91–96 of 96 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Aaron logged into JTSTOR using his own credentials Huh? This is new.
Ok correction "Swartz used a Perl computer script running on Amazon cloud servers to download the documents, using credentials belonging to a Sacramento library." Again, who actually got hurt aside from Aaron?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Correct me if I'm wrong but they deserve blame for initiating the destruction of someone's life (jail time and fines in the millions) So Aaron had nothing to do with getting himself into the situation that he did?
Of course he did, just like Rosa Parks and MLK Jr knowingly broke laws that they felt were unjust, but that's besides the point. The main point is that MIT could have done what JSTOR did and made it right. They didn't. To add insult to injury, now they're doing everything they can to hide information relevant to the case. I also really hate arguments that blame the victim.
He broke the law. Then he committed suicide. I don't think there's much debate to be had about where any blame lies.
I did not follow this case when it broke, so do guys know what Aaron planned on doing with all that JSTOR material he was downloading? (~80% of JSTOR, according to one article I read)
It is not clear. The prosecution claims that his goal was to distribute the articles freely to the world (yes, the terrible crime of using university resources to spread knowledge), but that is just a hypothesis based on statements he made years ago.
Breaking the law, is breaking the law. However noble your intent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course he did, just like Rosa Parks and MLK Jr knowingly broke laws that they felt were unjust, but that's besides the point. The main point is that MIT could have done what JSTOR did and made it right. They didn't. To add insult to injury, now they're doing everything they can to hide information relevant to the case. I also really hate arguments that blame the victim.
Jesus Christ, you're serious here? He broke the law. Then he committed suicide. I don't think there's much debate to be had about where any blame lies.
> He broke the law.
Was the law that was broken make sense? Was the response to a victimless crime appropriate?
> Then he committed suicide.
You're acting like people dealing with a serious mental illness for years can easily make the same mundane choices that people without mental illness do everyday. It's more complicated than that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jesus Christ, you're serious here? He broke the law. Then he committed suicide. I don't think there's much debate to be had about where any blame lies.
larrys, you haven't disputed any of my points other than telling me that I'm wrong, which makes sense since you're unwilling to use your real HN account. > He broke the law. Was the law that was broken make sense? Was the response to a victimless crime appropriate? > Then he committed suicide. You're acting like people dealing with a serious mental illness for years can easily make the same mundane choices that peopl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
larrys, you haven't disputed any of my points other than telling me that I'm wrong, which makes sense since you're unwilling to use your real HN account. > He broke the law. Was the law that was broken make sense? Was the response to a victimless crime appropriate? > Then he committed suicide. You're acting like people dealing with a serious mental illness for years can easily make the same mundane choices that peopl…
I'm not larrys. All I'm saying is that he clearly had his own demons, and his own problems. He decided to break the law, knowing what the result would be. Then he decided to end his own life. A sad tale, but the law is the law.
> A sad tale, but the law is the law.
Some laws are unjust, ridiculous, or both. There's also something called "the spirit of the law" as well.