by jacquesm »

pekk wrote: post #94
danso wrote: post #2

I will not attempt to summarize here the complex events of the past two years. Now is a time for everyone involved to reflect on their actions, and that includes all of us at MIT. I have asked Professor Hal Abelson to lead a thorough analysis of MIT's involvement from the time that we first perceived unusual activity on our network in fall 2010 up to the present. I have asked that this analysis describe the options M…

The message and promise to stall any meaningful discussion until after some meaningless 'investigation' expertly designed to exculpate MIT? MIT used Federal law as a weapon against Aaron Swartz, and all it takes for you to excuse them is an assurance that they will investigate themselves. But no such thing with respect to the government, of course. This makes it plain to me that you are using the Swartz case as a veh…

You underestimate Hal Abelson, he's not going to do a whitewash.

Mr. Abelson has a long and very distinguished history in including excellent standing in the field of ethics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Abelson

Post reply on HN