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

#131

Post by bananacurve » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 2:02 PM 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…

>Well now, the Boston bombers only killed three people -- bad, but you know, not that bad.

That is cruel to the hundreds injured. Try harder to not be a jackass.

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

#132

Post by onli » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 2:05 PM UTC

watty wrote: post #127

onli wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you are wrong. It doesn't matter whether the chance to get such a high sentence was a realistic one, it is about the fact that there was a time when Aaron was facing such a long time in prison, that he couldn't know for sure it would not happen. From the article: Aaron was charged with wire fraud, computer fraud, and “unlawfully obtaining information from” and “recklessly damaging” a “protected computer.” The…

Please stop belittling Aaron's intelligence. I know many people on HN feel like they have to defend Aaron's life and want to find someone to blame but he's not an idiot. He knew as well as anyone that actual jailtime would be very minimal. He had lawyers and a brain (a smart one). So claiming that he killed himself over a number that wasn't even a possibility is damaging to his image. To me it seems like a bright man…

It is highly questionable to claim to know for sure how long the jailtime would have been. It is not like the USA isn't known for overly hard punishments.

Besides, I still think that such a possible outcome can be a hard burden, even with the knowledge that it is unlikely.

> To me it seems like a bright man got caught doing something illegal and couldn't face the music.

"Face the music"? we are not talking about a game here, but about jail and a real life. Besides, that comment totally ignores how far the prosecution stretched the law to define the illegality of his actions.

edit: I never claimed he killed himself over the number.

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

#133

Post by shawn-butler » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 2:22 PM UTC

rodrodrod wrote: post #34

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…

http://web.mit.edu/mission.html

Now consider that someone using your open network in order to access a corpus of public-funded scientific literature with the intent to analyze and publish findings about any fraud that lexical analysis revealed.

Does that fit the mission statement or not?

I am deeply saddened by the whole affair and the extent it reveals about how much the institute has changed from a place of learning, innovation, and challenging yourself and others into basically a government-funded R&D lab run by administrators and lawyers. Determining whether this is the kind of place the faculty, staff and students of MIT actually wants it to be is what "pointing fingers" accomplishes.

It seems to me after reading the report that it was seen as a potential attack on the government's interest in the IP on MIT's network and that was the cause of the ham-fisted response.

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

#134

Post by Moocat87 » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 2:22 PM UTC

chmike wrote: post #108

mentalhealth wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A desire to kill oneself is a diagnosis of mental instability.

This is a blunt claim I can't agree with. You totally ignore the context. I know a man who suicide himeself because he was about to lose a trial and it would mean he would have lost his house to pay the huge fine. He was old and to save his wife and child of this misery he commited suicide. From his perspective it was a rational decision because he didn't see any better one. There is absolutely not mental instability…

>My feeling is that most people who commit suicide do it because they decided it on a rational basis. Some people commit suicide because they want to stop a pain they feel and in their view will apparently last forever or will get worse. I.e cancer, someone has to spend the rest of his life in a bed after an accident ... People can also commit suicide as a sacrifice to save others. But I guess you were not talking of these types of suicide.

You think that more people commit suicide for others than for themselves? Care to explain why or cite anything?

>Suicide due to mental instability is probably just a small fraction of all suicide.

Cite?

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

#135

Post by pdonis » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 2:22 PM UTC

atmosx wrote: post #93

pdonis wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but that's failing to use its influence helpfully; it's not the same as using influence hurtfully.

No, in this case it's the same. MIT is not average Joe, it's one of the top Universities in the world. I believe people on the board understand repercussions of taking and not taking action and the responsibility that comes along and if they don't they are not suited for the position.

No, in this case it's the same.

Saying that MIT didn't do something it should have done, is not the same as saying that MIT did something it should not have done. The fact that you appear to consider them morally equivalent does not make them identical.

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

#136

Post by pdonis » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 2:26 PM UTC

simpleigh wrote: post #109

atmosx wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, in this case it's the same. MIT is not average Joe, it's one of the top Universities in the world. I believe people on the board understand repercussions of taking and not taking action and the responsibility that comes along and if they don't they are not suited for the position.

I've always thought it a nice feature of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (bear with me here...) that the general confession covers "those things which we ought to have done" before mentioning "those things which we ought not to have done". All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.

All that is required for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.

That still doesn't make doing nothing identical to doing something. You may consider them morally equivalent, but that doesn't make them identical.

My point was about how to correctly describe what MIT did. If we start muddying our language because, oh, well, it's all morally equivalent anyway so it doesn't matter how we describe it, we end up not being able to think clearly. And if we can't think clearly, we can't tell good from evil, so we end up doing even more evil.

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

#137

Post by pdonis » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 2:27 PM UTC

ajays wrote: post #103

pdonis wrote: post #67

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.)

"Evil triumphs when good people do nothing"

See my response to simpleigh upthread.

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

#138

Post by drzaiusapelord » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 2:45 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #101

suprgeek wrote: post #35

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 h…

> They refused to sign-off on any deal that did not involve Jail time. It's not up to the victim how the perp gets prosecuted. It has absolutely nothing to do with them - it is up to the prosecutor alone.

The victim almost always does, just by their right to refuse cooperation.

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

#139

Post by meritt » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 2:47 PM UTC

fastball wrote: post #117

meritt wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was facing 35+ years of prison. Suicide -- while I agree is a personal choice -- it's not exactly an unreasonable decision given the outlandish sentence.

Suicide is always an unreasonable decision, unless you face something which is literally worse than death. A lifetime in prison is not worse than death. At least you can still talk to your family. You can acquire new skills. There is the chance you get paroled early. Etc, etc.

I disagree. That's your opinion. Why is it that people can come to the conclusion of "I'd rather see him rot to death in a jail cell than the benefit of a quick death". This line of thinking views death as a lighter punishment when contrasted against a lifetime in prison.

Yet when the tables are turned suddenly suicide is viewed with such disdain?

I'm not advocating suicide or anything, I'm just arguing that when faced with an immensely harsh sentence, it's not a surprising decision to reach.

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

#140

Post by sinwave » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 2:49 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #95

bsdetector wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also come down hard on arson. Why? Because it's really, really easy to get away with arson so they make the punishment really severe to alter the equation. If you got 3 months with probation for arson there would be fires all over the place -- at least that's the calculus. Same thing with computer crimes. It could have been pretty easy to get away with the data if Swartz had been even slightly clever about it (l…

They come down hard on arson because it risks lives of people in buildings and firefighters, not because it's easy to commit. Many crimes are easy to commit. The reason that there aren't more fatal stabbings isn't because there's a long prison sentence but because most people are not stabbers.

I think bsdetector was referring to the expected cost of committing arson. (Probability of Getting Caught) * (Expected repercussions if caught) = (Expected Cost of Crime). bsdetector was saying that it is "easy to get away with" arson i.e. the "probability of getting caught" is low, so the heavy consequences are intended to address the low expected cost of the crime.