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

Steve Heymann Should Be Fired

tarensk.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 118 posts

Re: Steve Heymann Should Be Fired

#91

Post by bhauer »

driverdan wrote: post #9

I'm so sick of these useless White House petitions. Yes, they can bring a small amount of attention to issues but otherwise they accomplish nothing other than making people feel good for "signing" a petition. Has there been a single White House petition that resulted in anything other than an official comment?

I partially agree. Petitions alone seem fairly empty of impact. The weight of your vote seems so easily dismissed.

I had that exact thought and built a site where petitions are paired with giving the charity to add extra "oomph" to your opinions. The idea being that you can either donate to charity on behalf of your idea in order to make the importance clear -or- you can donate to charity if/when the objective is met as a form of incentive.

So far, I've not been able to get any traction though, so the idea remains to this day an experimental concept. Nevertheless, I've channeled all of my own charitable giving through the site for the past year on behalf of ideas of interest to me.

I figure, why not? I possibly win by convincing the powers-that-be and/or the charities win by receiving donations.

I invite you to take a look: https://brianstaskforce.com/blog/more-than-a-petition

Re: Steve Heymann Should Be Fired

#92

Post by btilly »

tptacek wrote: post #84
analog wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your beliefs on the length of Swartz's possible jail term are contradicted by the US Department of Justice themselves. "AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised…

The DOJ lied in the press release. They have a habit of doing that. There was no possibility that Swartz would face 35 years in prison. You can be upset about that, and that's reasonable, but you cannot synthesize from that upset the idea that Swartz actually could have spent 35 years in prison. The consensus among former prosecutors and defense attorneys writing about this case is that if Swartz had been convicted o…

The DOJ did not lie. They just made a correct yet misleading statement.

Incidentally according to Aaron's lawyer, the prosecutors were going to be trying to convince a judge of a lot more than 2 years. Whether they would have succeeded in that is an unknown question.

Re: Steve Heymann Should Be Fired

#94

Post by tptacek »

btilly wrote: post #92
tptacek wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DOJ lied in the press release. They have a habit of doing that. There was no possibility that Swartz would face 35 years in prison. You can be upset about that, and that's reasonable, but you cannot synthesize from that upset the idea that Swartz actually could have spent 35 years in prison. The consensus among former prosecutors and defense attorneys writing about this case is that if Swartz had been convicted o…

The DOJ did not lie. They just made a correct yet misleading statement. Incidentally according to Aaron's lawyer, the prosecutors were going to be trying to convince a judge of a lot more than 2 years. Whether they would have succeeded in that is an unknown question.

Yes, the nightmare scenario they scared Swartz with was 6-7 years. Which clearly does qualify as a nightmare. Aaron's last lawyer did not believe that was a realistic threat.

Either way: my understanding is that 35 years is an overt misstatement of how sentencing for repeated counts under CFAA works. I stand by the word "lie", both in its technical and moral senses.

Re: Steve Heymann Should Be Fired

#96

Post by btilly »

tptacek wrote: post #94
btilly wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DOJ did not lie. They just made a correct yet misleading statement. Incidentally according to Aaron's lawyer, the prosecutors were going to be trying to convince a judge of a lot more than 2 years. Whether they would have succeeded in that is an unknown question.

Yes, the nightmare scenario they scared Swartz with was 6-7 years. Which clearly does qualify as a nightmare. Aaron's last lawyer did not believe that was a realistic threat. Either way: my understanding is that 35 years is an overt misstatement of how sentencing for repeated counts under CFAA works. I stand by the word "lie", both in its technical and moral senses.

I still disagree on the technical sense. 35 years is within the ability of the judge to assign. Of course the judge wouldn't, and if the judge did it would be reduced on appeal. But they claimed that that was the statutory maximum, and if you read the statute you can readily confirm that.

Re: Steve Heymann Should Be Fired

#97

Post by analog »

tptacek wrote: post #95
analog wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's your claim. You provide the evidence.

If you'd like to go from "wrong" to "militantly wrong", that is your right.

Your claim is that he would have faced a maximum of 2 years, which differs substantially from what Swartz's own defence have claimed.

Now, if these sources of yours had provided their opinions before Aaron's suicide then I'd be more inclined to believe them. That they presumably only developed these opinions after the suicide seems a little convenient to me.

Re: Steve Heymann Should Be Fired

#98

Post by wglb »

tptacek wrote: post #84
analog wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your beliefs on the length of Swartz's possible jail term are contradicted by the US Department of Justice themselves. "AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised…

The DOJ lied in the press release. They have a habit of doing that. There was no possibility that Swartz would face 35 years in prison. You can be upset about that, and that's reasonable, but you cannot synthesize from that upset the idea that Swartz actually could have spent 35 years in prison. The consensus among former prosecutors and defense attorneys writing about this case is that if Swartz had been convicted o…

While they lied in the sense that you are using here, there was clearly a game of intimidation going on: they upped the number of charges from four to 13 late in the game. And as a negotiating technique, the pressure was increased.

I am reminded of a quote attributed to Emanuel Lasker ‘A threat is more powerful than its execution’.

Re: Steve Heymann Should Be Fired

#99

Post by tptacek »

analog wrote: post #97
tptacek wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you'd like to go from "wrong" to "militantly wrong", that is your right.

Your claim is that he would have faced a maximum of 2 years, which differs substantially from what Swartz's own defence have claimed. Now, if these sources of yours had provided their opinions before Aaron's suicide then I'd be more inclined to believe them. That they presumably only developed these opinions after the suicide seems a little convenient to me.

That is neither what I claimed nor an accurate statement about what Swartz's attorney said.

Re: Steve Heymann Should Be Fired

#100

Post by analog »

tptacek wrote: post #99
analog wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your claim is that he would have faced a maximum of 2 years, which differs substantially from what Swartz's own defence have claimed. Now, if these sources of yours had provided their opinions before Aaron's suicide then I'd be more inclined to believe them. That they presumably only developed these opinions after the suicide seems a little convenient to me.

That is neither what I claimed nor an accurate statement about what Swartz's attorney said.

"he might have faced as many as 2 years, but that he also might have avoided a custodial sentence even if he was convicted."

This is in direct contradiction to what Aaron's lawyers have stated. Jail time was required, and if he did not plead guilty then the DOJ would push for a 7 year sentence.

Post reply on HN