The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013) • Hacker News Board

Re: The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

#101

Post by ModernMech » Thu, Dec 30, 2021, 8:12 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #97

gruez wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Plea bargains are a form of extortion, and should not be part of the legal system. So you think that every case should be tried, even if it's plainly obvious the perpetrator is guilty? After all, even if the perpetrator has a 1% chance of winning, there's no reason not to go to trial under that system.

> So you think that every case should be tried, even if it's plainly obvious the perpetrator is guilty? If the perpetrator is willing to plead guilty, there is no need for a trial. Threatening people with massively larger penalties if they exercise their right to a trial rather than take a plea deal (often time limited before the defense has a chance to see the evidence) is coercive extortion and is morally wrong. Th…

While you make very valid points about plea deals in general, I don’t think they apply in this specific case. Swartz was very rich, and well represented. He also actually did the thing in question, and demonstrated consciousness of guilt.

It’s okay for guilty people to be offered plea deals. It’s actually probably in their best interest sometimes.

Re: The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

#102

Post by andreilys » Thu, Dec 30, 2021, 8:13 PM UTC

I would love to understand some of the rationale behind MIT not reversing it's stance. Is there any public/anon writing from someone inside MIT at the time?

Was there some pressure being employed by scientific publishers to make an example out of Swartz?

It just seems so strange, but then again as we've seen institutions can be easily hijacked and corrupted when populated with the wrong actors.

Re: The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

#103

Post by andi999 » Thu, Dec 30, 2021, 8:14 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #94

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overcharging offenses, with the ranges of any possible punishments, is done precisely to pressure people into settling for an outcome the DA finds politically expedient. There is a TERRIBLE amount of uncertainty in EVERY STEP you've outlined, and we see examples EVERY DAY of judges who throw the book at people, especially when they are unknown loners who have offended powerful corporations. PLEASE don't suggest that…

I think you stopped reading before the last paragraph of my comment. Or, really, one of the first ones, because, again: the prosecutors are on the record with the sentence they were actually threatening Swartz with, and, as I said, and Swartz's attorney said, and this New Yorker article said: it was nothing resembling 50 years.

So what actual number are we talking here? 20 years? 5 years? Or more like 6 month?

Re: The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

#104

Post by andreilys » Thu, Dec 30, 2021, 8:15 PM UTC

ModernMech wrote: post #53

senko wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he was facing 13 felony charges and up to 50 years in prison[0] Pretty hard slap, that. [0] https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/why-did-...

The article says they offered a 6 month jail time plea bargain though. It sounds like from his own writing that he was cognizant of the fact he broke the law, but didn’t agree the law should have been a law in the first place. It also sounds like he didn’t really expect there would be any consequences whatsoever. Look at this from the prosecutors point of view. They have hard evidence of a crime. They have evidence o…

There was also the fact that he would be branded a felon, which as the article mentioned would have prevented him from working in the White House or other institutions from where he could continue his work

Re: The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

#105

Post by andreilys » Thu, Dec 30, 2021, 8:17 PM UTC

ModernMech wrote: post #93

cowbellemoo wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s a waste of everyone’s time and money. Isn't incarcerating a person who's not a danger to others and who's crime had no harmful outcomes a waste of everyone's time and money? > 6 months does not sound like the disproportionate punishment many make it out to be I encourage you to learn about the conditions in prisons. Imprisoned persons are frequently subject to physical and sexual violence at the hands of guard…

> Isn't incarcerating a person who's not a danger to others and who's crime had no harmful outcomes a waste of everyone's time and money? Yes, but I think the solution is to make fewer things criminal through the democratic process first. Enforcement of laws is important. It’s one thing to put people in jail who don’t belong there. But according to this article it kinda seems like Swartz did deserve some jail time. H…

Enforcement of laws is important.

Agreed, unfortunately it seems that we selectively enforce laws based on political pressure. Look at the numerous high profile cases targeting white collar criminals, for example with Purdue and the Sackler family.

They got away with zero jail time and a slap on the wrist (financially), all because they were able to hire the right political actors who could influence the outcome of legal procedures.

I'm sure if Swartz was similarly connected (for example a family who was a Senator), this whole thing would have gone away quietly.

Alas, the laws that apply to the commoners do not apply to the elite.

Re: The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

#106

Post by simplestats » Thu, Dec 30, 2021, 8:19 PM UTC

cryptica wrote: post #26

It's sad how the system punishes smart altruists. If you're smart, you'd better be evil or the system will destroy you.

The legal system destroys people. It's what they do. The noticeable difference here is how much other people care and how much the person had to lose. How well would you bounce back from a felony conviction and jail time? There was some random teenaged idiot where I grew up that did some stupid miscief to the wrong category of property, and ended up committing suicide too.

Re: The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

#107

Post by HumanReadable » Thu, Dec 30, 2021, 8:21 PM UTC

borski wrote: post #72

ppod wrote: post #25

Some of his writing in this reminds me a lot of David Foster Wallace (who is mentioned), in particular the way he is deeply concerned with seeming humble but feeling egotistical: self-consciously projecting humility but being aware of the humility as a kind of affectation in a recursive and tortuous cycle of self-awareness.

I relate to this so much. The very odd “aggrandizing” that is so often necessary for starting and running a company, coupled with my massive impostor syndrome that is just never going to go away at this point, is a very very hard cognitive dissonance to manage. I’ve done it, and will do it again, but it makes me squirm on the inside.

Do you have any advice or wise words on how you manage this?

I find myself in a leadership position, but I feel immensely uncomfortable when directing others. In my head there's always a nagging voice that replies 'who are you to tell us what to do?'

Re: The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

#108

Post by CommieBobDole » Thu, Dec 30, 2021, 8:21 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #74

senko wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he was facing 13 felony charges and up to 50 years in prison[0] Pretty hard slap, that. [0] https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/why-did-...

He faced nothing resembling 50 years, even on paper, even in the least charitable plausible analysis. You get to these nosebleed sentences by assuming that there are no sentencing guidelines, and no grouping of charges, and that instead you're likely to serve the sum of the maximum sentences spelled out in the statutes you violated. That makes no sense even as a story: the CFAA statutes capture behavior ranging from…

There's a pretty good Popehat article on federal sentencing guidelines from back before Ken White discovered twitter and mostly stopped writing interesting articles about law stuff.

https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...

Re: The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

#109

Post by tptacek » Thu, Dec 30, 2021, 8:27 PM UTC

andi999 wrote: post #103

tptacek wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you stopped reading before the last paragraph of my comment. Or, really, one of the first ones, because, again: the prosecutors are on the record with the sentence they were actually threatening Swartz with, and, as I said, and Swartz's attorney said, and this New Yorker article said: it was nothing resembling 50 years.

So what actual number are we talking here? 20 years? 5 years? Or more like 6 month?

It's in the article here. Also, in the comment I just wrote.

Re: The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

#110

Post by jcranmer » Thu, Dec 30, 2021, 8:32 PM UTC

andi999 wrote: post #103

tptacek wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you stopped reading before the last paragraph of my comment. Or, really, one of the first ones, because, again: the prosecutors are on the record with the sentence they were actually threatening Swartz with, and, as I said, and Swartz's attorney said, and this New Yorker article said: it was nothing resembling 50 years.

So what actual number are we talking here? 20 years? 5 years? Or more like 6 month?

> the supposed 80 month sentence they said they'd seek if Swartz went to trial

So 6½ years at most, quoting tptacek's comment.