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

Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 63 posts

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#21

Post by jbeckham »

biggot_man wrote: post #13
fmdud wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Stop voting. Being "apolitical" actually turns out to be a pretty naïve stance on politics. There's a great David Foster Wallace quote about "protest by non-participation" like this: “If you are bored and disgusted by politics and don't bother to vote, you are in effect voting for the entrenched Establishments of the two major parties, who please rest assured are not dumb, and who are keenly aware that it is in thei…

Lets call our two-party-government "democracy". It will be fun. Is it the same as voting for mtv awards ? If i don't like any of the "chosen" artists do I still have to vote ? It can surely save me countless hours of mind numbing music.

We don't have a democracy in the United States. We have a representative republic. There is a big difference.

Not being involved in the political process just completely removes any influence you have on the process and the outcomes. However, if your belief is that not voting is the right thing to do, then by all means, please abstain from voting. I'd rather only have engaged people vote anyway.

EDIT/Clarification: We don't have a pure democracy in the United States. We have representative democracy and a republic as pointed out below.

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#22

Post by jbeckham »

skidoo wrote: post #3

Stop paying taxes, stop voting. Stop enabling the government altogether. If they refuse to accept that the people own the government, and not the other way around, then there is no reason to recognize its supposed authority. Live a moral and ethical life, but live as though the government does not exist. It will never willingly relinquish its power. You cannot change the system from the inside out. Every politician i…

If every politician is a liar, then why don't you run for office? If all of the honest people that complain that politicians are dishonest actually got off their butts and started taking over their local governments, then you wouldn't have that problem. Almost all of the state and federal politicians have started at local levels, especially the congressmen.

The issue is that it is easier to say they are all corrupt than it is to go out, do the homework, speak to the candidates, and then determine which ones mean what they say.

Instead of complaining about the system, why don't you learn the system and then do something about it.

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#23

Post by sarciszewski »

What is the exact problem you want to solve?

What are some of the causes of the problem?

What are some of the effects of the problem?

If the problem disappeared today, what side-effects would it have on the rest of the world?

What, given all of the answers to these questions, would be a solution that solves the commonly agreed upon problem (usually by solving the causes for said problem rather than the problem itself) with minimal negative side-effects?

"Should we code something? Organize a rally in the major cities? Write code to make it easy to start rallies? What're some good ideas to show our discontent?"

No, those are actions. What good is an action without a solution in mind? Plan then act. Don't act without a plan.

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#24

Post by snowwrestler »

jbeckham wrote: post #21
biggot_man wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets call our two-party-government "democracy". It will be fun. Is it the same as voting for mtv awards ? If i don't like any of the "chosen" artists do I still have to vote ? It can surely save me countless hours of mind numbing music.

We don't have a democracy in the United States. We have a representative republic. There is a big difference. Not being involved in the political process just completely removes any influence you have on the process and the outcomes. However, if your belief is that not voting is the right thing to do, then by all means, please abstain from voting. I'd rather only have engaged people vote anyway. EDIT/Clarification: W…

We have a representative democracy in the U.S. We also have a republic. The two terms are not contradictory.

"Representative democracy" tells you how decisions are made--we select a few citizens to make decisions on our behalf. "Republic" tells you who is sovereign--in the U.S. the individual citizens have the right and power to rule, and have used that to construct our own government.

Counter examples:

The U.K. is a representative democracy, but not a republic. It's a monarchy.

North Korea is a republic but it's not a democracy. It's an autocracy.

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#25

Post by rilita »

jeremysmyth wrote: post #12

Two things. Firstly, please spell his name correctly. It's Aaron Swartz. That respects him and makes sure that your audience isn't distracted by that tiny detail and can focus on your message. Secondly, the petition was too narrow and targeted the individual prosecutor for that case. Even if she was removed, it wouldn't prevent the same sort of thing happening again. The larger issue (and one closer to the point) is…

Minimum sentences for certain non violent IT related "crimes" are also excessively long. I've been told one of the things I did in the past that hurt absolutely no one and had almost zero effect is punishable by a minimum 1 year sentence...

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#26

Post by eli »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #14
fmdud wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Stop voting. Being "apolitical" actually turns out to be a pretty naïve stance on politics. There's a great David Foster Wallace quote about "protest by non-participation" like this: “If you are bored and disgusted by politics and don't bother to vote, you are in effect voting for the entrenched Establishments of the two major parties, who please rest assured are not dumb, and who are keenly aware that it is in thei…

That or in the face of majoritarianism, gerrymandering and electoral colleges - you realize that the odds are stacked against you, and simply choose "not to play".

The fact that your vote may have less impact than you might wish doesn't mean that it has literally zero value.

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#27

Post by rilita »

Swartz was a member of a group that was intentionally pirating and distributing large amounts of copyrighted material to which he did not have permission to do so.

He is also an idiot for killing himself. If he believed what he was doing was right he should have been willing to face the consequences. To me, killing himself is an admission that what he did was wrong and stupid.

Should he have been thrown in jail for 7 years? Well; he would have had more years alive after he got out then he does now.

Edit: Fuck Swartz. More clear?

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#28

Post by jeremysmyth »

tptacek wrote: post #19
jeremysmyth wrote: post #12

Two things. Firstly, please spell his name correctly. It's Aaron Swartz. That respects him and makes sure that your audience isn't distracted by that tiny detail and can focus on your message. Secondly, the petition was too narrow and targeted the individual prosecutor for that case. Even if she was removed, it wouldn't prevent the same sort of thing happening again. The larger issue (and one closer to the point) is…

I agree strongly with the first half of your comment, but the second half, from consecutive sentencing on, is simply incorrect. Swartz faced nothing resembling 35 years, because federal sentencing does not work by simply adding the counts up for every charged offense. Like charges "group", and the convicted are sentenced according to the most severe of those charges. The prosecutors threatened Swartz not with 35 year…

Thanks for the popehat link. Very enlightening.

From it:

> When the government quotes the maximum sentence, they are trying to scare you.

> When the press quotes it, they are uninformed or lazy.

The first is what I intended to imply: Prosecutors are permitted to scare the bejaysus out of defendants by quoting statutory maxima (not, as could be inferred, that they can present that to the judge.)

The second is what I was guilty of ;)

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#29

Post by snowwrestler »

JonFish85 wrote: post #16

I mean, the answer is probably to vote, and to convince others to vote. Start locally, and work your way up the chain. Talk to your friends, get them to vote accordingly. Go to your local government meetings, raise your issues. Volunteer for campaigns for your representatives, whether local representatives or Congress people. If there aren't any representatives that you support, run for office. Dedicate your life to…

Voting is important, but it's the minimum first step toward changing the law. It's sort of like buying a computer--you'll have an easier time programming if you get a good computer, but buying the computer doesn't make the programming happen.

In the government, activism is the programming. The most effective way to get involved is to find a nonprofit or similar org that addresses your issue, and help grow their influence (donate, volunteer, etc). The EFF and CDT (Center for Democracy in Technology) are two groups that are working to adjust/clarify/fix the CFAA and how cybercrime is prosecuted.

Voting helps because activism is always easier if elected officials already agree with you. The threat of voting can also help get officials off the fence if they believe that they'll lose their office if they oppose your issue.

Re: Ask HN: What can we do to show we don't support the response to Aaron Swartz?

#30

Post by sarciszewski »

rilita wrote: post #27

Swartz was a member of a group that was intentionally pirating and distributing large amounts of copyrighted material to which he did not have permission to do so. He is also an idiot for killing himself. If he believed what he was doing was right he should have been willing to face the consequences. To me, killing himself is an admission that what he did was wrong and stupid. Should he have been thrown in jail for 7…

> intentionally pirating and distributing large amounts of copyrighted material to which he did not have permission to do so

Pirating is bad because it supposedly takes money out of the content producers' pockets (let's ignore the studies that suggest the contrary).

The people who produced the content for the journals he "intentionally [pirated]" were not paid for the content they created. They, the content creators, are not hurt by someone pirating their research (most of which was funded by taxpayers).

Additionally, society is benefited by more people being exposed to the knowledge of publicly funded scientific research.

Legally, you are correct, but outside that microcosm, conflating what Aaron did with piracy misses the point.

> He is also an idiot for killing himself

Oh just fuck off.

Post reply on HN