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

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

bostonmagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 211 posts

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

#61

Post by rayiner »

rscale wrote: post #58
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…

I also find the sentence Aaron faced to be excessive. For additional context, David Headley received a 35 year sentence for his active participation in the Mumbai bombings which killed 160 people.[1] The median sentence for murder and non-negligent manslaughter in the US (effective 2000) is 24 years, 3 months.[2] I can't help but find Aaron's prospective punishment to be far more abhorrent than his crimes. It continu…

There is no sensible way in the U.S. to talk about a sentence without reference to the Sentencing Guidelines. Any number not based on the guidelines is effectively fiction.

If he got more than the one or two years guideline range they would be in danger of being overturned on appeal. That's still excessive of course. The CFAA is a misdemeanor, and the provision allowing it to be enhanced to a felony in conjunction with another crime is misguided.

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

#62

Post by hbags »

betterunix wrote: post #40
rayiner wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Every Libertarian I've ever met believes in contract law, and that essentially ANY penalty can be attached to willful violations of contract.

Under a Libertarian regime, the whole thing would've been simpler, as no theory of justice or societal good would've been involved. It would've simply been JSTOR and MIT extracting whatever revenge they'd considered.

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

#63

Post by benologist »

icelancer wrote: post #53
benologist wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it wasn't the legal system it would have been literally any other reason, big or small, that Aaron felt was terminally wrong with his life.

This is incredibly insulting. How could you possibly know this?

Because depressed, suicidal people kill themselves, usually when they're not facing prison?

In 2007 Schwartz posted what was believed to be a suicide note after being fired from reddit: http://digitaljournal.com/article/341150

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

#64

Post by rayiner »

hbags wrote: post #62
betterunix wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Every Libertarian I've ever met believes in contract law, and that essentially ANY penalty can be attached to willful violations of contract. Under a Libertarian regime, the whole thing would've been simpler, as no theory of justice or societal good would've been involved. It would've simply been JSTOR and MIT extracting whatever revenge they'd considered.

Its not just a breach of contract, because Aaron accessed the network again after his license had been revoked. That was a distinct violation in the nature of trespass, a property law concept.

Let me illustrate. Say you belong to a private club. The contract of membership allows you to use the clubhouse, as long as you don't bring any Hindu guests. Say one day you do. That's a breach of contract. Say you come back the next day. Since you've breached the contract, your license to use the house is revoked, and now its an infringement of property: trespass. Finally, lets say you punch the owner for being racist. Any classic libertarian will support prosecuting you under three legal theories: breach of contract, trespass, and battery (a tort). Classic libertarians don't reject any of these.

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

#65

Post by Smerity »

mpyne wrote: post #45
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…

> Aaron was facing a cumulative maximum penalty of 35 years in prison. That's not true in any reasonable sense. And either way if you're just adding up cumulative values it was 50 years after the charges were amended, not 35. From Jennifer Granick's post [1] decrying everything that the prosecutors did to Aaron: > He would be looking at 15 to 21 months of incarceration. That number could get higher quickly. ... True,…

I said upfront that this is not a straight up comparison. The main point for me is that I walk past the memorial for the MIT police officer killed in duty about once per week. One of these events had a tremendous impact on MIT and the surrounding community, the other had a negligible one.

Regardless, have a re-read of the article you linked to. Jennifer Granick writes:

> He could plead guilty to all 13 felony charges and the government would argue for a six-month prison term ... Some have blithely said Aaron should just have taken a deal. This is callous. There was great practical risk to Aaron from pleading to any felony. ... More particularly, the court is not constrained to sentence as the government suggests. ... if he plead guilty to a felony, he could have been sentenced to as many as 5 years, despite the government's agreement not to argue for more. Each additional conviction would increase the cap by 5 years ...

On top of that, Aaron "would have had to swear under oath that he committed a crime, something he did not actually believe".

Due to the obscenely high maximum penalty, it is no longer a sane option to fight to prove one's innocence, even in the case of what would be a minor crime, as the risk in case of failure is disastrous. Even if he pleaded guilty to all the crimes, there was no guarantee of a six month sentence.

Thank you for linking to the article though. It's well written and sheds a light on the complexities at play.

Small note: I didn't mention Tsarnaev in my original post, I mentioned his roommates, so your statement about Tsarnaev and a six month jail term is unfounded.

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

#66

Post by sitkack »

vex wrote: post #2

Suicide is completely a personal choice. MIT had no reason to try and defend an outsider who hijacked part of their network, and trying to make them seem like they caused him to hang himself smacks of tunnel vision. It's a natural response to a suicide; we try and search for something to blame. But unless you argue that MIT should have known Aaron was mentally unstable, saying MIT "caused" him to kill himself is illo…

You say so many words Hiding behind that fact that you are a

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

#67

Post by pdonis »

rscale wrote: post #58
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…

I also find the sentence Aaron faced to be excessive. For additional context, David Headley received a 35 year sentence for his active participation in the Mumbai bombings which killed 160 people.[1] The median sentence for murder and non-negligent manslaughter in the US (effective 2000) is 24 years, 3 months.[2] I can't help but find Aaron's prospective punishment to be far more abhorrent than his crimes. It continu…

It continues to sadden me that MIT used their influence in such a hurtful manner.

I don't think this is a fair description; it would be fairer to say that MIT failed to use its influence in a helpful manner. (Even then I'm not sure it would have made a difference; it seems to me that the prosecutors were intent on "getting" Swartz and weren't listening to reasonable arguments for backing off.)

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

#68

Post by Zigurd »

mpyne wrote: post #49
sampo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So is it your position that trespassing on other's property is now OK if they forget to lock the door?

Trespassing is the whole substantial crime in this case, and it should have ended with an arrest by the Cambridge PD and a fine.

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

#69

Post by pdonis »

betterunix wrote: post #5
vex wrote: post #2

Suicide is completely a personal choice. MIT had no reason to try and defend an outsider who hijacked part of their network, and trying to make them seem like they caused him to hang himself smacks of tunnel vision. It's a natural response to a suicide; we try and search for something to blame. But unless you argue that MIT should have known Aaron was mentally unstable, saying MIT "caused" him to kill himself is illo…

MIT did not on its own "cause" Aaron to commit suicide, but MIT certainly did play a role in the events that led up to the suicide. Perhaps MIT had no reason to defend Aaron, but what reason did they have to help the prosecution -- why did MIT turn over information without being subpoenaed for it? MIT deserves its share of the blame.

why did MIT turn over information without being subpoenaed for it?

Because they didn't know what was going on and needed help to figure it out. It's all laid out in the Abelson report.

If you're looking for a key juncture at which MIT made a mistake, I would ask why they didn't make a statement similar to the one JSTOR made after the civil settlement: basically saying "we're satisfied that this is resolved and don't have any interest in further legal actions being taken". (I'm not sure this would actually have stopped the prosecutors, since they seemed bound and determined to "get" Swartz no matter what, but at least it would have been something.)

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

#70

Post by icelancer »

benologist wrote: post #63
icelancer wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incredibly insulting. How could you possibly know this?

Because depressed, suicidal people kill themselves, usually when they're not facing prison? In 2007 Schwartz posted what was believed to be a suicide note after being fired from reddit: http://digitaljournal.com/article/341150

You could have easily said "I don't know that for sure" instead of posting irrelevant information.
Post reply on HN