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

#121

Post by omegaworks » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 11:28 AM UTC

mpyne wrote: post #94

Smerity wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said upfront that this is not a straight up comparison. The main point for me is that I walk past the memorial for the MIT police officer killed in duty about once per week. One of these events had a tremendous impact on MIT and the surrounding community, the other had a negligible one. Regardless, have a re-read of the article you linked to. Jennifer Granick writes: > He could plead guilty to all 13 felony charges…

> On top of that, Aaron "would have had to swear under oath that he committed a crime, something he did not actually believe". Many people, almost by definition, do not believe that their own criminal acts were actually a "crime". Rationalization is a well-known human psychological phenomenon. Whatever else Aaron thought about his idealistic mission, being on the MIT subnet without permission was wrong (both morally…

>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.

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

#122

Post by roel_v » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 12:26 PM UTC

omegaworks wrote: post #121

mpyne wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On top of that, Aaron "would have had to swear under oath that he committed a crime, something he did not actually believe". Many people, almost by definition, do not believe that their own criminal acts were actually a "crime". Rationalization is a well-known human psychological phenomenon. Whatever else Aaron thought about his idealistic mission, being on the MIT subnet without permission was wrong (both morally…

>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 computer directly on the network access point; and doing so while disguised so as to avoid being caught on camera. It's not like he didn't know what was coming - and if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

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

#123

Post by Ygg2 » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 12:28 PM UTC

mpyne wrote: post #89

nitrogen wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When "we" decided to grant the government a monopoly on violence, there was nothing in the contract about letting them hack and sabotage American computer systems or commit other crimes at will.

Has NSA sabotaged American computer systems? Most IP 'pirates' seem quite willing to claim that copying data is not at all destructive, and the NSA can make similar claims. But either way, "we" also didn't put anything in our "contract" that let them make nuclear weapons, air forces, computer inter-networks, or social security/welfare programs.

You are confusing monopoly of violence with monopoly on private data. Unless private data is a weapon.

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

#124

Post by danielweber » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 1:11 PM UTC

arabellatv wrote: post #100

Zigurd wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MIT leadership had a duty to act reasonably, and they didn't. MIT's position should have been that, at most, this amounted to trespassing and matter for the Cambridge PD. Aaron Swartz was no threat to MIT's network. They might not have prevented subsequent events, but they failed, horribly, by not speaking up for a reasonable outcome. MIT's IS&T office had a knee jerk security-oriented reaction, and was over impresse…

Yes. I agree. What were MIT's and Heymann's true motivations for blowing it up to a security issue? Did they act out of fear or out of ego? Regardless, they exacerbated the issue (just as media sensationalizes stories). It's upsetting that such intelligent people would fail to think through the situation. Or even worse...they did think it through and planned to blow this up as big as possible to prove a point or make…

It was a security issue because some guy kept on breaking into their network and had escalated to physical intrusion to achieve his goals.

They didn't know the guy was Aaron Swartz and that they ought to have been privileged to have him on their network, invited or not.

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

#125

Post by onli » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 1:20 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #110

Several comments have talked about 35 year or longer potential sentences. Those big numbers come from simply taking the maximum possible sentence that can ever be given out for each charge, and adding them all up. There are two things that make that unrealistic in most cases. First, the defendant is almost always charged with several similar or related crimes that have mostly the same elements. If convicted on more t…

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.” There would be 13 felony counts in all. At the time of the indictment, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said he could face 35 years in prison.

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

#126

Post by danielweber » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 1:20 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #110

Several comments have talked about 35 year or longer potential sentences. Those big numbers come from simply taking the maximum possible sentence that can ever be given out for each charge, and adding them all up. There are two things that make that unrealistic in most cases. First, the defendant is almost always charged with several similar or related crimes that have mostly the same elements. If convicted on more t…

Humans love stories that lend credence to their own side, even if they aren't true, even if they know they aren't true. I've found myself doing it when I look back at things I wrote years or even months in the past.

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

#127

Post by watty » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 1:40 PM UTC

onli wrote: post #125

tzs wrote: post #110

Several comments have talked about 35 year or longer potential sentences. Those big numbers come from simply taking the maximum possible sentence that can ever be given out for each charge, and adding them all up. There are two things that make that unrealistic in most cases. First, the defendant is almost always charged with several similar or related crimes that have mostly the same elements. If convicted on more t…

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 got caught doing something illegal and couldn't face the music.

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

#128

Post by watty » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 1:43 PM UTC

thaumaturgy wrote: post #105

vex wrote: post #2

Suicide is completely a personal choice. MIT had no reason to try and defend an outsider who hijacked part of their network, and trying to make them seem like they caused him to hang himself smacks of tunnel vision. It's a natural response to a suicide; we try and search for something to blame. But unless you argue that MIT should have known Aaron was mentally unstable, saying MIT "caused" him to kill himself is illo…

I think I can speak a little bit on the subject of suicide, since both of my parents have made suicide attempts recently, and since I also struggle with depression and, although I'm currently too stubborn to seriously consider something like suicide, I can tell you it does seem to be an attractive option some days. Suicide is not completely a personal choice. Part of it is a problem with mental wiring, yes, but a sig…

The "MIT defenders" in this thread aren't trying to say MIT played no part, because they did. So did the justice system, so did the computer cabinet owner, the person responsible for locking it, his close friends to urged him to continue, etc. The problem is that people are placing BLAME on MIT. MIT is not to blame for his suicide. Aaron took a risk and got caught. Aaron is the only person to blame.

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

#129

Post by sigzero » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 1:44 PM UTC

danielweber wrote: post #124

arabellatv wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I agree. What were MIT's and Heymann's true motivations for blowing it up to a security issue? Did they act out of fear or out of ego? Regardless, they exacerbated the issue (just as media sensationalizes stories). It's upsetting that such intelligent people would fail to think through the situation. Or even worse...they did think it through and planned to blow this up as big as possible to prove a point or make…

It was a security issue because some guy kept on breaking into their network and had escalated to physical intrusion to achieve his goals. They didn't know the guy was Aaron Swartz and that they ought to have been privileged to have him on their network, invited or not.

I am taking the second sentence as sarcasm.

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

#130

Post by shawn-butler » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 1:55 PM UTC

xacaxulu wrote: post #36

Bostonian of the Year!! This makes me profoundly sick. "United States Attorney Carmen Ortiz, in the midst of a prosecutorial tear that would lead the Globe to name her 2011’s Bostonian of the Year, held up Aaron’s indictment as a warning to hackers everywhere."

"Section 11H. Whenever any person or persons, whether or not acting under color of law, interfere by threats, intimidation or coercion, or attempt to interfere by threats, intimidation or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any other person or persons of rights secured by the constitution or laws of the United States, or of rights secured by the constitution or laws of the commonwealth, the attorney general may bring a civil action for injunctive or other appropriate equitable relief in order to protect the peaceable exercise or enjoyment of the right or rights secured. Said civil action shall be brought in the name of the commonwealth and shall be instituted either in the superior court for the county in which the conduct complained of occurred or in the superior court for the county in which the person whose conduct complained of resides or has his principal place of business."

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleII/Cha...