[deleted]
MIT President on Aaron Swartz
201–210 of 223 posts
Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Reading between the lines of what they said in their responses, both when the initial federal case was filed, and after the suicide, JSTOR settled out of court with Aaron, and part of that settlement is that he gave back or destroyed the copies that he made.
With that done, JSTOR didn't care what happened next. And only the federal prosecutor cared.
Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what is more disturbing; the fact that someone is capable of disparaging a human being who has passed away and is incapable of self-defence, or the fact that some people apparently agree with the diatribe as witnessed by the upvotes. I don't know about you nor can I or will I speak on the behalf of the real Mr. Swartz, but I've thrown away plenty of opportunities, made plenty of mistakes and done tons of…
Dying does not give you immunity from criticism.
Wow. Such childish behavior.
To be so jealous of a dead guy that you would use his name in such a manner and to be such an attention seeker that you would dis-parage Aaron with one liners.
Pathetic.
Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're asking readers to grant you an awful lot of your assumptions. For example: "committed suicide as a direct result of his mental illness." Neither you nor I know that. Suicide is often precipitated by stressful incidents. Is the mental illness the direct cause? What if the stress is the direct cause and the mental illness simply prevents the depressed person from handling it, much as AIDS damaging the immune sys…
> What crimes did Aaron commit? My understanding is that he was alleged to have committed crimes, but this has not been proven in court, so we don't know that he committed crimes, and if he did, we do not know that he did so knowingly IF he did what is alleged, it is pretty hard to see how it could not be knowingly. He had access to JSTOR as part of his work at Harvard. If he didn't know what he was doing was violati…
My first instinct was to crack a joke along the following rough lines:
I like this idea of debating what we can infer beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence. But just to be sure we're both playing the same game, let's agree on a common set of rules. I'll start by proposing that instead of judging who wins according to up- and downvotes from thousands of anonymous Hn readers, we pick twelve reasonable people to read the evidence and listen to our arguments We can appoint an experienced referee to keep us on track and instruct our panel of twelve. Your turns. What other rules should our game have?
Snark aside, I'm uncomfortable arguing someone's guilt in such an unstructured fashion. That's what our courts are for.
Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you condemn my assertions because I'm anonymous, then you must condemn Aaron's actions for the same reason, for he did them anonymously also. Incidentally, the "expert witness" said a bald-faced lie, that Aaron did not try to hide his tracks. It is not a "disputed assertion."
Ignoring most everything going on in this thread: I'd be very interested to see citations for this evidence that Aaron Schwartz did try to disguise himself, and the details of that disguise. That evidence does change the discussion, and it is important that we see what you are talking about.
The indictment alleges he shielded his face with his bicycle helmet: bottom of page 8 of https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/217117-united-states...
Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
I intended to up vote this (downvoted by accident as I am reading on my phone)
I up voted it to cancel your accidental down vote. I have never understood why HN does not let people change a mistaken vote.
Amen. Especially in a world with small touchscreens.
Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 st…
MIT employee friends of mine have said to me exactly what rhizome is saying -- that the report won't be complete and comprehensive.
I'm withholding judgment, but if the report is whitewashed, it's war. But I'll wait until I have actual evidence.
Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
Prosecutors and politicians would respond the same way if a group so critical to their existence became enraged at their actions (think reporters or donors). MIT wouldn't be MIT without their stature in the tech community - precisely the people (and perhaps the only people) who care passionately about this.
No, the government would hire a non-independent investigator to write a whitewashed report.
"the government" is something else entirely from one politician or prosecutor.
Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 st…
MIT employee friends of mine have said to me exactly what rhizome is saying -- that the report won't be complete and comprehensive. I'm withholding judgment, but if the report is whitewashed, it's war. But I'll wait until I have actual evidence.
> but if the report is whitewashed, it's war
I agree, now let's wait and see.
Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
So from what I've read, he had the option to plead guilty to some charges and I'm sure spend very little time in jail, but he didn't want to plead guilty at all. He had options.
Being labeled as a felon, with the implications thereof regarding voting, employment, serving on a jury, etc. is hardly an option worth considering.
I'm pretty sure employment wouldn't be an issue for him.
Anyway, if you want to protest the law, you can let yourself be found guilty at trial, then challenge the law on appeal.