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

Still More About The Death Of Aaron Swartz

esquire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 70 posts

Re: Still More About The Death Of Aaron Swartz

#31

Post by eli »

rhizome wrote: post #22
eli wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I buy that. Aaron Swartz is not exactly Willie Horton. Even if you paint him as a dangerous computer hacker, that doesn't strike me as a particularly convincing political ad.

Willie Horton is an inapt comparison for every scenario in which Ortiz would try to capitalize on her record that I can think of. Willie Horton was a spoiler, not a feather.

I recognize that, but I think it's wholly beside my point, which is that it would be very hard to make Aaron Swartz and his crimes sound threatening. I don't think MIT computer hackers are what keep voters up at night. It might be true that politics played a role in the case, but it's silly to think this case would have been an important part of anyone's gubernatorial campaign.

Re: Still More About The Death Of Aaron Swartz

#32

Post by jlgreco »

mindcrime wrote: post #21
gizmo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say things like "we don't know the full story" or "suicide is tricky", you aren't taking a reasonable middle-of-the-road position you're effectively endorsing the status quo. By refusing to pick a side when there is a disagreement or struggle between groups of unequal strength you still pick a side: you side with the stronger group. When people are bullied, be it in the schoolyard on by the government, the p…

By refusing to pick a side when there is a disagreement or struggle between groups of unequal strength you still pick a side: you side with the stronger group. "Blame" is an interesting concept though. In almost any complicated scenario, there is plenty of "blame" to be spread around and you can reasonably argue that multiple different entities are to "blame" for $WHATEVER. To use a somewhat tangential example... whe…

Basically my thought is that blame is not zero sum. Assigning some blame from one party should not in any way be taken to mean another party is not less to blame. Multiple parties could each be (for lack of better terminology) "100% to blame".

Re: Still More About The Death Of Aaron Swartz

#33

Post by mindcrime »

jlgreco wrote: post #32
mindcrime wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By refusing to pick a side when there is a disagreement or struggle between groups of unequal strength you still pick a side: you side with the stronger group. "Blame" is an interesting concept though. In almost any complicated scenario, there is plenty of "blame" to be spread around and you can reasonably argue that multiple different entities are to "blame" for $WHATEVER. To use a somewhat tangential example... whe…

Basically my thought is that blame is not zero sum. Assigning some blame from one party should not in any way be taken to mean another party is not less to blame. Multiple parties could each be (for lack of better terminology) "100% to blame".

Have an upvote, for an interesting comment. I'm not completely sure I agree with the sentiment, but you make an interesting point. I'm not sure what exactly it would mean to say that two different parties are both "100% to blame" for something, but I suspect there's at least kernel of something there that I would agree with.

Re: Still More About The Death Of Aaron Swartz

#34

Post by jlgreco »

mindcrime wrote: post #33
jlgreco wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically my thought is that blame is not zero sum. Assigning some blame from one party should not in any way be taken to mean another party is not less to blame. Multiple parties could each be (for lack of better terminology) "100% to blame".

Have an upvote, for an interesting comment. I'm not completely sure I agree with the sentiment, but you make an interesting point. I'm not sure what exactly it would mean to say that two different parties are both "100% to blame" for something, but I suspect there's at least kernel of something there that I would agree with.

As a simple and obviously rather obscure example to think about zero-sum blame, consider two men sitting in a room facing opposite walls. In front of each of them are identical control panels; in order to launch the nuke they both need to issue identical commands at the same time.

Both should be considered fully responsible for anything that happens. I would would not consider "Well he turned his key too!" to reduce blame in any way, they would both be to blame just as much as if the system only required one operator.

Wether this principle of non-zero-sum blame can be applied to situations less obviously engineered is something I can't really support, but it is a point of view that I hold.

Re: Still More About The Death Of Aaron Swartz

#35

Post by Vivtek »

sociotech wrote: post #8
dasht wrote: post #6

A focus on the prosecutor helps distract attention from the question of whether and how Swartz was mistreated by being made a (somewhat artificial) "tech celebrity" at a very young age only to become a kind of semi-outcast in some tech circles just a few years later.

Bingo. I've been trying not to say petty things out of respect for recently departed people and his family, with whom I sympathize for this terrible, terrible thing. But the radical loss of perspective here is just jarring, and the case is big enough now that it's hard to refrain from trying to put things into perspective. I am aware of the full history, having been a programmer with significant open-source and other…

Nicely put. I was more aware (marginally) of his political activism and vaguely knew something of his past (I do really like his writing about web.py - and now that I'm reading it, all of his writing).

It seems to me he was driven by the need to score a coup, and move fast. To be the hero who liberated an entire database, instead of a contributor to a slower process that would have slipped past their defenses - which as I've said elsewhere, really would have gotten us something, instead of the nothing we have now.

I think that need was due to his need to recapitulate his early acclaim when he was 14. And in retrospect, that really sucks.

Re: Still More About The Death Of Aaron Swartz

#37

Post by gruseom »

MichaelSalib wrote: post #30
gruseom wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read many of your comments and am glad you've been posting them. They're well-written and well-reasoned, and I hope you stick around in the future and continue to speak your mind with the freedom that your current format seems to be providing. The combination of legal and technical expertise is valuable and rare. That being said, your comments seem to me to pooh-pooh the impact of what the prosecutors/system did…

Taste cuts both ways though. I'm seriously concerned about how younger people in the community might respond to the hagiography. I'm afraid that some might come to believe that the CFAA isn't a real law so there's no problem with breaking it or that suicide is the best way for activists to enact real change.

That there's "no problem with breaking" the CFAA is the last conclusion anyone will draw from this tragedy.

Re: Still More About The Death Of Aaron Swartz

#38

Post by elteto »

gizmo wrote: post #7
hullo wrote: post #2

I don't particularly think there's much to be gained by going against the hivemind on all of this, but I also don't "blame" the prosecutors for Aaron's death. Aaron killed himself. Suicide and depression are tricky things, and not one single person currently living knows what the full story is. If that's enough to get me labeled as "usually reasonable" as well, then so be it.

When you say things like "we don't know the full story" or "suicide is tricky", you aren't taking a reasonable middle-of-the-road position you're effectively endorsing the status quo. By refusing to pick a side when there is a disagreement or struggle between groups of unequal strength you still pick a side: you side with the stronger group. When people are bullied, be it in the schoolyard on by the government, the p…

A reasonable middle-of-the-road position would be to not take sides until enough facts are known about the subject at hand, and even then submit them to a careful analysis and consideration, context is very important. And also, a person must have the right to not be compelled to choose a side, even in the face of overwhelming evidence i.e. everyone can have their opinions independently of what is really going on, we might not like it but we have to put up with it.

It is not about taking perfect decisions, it is about taking the best decision with the information at hand, and if there is not enough information, then I personally would not take a side most of the time (I am only human).

And I say all this while myself taking what you would define as "Aaron's side". I am only debating the philosophical and practical implications of what you said.

Re: Still More About The Death Of Aaron Swartz

#39

Post by jjtheblunt »

One sad aspect of this event, that I see rarely mentioned, is that Swartz knowingly taunted the legal system to test its response, which he sadly was inadquately patient in using to his own advantage. Had he really intended to make a lasting point, perhaps he'd have more effectively done so by risking prosecution, refusing to spend any money on legal fees, as he was obviously eloquent himself. The public awareness of a trial's outcome may have been as extreme and intense as that of his unfortunate choice. Importantly, the world wouldn't have lost him so early, and, importantly, he would have been a wonderful voice in explaining the flaws in the process through its completion.

Re: Still More About The Death Of Aaron Swartz

#40

Post by btilly »

michaelochurch wrote: post #19
sociotech wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bingo. I've been trying not to say petty things out of respect for recently departed people and his family, with whom I sympathize for this terrible, terrible thing. But the radical loss of perspective here is just jarring, and the case is big enough now that it's hard to refrain from trying to put things into perspective. I am aware of the full history, having been a programmer with significant open-source and other…

I think the sign that the VC-istan technology world is terminally fucked is that we even have "celebrities" in the first place. Aaron Swartz may not have been a technological heavyweight. Nor am I. Nor are 99.x percent of the people reading this. That's not so bad. What is bad is that there's so much complete nonsense in our so-called "scene" that no one seems to give a rat's ass about actual technology anymore. It's…

Irony.

In the same post you complain that no one seems to give a rat's ass about actual technology anymore and then you downvote someone for bringing up Brian Behlendorf as someone who has contributed to actual technology.

In fact Brian definitely has made a lot of technical contributions to open source, and the fact that you don't like one organization that Brian Behlendorf's is associated with does not change that. Perhaps if YOU "gave a rat's ass about actual technology", you could understand respecting Brian for that EVEN THOUGH you disagree with him on other topics.

(If you really want to stretch yourself, you might consider that when the same person is important in organizations as diverse as Apache, Mozilla, Burning Man and the World Economic Forum, that perhaps the last organization has goals you are unaware of that might in critical ways differ from the actions of the world leaders who they have to engage in order to have any change of achieving their real goals. That might be a stretch for you. It doesn't fit nicely on a propaganda placard. But it is worth thinking about regardless.)

Post reply on HN