Losing Aaron: Bob Swartz on MIT's role in his son's death • Hacker News Board

Re: Losing Aaron: Bob Swartz on MIT's role in his son's death

#31

Post by rayiner » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 3:54 AM UTC

dreamdu5t wrote: post #25

rayiner wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's more libertarian than calling the police when someone misuses and infringes on your property?

Libertarians (at least consistent ones) call out intellectual property for what it is: government monopoly. In libertopia... Aaron would only face life in prison if he entered into a contract with MIT agreeing to life in prison for accessing the systems in the way he did. In libertopia... you cannot consent to terms you cannot negotiate (IE accessing a website does not magically enter you into some agreement).

First, all property is a government monopoly, unless you're one of those religious libertarians that believe God created rights in real and chattel property. But I meet lots of libertarians that reject the idea that adultery should be illegal, so maybe there's some other holy book they follow.

Second, the root of the CFAA charge wasn't intellectual property, but physical property: MIT's network. Libertarians certainly do recognize non-contractual violations of property rights, i.e. various incarnations of trespass.

Re: Losing Aaron: Bob Swartz on MIT's role in his son's death

#32

Post by herbig » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 3:55 AM UTC

betterunix wrote: post #30

Smerity wrote: post #23

I'm still more disturbed by the laws in play. Aaron was facing a cumulative maximum penalty of 35 years in prison. The roommates of one of the Boston bombers was only facing 25 years in prison[1] if found guilty of helping Dzhokhar Tsarnaev dispose of a laptop, fireworks, and a backpack in the aftermath of the bombings. I understand it's not a straight comparison, but no matter how I try to re-arrange those numbers i…

Well now, the Boston bombers only killed three people -- bad, but you know, not that bad. Aaron was going to freely distribute knowledge to people, threatening a centuries-old business model and potentially allowing undeserving people to learn something. Worse, Aaron had already freely shared legal documents on the Internet, and had the nerve to stand up for himself and not be thrown in jail for it. Obviously Aaron w…

It's money, power, and ego over individual humans lives. Yesterday's top post on HN was "Burn the Fucking System to the Ground."

Re: Losing Aaron: Bob Swartz on MIT's role in his son's death

#33

Post by ericcumbee » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 3:57 AM UTC

sampo wrote: post #27

ericcumbee wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if someone broke into my Network Closet, I would not need a subpoena.

The closet was not locked, so there was no need to break into it. This is common knowledge about the case, also found in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#JSTOR

>Opening a closed door or window is a >breaking, even if they are unlocked.

http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/districtco...

Re: Losing Aaron: Bob Swartz on MIT's role in his son's death

#34

Post by rodrodrod » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 3:58 AM UTC

What were MIT's obligations to Aaron? While there is a whole lot that MIT could've done to help Aaron (even if only just taking the JSTOR route and stating they were backing off entirely) and that would've been commendable, I don't really see why MIT had an obligation to help Aaron, so I have a hard time holding MIT morally culpable.

If anything, I'd think screwed up laws and an overzealous prosecution are the real issue here, and I'm not sure what pointing fingers at MIT accomplishes.

Re: Losing Aaron: Bob Swartz on MIT's role in his son's death

#35

Post by suprgeek » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 3:58 AM UTC

MIT Played a key role in Aaron's Death: http://gothamist.com/2013/01/15/aaron_swartzs_lawyer_mit_ref...

They refused to sign-off on any deal that did not involve Jail time. This was THE one point that weighed more on his mind than any else per the recorded statements of his partner.

MIT's pig-headedness in this aspect really destroyed any respect I had for that institution. JSTOR made a much more reasoned statement http://docs.jstor.org/summary.html - Clearly indicating that they had NO INTEREST in any further prosecution (since they were the primary wronged party).

Re: Losing Aaron: Bob Swartz on MIT's role in his son's death

#36

Post by xacaxulu » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 4:02 AM UTC

Bostonian of the Year!! This makes me profoundly sick.

"United States Attorney Carmen Ortiz, in the midst of a prosecutorial tear that would lead the Globe to name her 2011’s Bostonian of the Year, held up Aaron’s indictment as a warning to hackers everywhere."

Re: Losing Aaron: Bob Swartz on MIT's role in his son's death

#37

Post by marincounty » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 4:02 AM UTC

tomphoolery wrote: post #26

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, poor MIT, all they did was actively help the guy who wanted Aaron thrown in prison for three and half decades* while pretending to be neutral. Any of us might have done the same, right? Totally innocent! Like "a rape victim," to use Heymann's own words. If you punch a stranger in the face, you probably don't expect him to fall, crack his head on the corner of a table, and die; but you don't get to claim you're bl…

It was Aaron's choice to kill himself. He wasn't a victim of anything but his own mind.

I can guarantee by your quip; you have never dealt with our legal system.

Re: Losing Aaron: Bob Swartz on MIT's role in his son's death

#38

Post by justin66 » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 4:03 AM UTC

puppetmaster3 wrote: post #11

What would be a less strict university in USA, more libertarian, less police state if you would?

> What would be a less strict university in USA, more libertarian, less police state if you would?

MIT is supposed to be the model of an environment where people who want to break the rules and hack the system can function. Students breaking into buildings, for example, has a long tradition there.

The article sort of hinted at the way what happened was not just a problem for Swartz, but for MIT itself. It is not clear what MIT actually is with the current status quo.

Re: Losing Aaron: Bob Swartz on MIT's role in his son's death

#39

Post by Moocat87 » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 4:03 AM UTC

tomphoolery wrote: post #26

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, poor MIT, all they did was actively help the guy who wanted Aaron thrown in prison for three and half decades* while pretending to be neutral. Any of us might have done the same, right? Totally innocent! Like "a rape victim," to use Heymann's own words. If you punch a stranger in the face, you probably don't expect him to fall, crack his head on the corner of a table, and die; but you don't get to claim you're bl…

It was Aaron's choice to kill himself. He wasn't a victim of anything but his own mind.

Aren't you just repeating the first few words of the grandparent comment?

I hardly think "suicide is a choice" is an appropriate thing to say. Take recent suicide rates in the military. Do all those soldiers decide to become so depressed as to kill themselves, or does environment have something to do with it?

Re: Losing Aaron: Bob Swartz on MIT's role in his son's death

#40

Post by betterunix » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 4:04 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #31

dreamdu5t wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libertarians (at least consistent ones) call out intellectual property for what it is: government monopoly. In libertopia... Aaron would only face life in prison if he entered into a contract with MIT agreeing to life in prison for accessing the systems in the way he did. In libertopia... you cannot consent to terms you cannot negotiate (IE accessing a website does not magically enter you into some agreement).

First, all property is a government monopoly, unless you're one of those religious libertarians that believe God created rights in real and chattel property. But I meet lots of libertarians that reject the idea that adultery should be illegal, so maybe there's some other holy book they follow. Second, the root of the CFAA charge wasn't intellectual property, but physical property: MIT's network. Libertarians certainl…

The CFAA charges were dubious at best, and were only pursued because the copyright charges were looking pretty shaky. The prosecutor also tacked additional charges on when Aaron decided to exercise his civil rights. I do not know many libertarians who support that kind of abuse of prosecutor power.