51–60 of 142 posts
I think it will take me a day or two to properly digest this article. That is a good thing. Here are a few gut responses in semi-random order. 1. I absolutely agree that the whole process of plea bargains, threats, etc is unethical, immoral, etc. And we should object to it in all cases, not just when it happens to someone like Aaron Swartz. 2. I absolutely disagree that Aaron's actions would seriously threaten the re…
Swartz had something else in mind it seems; just taking the law into his own hands I think this is really one of the core reasons so many hackers disagree with this lawyer mindset. A hacker or an entrepreneur is someone who breaks rules to create something. Innovation and consensus are antonyms, not synonyms. Innovation does not happen by committee. If you wait for a "democratic process" that is bought and rigged by…
"As for the fetishization of 'democracy' in Kerr's post, sometimes elections produce good outcomes. But often the wisdom of crowds isn't so wise" Well, yes, but that's why we do the whole voting thing again after a period of time, rather than just once. Democracy isn't a means to ensure bad decisions won't get made, it's a means to ensure they can be un-made. "Many times, perhaps most times, the crowd votes after som…
I hadn't thought of Al Capone as an example of civil disobedience, but that's an interesting point, and I'll admit that example does strengthen your point, because he isn't what people usually think of as civil disobedience. There are many more examples than Al Capone of aiming primarily to change the situation directly, rather than mainly aimed at provoking a symbolic arrest, though. Would you consider the Underground Railroad an example of civil disobedience, or of something else?
Even in cases where there is a desire to provoke a high-profile, symbolic arrest, widespread flouting to render the law unenforceable is often part of the strategy as well. For example, Gandhi's famous Salt March had two components. On the one hand, Gandhi personally, very publicly and openly, announced his intention to make salt, and began a march to the sea where he'd do so, in a symbolic gesture to violate the British salt laws and provoke arrest. But equally importantly, the Salt March was intended to kick off millions of Indians making their own salt, rendering the law so widely violated that it became completely unenforceable. You (and Kerr) seem to be thinking of the first part of that as the only thing that counts as "civil disobedience", but the second part was critically important to the success of the Salt March, and I think it's fair to call it an example of widespread civil disobedience.
Swartz had something else in mind it seems; just taking the law into his own hands I think this is really one of the core reasons so many hackers disagree with this lawyer mindset. A hacker or an entrepreneur is someone who breaks rules to create something. Innovation and consensus are antonyms, not synonyms. Innovation does not happen by committee. If you wait for a "democratic process" that is bought and rigged by…
I think there is a strong grain of truth to what you say. My politics are fairly lawyerly,[1] and I find the anti-democratic sentiment on here disquieting, especially the constant attempts to discredit the democratic process at every turn by unsubstantiated hand waving about how the system is "bought." [1] I think the chicken came before the egg. The profession attracts people who have a strong sense of order and con…
I think a lot of that comes from the decentralized nature of this industry. The status quo in Washington doesn't mesh with that very well. Normally when two industries have a trade disagreement over legislation, they both send their lobbyists to Congress to advocate their interests and then it gets hashed out and usually something mutually agreeable (or at least balanced) comes about. But decentralized entrepreneurs don't have lobbyists or official spokesmen, as a general rule. So we can't easily participate in that process in the "traditional" way, and then the process repeatedly fails to arrive at results that satisfy us and we rail against it.
Which is probably not very productive in the long run. What we need is to find a way to interface with Washington as a decentralized group. Because in many cases we all largely agree and have similar interests, it's just that no one can go there and claim official representation of the entire group and Congress is not currently equipped to negotiate with a million semi-independent individuals.
This is exactly what bothers me with this whole affair. 4 million people are behind bars in the US and no one cares; most of those people have committed "crimes" with no victims but themselves (if even that)... and no one cares.
And suddenly the same prosecutorial tactics are used on one of us (one of us hackers, not one of us geniuses, obviously) and ends in tragedy, and we ask for the removal of the prosecutor.
This one prosecutor is not the problem; the US criminal system is the problem.
I think it’s important to realize that what happened in the Swartz case happens it lots and lots of federal criminal cases. Yes, the prosecutors tried to force a plea deal by scaring the defendant with arguments that he would be locked away for a long time if he was convicted at trial. Yes, the prosecutors filed a superseding indictment designed to scare Swartz evem more in to pleading guilty (it actually had no effe…
Should you use it if you want to become one?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If Ortiz or Heymann are fired or resign under pressure, the only signal that really sends to other prosecutors is that mob justice is effective for those with a mob at their backs. It is this kind of argument that seeks to undermine the call to action mentioned in the (rather brilliant) grandpost. Unfortunately, it is often the case that if any action at all is to take place, it must be drastic. Subtle actions tend…
I don't care if Ortiz suffers an unjust end to her career. She'll still be alive. And I'm not suggesting the problem is that the action is too drastic. It's that the action sends the wrong message. The most likely outcome of Ortiz getting fired is that prosecutors are more cautious about bullying the well-connected; they'll judge each defendant on the likelihood of their martyrdom and act accordingly. It won't make d…
> If we don’t want a world in which prosecutors have these powers, we shouldn’t just object when the defendant in the crosshairs is a genius who went to Stanford, hangs out with Larry Lessig, and is represented by the extremely expensive lawyers at Keker & Van Nest. We should object just as much — or even more — when the defendant is poor, unknown, and unconnected to the powerful. To do otherwise sends an extremely t…
Swartz had something else in mind it seems; just taking the law into his own hands I think this is really one of the core reasons so many hackers disagree with this lawyer mindset. A hacker or an entrepreneur is someone who breaks rules to create something. Innovation and consensus are antonyms, not synonyms. Innovation does not happen by committee. If you wait for a "democratic process" that is bought and rigged by…
In some cases just fixing things may look like rule-breaking. Imagine, you need to download a file from a server, but your wireless connection keeps dropping. You don't really know why. Maybe some problem on the network, or improperly configured web server. You don't know. What would you do? Would you go, and start soliciting network administrators, or contact web server administrators? Probably no, right? You'll jus…
There are those struggling to change this. The Open Access Movement has fought valiantly to ensure that scientists do not sign their copyrights away but instead ensure their work is published on the Internet, under terms that allow anyone to access it. But even under the best scenarios, their work will only apply to things published in the future. Everything up until now will have been lost.
That is too high a price to pay. Forcing academics to pay money to read the work of their colleagues? Scanning entire libraries but only allowing the folks at Google to read them? Providing scientific articles to those at elite universities in the First World, but not to children in the Global South? It’s outrageous and unacceptable.
“I agree,” many say, “but what can we do? The companies hold the copyrights, they make enormous amounts of money by charging for access, and it’s perfectly legal —there’s nothing we can do to stop them.” But there is something we can, something that’s already being done: we can fight back.
Those with access to these resources — students, librarians, scientists — you have been given a privilege. You get to feed at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world is locked out. But you need not —indeed, morally, you cannot — keep this privilege for yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world. And you have: trading passwords with colleagues, filling download requests for friends.
Meanwhile, those who have been locked out are not standing idly by. You have been sneaking through holes and climbing over fences, liberating the information locked up by the publishers and sharing them with your friends.
But all of this action goes on in the dark, hidden underground. It’s called stealing or piracy, as if sharing a wealth of knowledge were the moral equivalent of plundering a ship and murdering its crew. But sharing isn’t immoral — it’s a moral imperative. Only those blinded by greed would refuse to let a friend make a copy.
Large corporations, of course, are blinded by greed. The laws under which they operate require it — their shareholders would revolt at anything less. And the politicians they have bought off back them, passing laws giving them the exclusive power to decide who can make copies.
There is no justice in following unjust laws. It’s time to come into the light and, in the grand tradition of civil disobedience, declare our opposition to this private theft of public culture.
We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world. We need to take stuff that's out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open Access.
With enough of us, around the world, we’ll not just send a strong message opposing the privatization of knowledge —we’ll make it a thing of the past. Will you join us?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In some cases just fixing things may look like rule-breaking. Imagine, you need to download a file from a server, but your wireless connection keeps dropping. You don't really know why. Maybe some problem on the network, or improperly configured web server. You don't know. What would you do? Would you go, and start soliciting network administrators, or contact web server administrators? Probably no, right? You'll jus…
Sorry, there is no reasonable interpretation of the facts of this case under which Swartz did not understand that there were people attempting to block his access to the MIT network and JSTOR.