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

U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

blogs.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 300 posts

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#291

Post by FireBeyond »

jacquesm wrote: post #290
FireBeyond wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a lot easier to blame the attorney prosecuting your child for his suicide than to point to his chronic depression (which I've not really seen acknowledged by them)...

It's a lot easier to blame a defendants suicide on his mental state than on your prosecution. Aarons parents are under no obligation to acknowledge their sons mental state because he has acknowledged so himself in lots of places. That does not mean that this absolves everybody else from blame.

He may well have done so, but it comes across as disingenuous to mention one very pertinent detail (a /highly/ aggressive prosecution), and leave out another (chronic depression going on for many years).

No-one is saying anyone is absolved of 'blame' or being a factor in Aaron's decision.

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#292

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

ataggart wrote: post #263
res0nat0r wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Six months in a minimum security jail seems perfectly reasonable to me for repeatedly breaking the law and in no way some sort of "overreach" or "witch hunt". Her job was to find a settlement acceptable to both parties.

I not clear on how incarceration is reasonable punishment for someone convicted of a non-violent crime and who is not a physical danger to anyone.

Some guy breaks into your house while you're away and steals all your valuables, including the contents of a safe he found.

What do you think his punishment should be if caught?

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#293

Post by Peaker »

corporalagumbo wrote: post #285
mpyne wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure that every article behind the JSTOR paywall was 100% publically funded? That's one question I've never heard the answer to. Not to mention, let's say we're talking about stuff funded by the U.S. taxpayers... are you sure they would want those scientific articles to be freely available outside the U.S.? Similar questions apply to things funded by the U.K., France, etc. Who gets to make that choice? In Aar…

Yes, I agree with you. This issue has nothing to do with the economics and apparent social justice of the journal publishing industry/complex. This is about headstrong young white men deciding that the rules do not apply to them any more.

It is about extremely accomplished "young white men" deciding that unjust restrictions (not even rules, but terms of use of a website) should not be obeyed.

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#294

Post by corporalagumbo »

Peaker wrote: post #293
corporalagumbo wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I agree with you. This issue has nothing to do with the economics and apparent social justice of the journal publishing industry/complex. This is about headstrong young white men deciding that the rules do not apply to them any more.

It is about extremely accomplished "young white men" deciding that unjust restrictions (not even rules, but terms of use of a website) should not be obeyed.

Terms of use are rules. Terms of use are the contract you establish with a party when they agree to render services to you. Just because it's "a website" doesn't mean shit.

Anyway, I don't care how accomplished you are, you don't get to decide that you don't like an arbitrary subset of the social contract and hence should be exempt from it. You are welcome to construct an argument against those rules and attempt to persuade others to your cause. But an argument for exceptionalism is no excuse for bypassing normal, democratic channels for political change.

Honestly I don't see why this point is so hard to understand. Aaron thought he had the answer to society's ills. You know what, everyone thinks that. Grumpy old men pissed off at immigration think they have the answer. The Unabomber thought he had the answer. It is one of the key advantages of democracy that we do not let individuals who think they have the answer just march in and change things as they see fit.

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#295

Post by Peaker »

corporalagumbo wrote: post #294
Peaker wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is about extremely accomplished "young white men" deciding that unjust restrictions (not even rules, but terms of use of a website) should not be obeyed.

Terms of use are rules. Terms of use are the contract you establish with a party when they agree to render services to you. Just because it's "a website" doesn't mean shit. Anyway, I don't care how accomplished you are, you don't get to decide that you don't like an arbitrary subset of the social contract and hence should be exempt from it. You are welcome to construct an argument against those rules and attempt to p…

He didn't harm anyone in his violation of the website's terms.

Should the user of adblock be facing multiple criminal charges if they visit a website whose terms disallow its use? It's absolutely ridiculous to allow these terms to be used for criminal prosecution.

Civil disobedience is a valid form of protest, and such a minor act of disobedience is ridiculous to throw dozens of frivolous charges on.

The democratic process for change in the US is long dead. Aaron had powerful enemies in Washington.

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#296

Post by corporalagumbo »

Peaker wrote: post #295
corporalagumbo wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terms of use are rules. Terms of use are the contract you establish with a party when they agree to render services to you. Just because it's "a website" doesn't mean shit. Anyway, I don't care how accomplished you are, you don't get to decide that you don't like an arbitrary subset of the social contract and hence should be exempt from it. You are welcome to construct an argument against those rules and attempt to p…

He didn't harm anyone in his violation of the website's terms. Should the user of adblock be facing multiple criminal charges if they visit a website whose terms disallow its use? It's absolutely ridiculous to allow these terms to be used for criminal prosecution. Civil disobedience is a valid form of protest, and such a minor act of disobedience is ridiculous to throw dozens of frivolous charges on. The democratic p…

Minimisation, false conflation, melodrama and conspiracy theories. Nice.

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#297

Post by mpyne »

Peaker wrote: post #295
corporalagumbo wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terms of use are rules. Terms of use are the contract you establish with a party when they agree to render services to you. Just because it's "a website" doesn't mean shit. Anyway, I don't care how accomplished you are, you don't get to decide that you don't like an arbitrary subset of the social contract and hence should be exempt from it. You are welcome to construct an argument against those rules and attempt to p…

He didn't harm anyone in his violation of the website's terms. Should the user of adblock be facing multiple criminal charges if they visit a website whose terms disallow its use? It's absolutely ridiculous to allow these terms to be used for criminal prosecution. Civil disobedience is a valid form of protest, and such a minor act of disobedience is ridiculous to throw dozens of frivolous charges on. The democratic p…

> The democratic process for change in the US is long dead. Aaron had powerful enemies in Washington.

No one even knew it was Aaron until he finally was arrested. Give it a break.

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#298

Post by Peaker »

mpyne wrote: post #297
Peaker wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't harm anyone in his violation of the website's terms. Should the user of adblock be facing multiple criminal charges if they visit a website whose terms disallow its use? It's absolutely ridiculous to allow these terms to be used for criminal prosecution. Civil disobedience is a valid form of protest, and such a minor act of disobedience is ridiculous to throw dozens of frivolous charges on. The democratic p…

> The democratic process for change in the US is long dead. Aaron had powerful enemies in Washington. No one even knew it was Aaron until he finally was arrested. Give it a break.

The frivolous prosecution was after he was arrested, not before.

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#299

Post by Peaker »

corporalagumbo wrote: post #296
Peaker wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't harm anyone in his violation of the website's terms. Should the user of adblock be facing multiple criminal charges if they visit a website whose terms disallow its use? It's absolutely ridiculous to allow these terms to be used for criminal prosecution. Civil disobedience is a valid form of protest, and such a minor act of disobedience is ridiculous to throw dozens of frivolous charges on. The democratic p…

Minimisation, false conflation, melodrama and conspiracy theories. Nice.

What's to minimize, when the only potential victim of his actions said that were not harmed (and indeed they were not)?

What conflation? Do you think criminal charges for violating a website's terms are not ridiculous? Do you use adblock?

If you think democratic forces in the US are still working properly, I can see why you'd find realism to be melodramatic.

And finally, if you think powerful enemies in the US amount to nothing, you are again extremely naive.

In any case let's hope you aren't caught using adblock and violating a website's terms and being completely financially ruined in the pretrial stages of a frivolous prosecution.

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#300

Post by ataggart »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #292
ataggart wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I not clear on how incarceration is reasonable punishment for someone convicted of a non-violent crime and who is not a physical danger to anyone.

Some guy breaks into your house while you're away and steals all your valuables, including the contents of a safe he found. What do you think his punishment should be if caught?

The point is what should not be the punishment, namely locking him up with actual violent criminals, thus in turn subject to actual violence, rape, etc.
Post reply on HN