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

191–200 of 223 posts

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#191

Post by ChristianMarks »

Evbn wrote: post #186
ChristianMarks wrote: post #118

Contrast the MIT statement with the distancing of JSTOR: http://about.jstor.org/statement-swartz They write, "The case is one that we ourselves had regretted being drawn into from the outset..." But in Lawrence Lessig's http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bull... he writes, "Early on, and to its great credit, JSTOR figured “appropriate” out: They declined to pursue their own action against Aaron,…

JSTOR was directly involved as the target of Aaron's actions. MIT was involved collaterally as the scene of the crime, and ceased to be involved after JSTOR and the Feds took over.

JSTOR was directly involved as the target of Aaron's actions.

Yes, this is understood. They could have been drawn into the case to that extent only, without pressing any charges.

MIT was involved collaterally as the scene of the crime, and ceased to be involved after JSTOR and the Feds took over.

So JSTOR had a case to withdraw. Their involvement was not limited to being the target of Swartz's actions--they played an active role, only to withdraw later.

But I could be mistaken and my reading of Lessig could be wrong. How did JSTOR take over? How did it come to pass that JSTOR dropped its case? What was its case? Could filing such a case count as "being drawn in" to a case?

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#192

Post by rhizome »

Evbn wrote: post #190
jacquesm wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please, let's give Abelson the time to do his work. If he botches it you can call him out fairly afterwards, and I'm pretty sure you won't be alone. To do this beforehand is not fair to the man.

You are replying to a known troll.

Known? I'm flattered. I do have some comments downvoted from time to time, but I can't control that.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#193

Post by mindslight »

potatolicious wrote: post #55
kennywinker wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better in what way? Less caring? More apathetic? I think we should have been better than this too... I think we should have been up in arms while Aaron was still alive . It was wrong then too, but easier to dismiss because it was someone else' fight.

I agree, and it's why I find the witch hunt angle all the more troubling. Half of the people making angry diatribes right now on HN couldn't write a cogent paragraph about the failings of the American prosecutorial system, two days ago. And now they're busy tripping over each other with hyperbole-filled condemnations, and casting all members of the justice system as something subhuman. And in all of this noise we've…

Don't despair; HN will return to its usual NorCal Celebrity News in several days.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#194

Post by jacquesm »

Evbn wrote: post #190
jacquesm wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please, let's give Abelson the time to do his work. If he botches it you can call him out fairly afterwards, and I'm pretty sure you won't be alone. To do this beforehand is not fair to the man.

You are replying to a known troll.

Having just been called a 'known troll' myself (see this gem: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5052367) I think this label has been thrown around way too lightly of late.

Rhizome has been around for a while and I don't think he's a troll, merely too upset to see things clearly right now.

http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=rhizome

He's been here almost four times as long as you have and I remember lots of good stuff from him.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#195

Post by jlgreco »

Evbn wrote: post #180
jlgreco wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably a bad idea to mention that you might consider that in such a permanent and easily query-able forum, lest you ever actually have to do that. It would suck to be sitting in a court room some day and have yourself declared a flight risk because you said on hacker news a few years ago that you would absolutely be a flight risk. On an unrelated note, I have always admired Socrates' response to Crito.

You overestimate prosecutors by a large margin here.

Better safe than sorry.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#196

Post by jmharvey »

pc wrote: post #31

While it's painful that this is happening now and not a year ago, I'm heartened that Hal is heading the internal investigation. I can't imagine anyone better. He was a major supporter of Star Simpson when most of the MIT administration hung her out to dry. He has as good a chance as anyone at understanding Aaron's goals in liberating JSTOR's archive: he's a founding director of the FSF, Creative Commons, and Public K…

I worry that he may be too friendly a pick for the job. It's easy to imagine that if Prof. Abelson's investigation identifies wrongdoing, many will discount the findings because of his presumed sympathies.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#197

Post by eriksank »

They pushed Aaron Swartz to suicide because they did not fear what would happen next. They are right. There is nothing to fear. Ultimately, respect will always remain based on the fear for reprisals. Where is the respect?

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#198

Post by rdtsc »

jlgreco wrote: post #83
sampo wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have to admit that I have no idea how I would react to being pushed by the system to this extent. What about trying to apply for a political asylum in some other country?

Probably a bad idea to mention that you might consider that in such a permanent and easily query-able forum, lest you ever actually have to do that. It would suck to be sitting in a court room some day and have yourself declared a flight risk because you said on hacker news a few years ago that you would absolutely be a flight risk. On an unrelated note, I have always admired Socrates' response to Crito.

> It would suck to be sitting in a court room some day and have yourself declared a flight risk because you said on hacker news a few years ago that you would absolutely be a flight risk.

Very interesting. Especially in light of the recent "NSA spying on US citizens" articles. Someone had mentioned an interesting loophole that is exploited and that data can always be collected about anyone and stored. "Search" does not occur until a human acts to retrieve that data. Also it seems there is no historical limit on the data. So if at any point you become a "person of interest" it is theoretically possibly they could have access to all the data you ever generated since birth, if you happen to be 70 years old at the time.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#199

Post by btilly »

arrrg wrote: post #76
Illychnosis wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A court cannot let someone walk after a crime simply because the law itself is unjust. Incorrect. That's what the power of jury nullification is for. It's been ensconced in Western law for centuries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lilburne Aaron only committed a crime worthy of severe punishment if one takes the point of view of the Crown...I mean, of the government.

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…

It’s a property of the system, not a intentionally designed feature.

It was not intentionally designed into common law, but when the Constitution specified when trial by jury should be used, it was widely understood that this was the power that juries had. And this was approved of by the founding fathers. For instance Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

Therefore jury nullification may be an accidental property of common law, but it is NOT an accidental property of the US system of law.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#200

Post by btilly »

rprasad wrote: post #97
dialtone wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 conv…

You have claimed to be a former defense attorney, which anyone can claim, and yet your comment history is full of incorrect statements about the law.

Whether this reflects on your honest or competence I do not know, but I do not trust anything you claim. Former defense attorney or not.

Post reply on HN