71–80 of 211 posts
Swartz's death was the result of institutional failure. The criminal justice system and more broadly the US government are very sick institutions if their standard operating procedures can result in a tragedy like this.
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 i…
The Abelson report's take on this (with which I basically agree) is that, while MIT perhaps had no "obligation", it certainly missed an opportunity to use its position to educate the US government about a technical area in which the government is, to put it bluntly, clueless.
MIT clearly did something wrong here... The Secret Service seemed to get involved by accident, due to the fact MIT do a lot of "Super secret stuff, that China want". MIT should have immediately moved to limit how seriously this was taken, when they understood who was perpetrating it (and why). Kind of like if a kid accidentally (because he didn't know it was one) spray pants the side of nuclear missile silo, we would…
Do you mean the Abelson report? That was published after the fact. (And it does address the issue you mention.)
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, then you would receive your share of the blame if that person killed themselves after being hounded by the prosecutors you aided.
So the US should stop prosecuting crimes if there is a worry that person might be mentally unstable?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.)
What would be a less strict university in USA, more libertarian, less police state if you would?
I know some of the people who run MIT's networks. They deal with a lot of ignorant jerks who would deserve to be turned into an example by an overzealous prosecutor. That's what makes the Swartz case baffling. I think someone got starstruck dealing with Federal Prosecutors and became a toady.
> On the day Aaron was indicted, the analyst emailed Heymann: “Nicely done Steve and kudos! …it’s just a true relief and very refreshing to see your accuracy and precision.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.)
Whether it would have made a difference or not, the institution had the chance to act for what was right, and they did not.