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

The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 39 posts

Re: The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz

#11

Post by chaostheory »

mayanksinghal wrote: post #10
chaostheory wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First you shouldn't have to hide under a new throw away account. Second, since MIT initiated the proceedings I wouldn't call that neutral either.

Given the level of adjectives and expletives that I have seen being used for anyone who has made even the slightest of remarks that don't aligned perfectly with the popular stand here, I can understand uhno's stance of saying stuff from a new account. And yes, it doesn't seem that MIT was neutral on this case. But I guess dropping the case wouldn't have been a neutral stance either.

I think you're confusing HN with reddit. While the comment quality may have gone down a bit from the influx of new users, most people on HN still tend to be courteous. Out of all the comments in multiple stories, I've only seen about 5 bad words give or take which is pretty good considering that a lot of people are probably furious.

Re: The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz

#12

Post by mitmatt »

chaostheory wrote: post #4
dmix wrote: post #2

MIT dropped the ball here but the prosecutor sounds absolutely evil by comparison and seems to have heavily influenced MIT's position of neutrality.

It doesn't sound like MIT was really neutral. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit... "Marty Weinberg, who took the case over from Good, said he nearly negotiated a plea bargain in which Swartz would not serve any time. He said JSTOR signed off on it, but MIT would not. 'There were subsets of the MIT community who were profoundly in support of Aaron,' Weinberg said. That support did not overri…

From http://swartz-report.mit.edu/docs/report-to-the-president.pd..., Appendix 14, Question 35:

> 35. What influence, if any, did MIT exercise or could it have exercised in the plea negotiations? Did MIT really scuttle a plea bargain with no prison time?

> Answer: MIT played no role in any plea negotiations related to the Aaron Swartz case. For a description of these negotiations, please see the Report, section II.B.2 The federal prosecution. For a description of MIT’s position regarding the government’s prosecution, please see Part III MIT’s Response to the Prosecution. It is unclear whether MIT could have exercised influence on the plea bargain. Please see in particular section III.A.2 MIT is informed about the prosecution; and section III.C.3 MIT’s outside counsel speaks with the lead prosecutor.

What would it mean for MIT to "sign off" on a plea bargain? The prosecutor alone was pressing criminal charges; MIT was not pressing any civil charges and it was not involved in the proceedings.

Re: The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz

#13

Post by mpyne »

chaostheory wrote: post #11
mayanksinghal wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the level of adjectives and expletives that I have seen being used for anyone who has made even the slightest of remarks that don't aligned perfectly with the popular stand here, I can understand uhno's stance of saying stuff from a new account. And yes, it doesn't seem that MIT was neutral on this case. But I guess dropping the case wouldn't have been a neutral stance either.

I think you're confusing HN with reddit. While the comment quality may have gone down a bit from the influx of new users, most people on HN still tend to be courteous. Out of all the comments in multiple stories, I've only seen about 5 bad words give or take which is pretty good considering that a lot of people are probably furious.

Yes, I think the conversation is definitely tamer than the last time we were discussing aaronsw or MIT.

Of course I can be brave and eat downvotes when necessary without a throwaway as I never get to meet, or work with, anyone here IRL who might punch me in the face. But I have to say that even my non-conforming comments are usually left alone by downvoters, as long as I take pains to explain my disagreement.

Re: The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz

#14

Post by chaostheory »

mitmatt wrote: post #12
chaostheory wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't sound like MIT was really neutral. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit... "Marty Weinberg, who took the case over from Good, said he nearly negotiated a plea bargain in which Swartz would not serve any time. He said JSTOR signed off on it, but MIT would not. 'There were subsets of the MIT community who were profoundly in support of Aaron,' Weinberg said. That support did not overri…

From http://swartz-report.mit.edu/docs/report-to-the-president.pd... , Appendix 14, Question 35: > 35. What influence, if any, did MIT exercise or could it have exercised in the plea negotiations? Did MIT really scuttle a plea bargain with no prison time? > Answer: MIT played no role in any plea negotiations related to the Aaron Swartz case. For a description of these negotiations, please see the Report, section II.B…

I really don't know since MIT has objected to FOIA requests in Aaron's case. A lot of details are missing. Personally I trust Aaron's lawyers more than MIT's administration.

Re: The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz

#15

Post by larrys »

chaostheory wrote: post #9
uhno wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not signing off on the plea bargain is precisely the definition of remaining neutral: not influencing the proceedings.

First you shouldn't have to hide under a new throw away account. Second, since MIT initiated the proceedings I wouldn't call that neutral either.

"First you shouldn't have to hide under a new throw away account."

But you don't know who "you" is so how can you judge that they don't want to hide under a throwaway account?

What if "you" is or or or (Karmaphiliac?)

Would be a nice feature to be able to post a comment which isn't linked to your handle w/o doing a throwaway. Said feature only available above a certain karma level of course.

Add: Or

Re: The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz

#16

Post by chaostheory »

larrys wrote: post #15
chaostheory wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First you shouldn't have to hide under a new throw away account. Second, since MIT initiated the proceedings I wouldn't call that neutral either.

"First you shouldn't have to hide under a new throw away account." But you don't know who "you" is so how can you judge that they don't want to hide under a throwaway account? What if "you" is or or or (Karmaphiliac?) Would be a nice feature to be able to post a comment which isn't linked to your handle w/o doing a throwaway. Said feature only available above a certain karma level of course. Add: Or

Going off-subject, I feel that one of the main reasons that HN is really civil compared to other social sites is that not many long standing HN users use throw-aways. If using throw-aways becomes more common, I feel that the comment quality will continue suffer even more, so I'm inclined to call it out when I see it.

Re: The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz

#17

Post by v1tyaz »

sillysaurus wrote: post #8
uhno wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not signing off on the plea bargain is precisely the definition of remaining neutral: not influencing the proceedings.

Putting him behind bars for downloading bits is ludicrous, and history will look back on us as living in some sort of dark ages. Just had to get that out of my system.

>Putting him behind bars for downloading bits is ludicrous

Unless it's your data that's being downloaded unlawfully, right?

Re: The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz

#18

Post by sillysaurus »

v1tyaz wrote: post #17
sillysaurus wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting him behind bars for downloading bits is ludicrous, and history will look back on us as living in some sort of dark ages. Just had to get that out of my system.

>Putting him behind bars for downloading bits is ludicrous Unless it's your data that's being downloaded unlawfully, right?

Even then. In fact, especially then. I wouldn't be able to stomach taking away even one month of someone's life for words that I wrote.

I'm writing a book. I plan on putting it on piratebay myself. I'll have an option for people to pay me if they so choose.

Re: The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz

#19

Post by latj »

chaostheory wrote: post #4
dmix wrote: post #2

MIT dropped the ball here but the prosecutor sounds absolutely evil by comparison and seems to have heavily influenced MIT's position of neutrality.

It doesn't sound like MIT was really neutral. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit... "Marty Weinberg, who took the case over from Good, said he nearly negotiated a plea bargain in which Swartz would not serve any time. He said JSTOR signed off on it, but MIT would not. 'There were subsets of the MIT community who were profoundly in support of Aaron,' Weinberg said. That support did not overri…

The report seems to be saying "MIT didnt interfere", "MIT didnt get involved", "MIT didnt do anything wrong". Who is this MIT? Why dont we just talk about human beings and address them by the names they are known by.

Re: The four lamest excuses in MIT’s report on Aaron Swartz

#20

Post by chaostheory »

v1tyaz wrote: post #17
sillysaurus wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting him behind bars for downloading bits is ludicrous, and history will look back on us as living in some sort of dark ages. Just had to get that out of my system.

>Putting him behind bars for downloading bits is ludicrous Unless it's your data that's being downloaded unlawfully, right?

Well in this case, it's publicly funded research data. US citizens should have easy access to this data since we already paid for it. So yes. It is our data.

"JSTOR told the Chronicle that each and every year, they turn away 150 million attempts to gain access to articles."

Post reply on HN