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

141–150 of 211 posts

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

#141

Post by mathattack »

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 is tough to comment on MIT, since there may be parts of their side of the story that we don't know. On the surface, it is hard to view 35 years as anything but excessive. It is certainly well above anything that fits the crime, and anything needed as a deterrent.

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

#142

Post by rayiner »

nitrogen wrote: post #86
rayiner wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The premise of the CFAA charge is entirely consistent with libertarian thinking: owners of private property, like computer networks, are entitled to exclude people from their use, or revoke a previously granted license of use, for any reason at all. This charge makes sense even if you don't believe in intellectual property: it doesn't matter what he was doing on the network, only that he had reasonable notice that hi…

Banning a MAC from an open network isn't "get off my lawn or I'll call the cops", it's more like "quit taking all the potato chips; save some for others and come back later."

That's an utterly ridiculous characterization. Its an attempt to convey that someone is no longer welcome to use your property. Not only is it such that a reasonable person would take it to have that meaning, which is all that's required, but Aaron actually understood that he was no longer welcome to use the property because his subsequent accesses to the network were under disguise.

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

#143

Post by serf »

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

Right.. but people tend to become depressed and suicidal when faced with prison time.

Being fired is also high on the depression list.

You're pointing out two dark moments in someones life. I've had far more than two and I don't by any means consider myself depressed.

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

#145

Post by ogreyonder »

roel_v wrote: post #122
omegaworks wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>his idealistic mission We don't know what he intended to do with the JSTOR data. >being on the MIT subnet without permission was wrong MIT grants guest access to its network while on the physical premises. >MIT’s open-network policies at the time allowed anyone visiting campus to access services like JSTOR.

> MIT grants guest access to its network while on the physical premises. > >MIT’s open-network policies at the time allowed anyone visiting campus to access services like JSTOR. Please not this misinformation again. I have no horse in this race, but he was repeatedly kicked off the network, told not to mass-download again, and yet he chose to find ever-more invasive ways of accessing JSTOR, eventually planting a comp…

> if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

That is entirely the point. He may well have been willing to do "the time". But "the time" is wildly disproportionate to "the crime". This is bad for the same reason that we don't execute everyone convicted of breaking the law.

Furthermore, how does your logic apply to the NSA? A group of someones very clearly broke the law hundreds of millions of times after being told to stop and being kicked off networks, then finding ever-more invasive ways of stealing our emails to grandma. Remind me, who is threatened with jail for the next billion (!) years under the CFAA?

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

#146

Post by epipsychidion »

Moocat87 wrote: post #39
tomphoolery wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Suicide is a choice. I fully agree that MIT acted abominably and in an ethically, if not legally, questionable manner with regards to giving evidence and support to the prosecution but not defense. But you can't blame them for his decision to take his life. It was an incredibly selfish act given the intense pain it caused his family.

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

#147

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#148

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#149

Post by Zigurd »

Maxious wrote: post #78
Zigurd wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Then there’s the chummy note from an IS & T security analyst who had worked closely with the Secret Service. > 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.”

Does anyone know who that person is?

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

#150

Post by betterunix »

bananacurve wrote: post #131
betterunix wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you might have missed the sarcasm in that sentence, and maybe in the rest of my post. Try harder to understand the things you read before commenting on them.
Post reply on HN