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

The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 175 posts

Re: The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

#151

Post by skinnymuch »

mcguire wrote: post #136
skinnymuch wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The statement is made by the prosecutor though. They could be saying the truth. It is a very biased person’s word to go off though.

" The prosecutor, Stephen Heymann, told Swartz’s lawyer, Elliot Peters, that if Swartz pleaded guilty to all counts he would spend six months in jail; if he lost at trial, it would be much worse. " The prosecutor made the offer of a 6-month plea deal to Swartz's lawyer. Who presumably discussed it with Swartz, who seems to have decided not to accept it. Possibly, if you accept the analysis above, on the advice of his…

The New Yorker doesn’t link to a citation. Rolling Stones does. Which links to a statement by lead prosecutor, Ortiz. Heymann was the assistant prosecutor.

My point was how do we know this is an “analysis”. Based off Rolling Stones, this is just the prosecutors words.

Re: The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

#152

Post by skinnymuch »

ModernMech wrote: post #141
shkkmo wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He also actually did the thing in question, and demonstrated consciousness of guilt. He did a thing, that doesn't mean that thing qualified as a felony, or even a crime. It certainly did not merit 50 years in prison. > It’s okay for guilty people to be offered plea deals. It’s actually probably in their best interest sometimes. It is simply not OK to threaten people with penalties that are well more than an order o…

I get the sense that you are channeling a general distrust of the system into this specific case. I will say I’m in agreement with your points in a general sense. But as far as this case goes, I’m not sure. The alleged crime is a very technical one. The facts are all recorded and they paint a clear picture. The only question is how they apply to the law and whether or not they raise to the level of a crime. That’s th…

Why are other things like the prosecutors words to be believed in the article. But not Swartz’s money issues? Why would the article bring up going into debt if he’s a high net worth individual?

Others have brought up people like Lori Loughlin. No one would talk about her or any of the college scandal wealthy parents going into debt.

Re: The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

#153

Post by tptacek »

senko wrote: post #150
tptacek wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thank you for the detailed reasoning and explanation. I was unaware of these nuances, and remember at the time there was a lot of talk of using the legal sledgehammer to set an example (possibly the same media echo chamber you mention).

There's still a lot to the argument that they were taking a sledgehammer to Swartz in order to make an example of him. It's just that no part of the real argument involves him doing 50 years.

Re: The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

#154

Post by ModernMech »

skinnymuch wrote: post #152
ModernMech wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the sense that you are channeling a general distrust of the system into this specific case. I will say I’m in agreement with your points in a general sense. But as far as this case goes, I’m not sure. The alleged crime is a very technical one. The facts are all recorded and they paint a clear picture. The only question is how they apply to the law and whether or not they raise to the level of a crime. That’s th…

Why are other things like the prosecutors words to be believed in the article. But not Swartz’s money issues? Why would the article bring up going into debt if he’s a high net worth individual? Others have brought up people like Lori Loughlin. No one would talk about her or any of the college scandal wealthy parents going into debt.

I believe he spent a lot of money on his defense, but that's the point: he used money to buy representation, so I think it's hard to complain that he was bullied by prosecutors when he was well-represented.

Re: The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

#155

Post by skinnymuch »

ModernMech wrote: post #154
skinnymuch wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are other things like the prosecutors words to be believed in the article. But not Swartz’s money issues? Why would the article bring up going into debt if he’s a high net worth individual? Others have brought up people like Lori Loughlin. No one would talk about her or any of the college scandal wealthy parents going into debt.

I believe he spent a lot of money on his defense, but that's the point: he used money to buy representation, so I think it's hard to complain that he was bullied by prosecutors when he was well-represented.

> I get the sense that you are channeling a general distrust of the system into this specific case.

You said this about the other commentator. I’m not sure how you aren’t doing a similar thing here. Prosecutors words are believed at face value. Phrasing Swartz as a high net worth individual as if it was known he was still a high net worth individual at the time of his passing. Since now you said you believe he spent a lot on his defense. And the other commenter said he didn’t have money. If you spend all your money. You aren’t high net worth any more.

> so I think it's hard to complain that he was bullied by prosecutors when he was well-represented.

This is simplifying any justice system situation in my opinion. Which adds to the point of you doing similar to what you thought the other commenter is doing. And yes I am also doing a similar thing with my adamant defense of Swartz!

Re: The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

#156

Post by shkkmo »

simplestats wrote: post #114
shkkmo wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

What about giving a more lenient sentence if the person is remorseful and admits what they did was wrong? Because that's effectively the same thing as a plea deal. Even innocent people would still sometimes admit guilt and apologize, destroying their chances of winning at trial either way, to get a shorter sentence.

Leniency during sentencing is not effectively the same as plea bargaining at all. A plea deal comes from threats and fear, a lenient sentence handed down by a judge comes from remorse and judgment. Lenient sentences can come without a guilty plea anf a guilty plea doesn't guarantee leniency. The incentives are entirely different.

Re: The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

#157

Post by shkkmo »

ModernMech wrote: post #141
shkkmo wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He also actually did the thing in question, and demonstrated consciousness of guilt. He did a thing, that doesn't mean that thing qualified as a felony, or even a crime. It certainly did not merit 50 years in prison. > It’s okay for guilty people to be offered plea deals. It’s actually probably in their best interest sometimes. It is simply not OK to threaten people with penalties that are well more than an order o…

I get the sense that you are channeling a general distrust of the system into this specific case. I will say I’m in agreement with your points in a general sense. But as far as this case goes, I’m not sure. The alleged crime is a very technical one. The facts are all recorded and they paint a clear picture. The only question is how they apply to the law and whether or not they raise to the level of a crime. That’s th…

> The only question is how they apply to the law and whether or not they raise to the level of a crime.

It was a fairly unique and novel application of those laws and some of the charges depended on making arguments about what the intent was with the data. There absolutely was a great deal of prosecutorial discretion and even imagination in coming up with those charges. We will never know if which of those would have stuck.

> the profile of someone ripe for heavy handed prosecution.

It was most certainly a political prosecution.

Re: The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

#158

Post by ModernMech »

skinnymuch wrote: post #155
ModernMech wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe he spent a lot of money on his defense, but that's the point: he used money to buy representation, so I think it's hard to complain that he was bullied by prosecutors when he was well-represented.

> I get the sense that you are channeling a general distrust of the system into this specific case. You said this about the other commentator. I’m not sure how you aren’t doing a similar thing here. Prosecutors words are believed at face value. Phrasing Swartz as a high net worth individual as if it was known he was still a high net worth individual at the time of his passing. Since now you said you believe he spent…

> Prosecutors words are believed at face value.

You've implied I'm taking the prosecutors words at face value, but I'm really not basing any of my opinions on the prosecutors words at all. The plea deal was communicated by Swartz' lawyer. The evidence against him is documentary and laid out in the indictment. There's expert testimony as well. Swartz' consciousness of guilt is laid out in video evidence as well as on his blog in his own words. There's very little the prosecutor has to say in the case against Swartz.

> If you spend all your money. You aren’t high net worth any more.

I said Swartz was prosecuted because he painted a big target on himself. Yes, being high net worth and well connected to billionaires is part of that. It really doesn't matter what his net worth was at the time of his demise, when at the time he allegedly committed the crime and caught the eye of prosecutors he was a high net worth individual.

Re: The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

#159

Post by bhitov »

pdonis wrote: post #42
photochemsyn wrote: post #18

This article carefully avoids any analysis of the reasons why MIT chose to persecute Aaron Swartz. Here's a quick take on the actual situation, off the top of my head: "The Darker Side of MIT and the Academic Publishing Industry" While the Internet has been hailed from its inception as a tool that would open up access to information for the whole world, the reality has not matched that expectation. Much of the most i…

> it's at first glance hard to understand why MIT - one of America's leading federally-financed research institues - chose to persecute Aaron Swartz for downloading the jstor archive It didn't. Read the Abelson report (which has been discussed ad nauseam in past HN threads). MIT did not want Swartz prosecuted, and told the prosecutor that. The prosecutor chose to go after Swartz anyway. MIT's error was that they didn…

> Read the Abelson report (which has been discussed ad nauseam in past HN threads). MIT did not want Swartz prosecuted, and told the prosecutor that.

from the Abelson report (pg 53, https://swartz-report.mit.edu/docs/report-to-the-president.p...):

"With regard to substance, MIT would make no statements, whether in support or in opposition, about the government’s decision to prosecute Aaron Swartz"

Am I missing something? Been a while since I read the report in full.

"While MIT did not conform precisely to this rule, in this sense of similar responses MIT—broadly speaking—did not side with the prosecution, nor did it side with the defense. In consequence of the differences in the powers, timing, and goals of the two parties in the case, neutrality in responses was not consistent with neutrality in outcomes, and MIT was not neutral in outcomes."

I agree that MIT was not trying to make an example out of him. But it wasn't that "they didn't push back harder on the prosecutor", it was that they didn't push back at all. The Ableson report correctly criticizes MIT for this.

Re: The Darker Side of Aaron Swartz (2013)

#160

Post by pdonis »

bhitov wrote: post #159
pdonis wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's at first glance hard to understand why MIT - one of America's leading federally-financed research institues - chose to persecute Aaron Swartz for downloading the jstor archive It didn't. Read the Abelson report (which has been discussed ad nauseam in past HN threads). MIT did not want Swartz prosecuted, and told the prosecutor that. The prosecutor chose to go after Swartz anyway. MIT's error was that they didn…

> Read the Abelson report (which has been discussed ad nauseam in past HN threads). MIT did not want Swartz prosecuted, and told the prosecutor that. from the Abelson report (pg 53, https://swartz-report.mit.edu/docs/report-to-the-president.p... ): "With regard to substance, MIT would make no statements, whether in support or in opposition, about the government’s decision to prosecute Aaron Swartz" Am I missing somet…

> it wasn't that "they didn't push back harder on the prosecutor", it was that they didn't push back at all

It's been a while since I read the report too, thanks for linking to it.

I had thought there was more detail in the report about the private conversations between MIT's Office of General Counsel and the prosecutors, referred to on p. 52, where it says that after a June 21, 2011 discussion, "OGC inferred that further presentations of MIT’s opinions were unlikely to have an effect on the prosecution: the views of both potential victims had already been taken into account". My understanding during previous discussions here (which was quite a while ago) had been that OGC did push back in private conversations with the prosecutor (and the "further presentations" in what I just quoted also can be read that way), but the prosecutor was not receptive, and the June 21 conversation was basically the end of MIT's private attempts to influence the prosecutor. However, since the report does not give any more details about that, I might have gotten that impression from other sources around that time. Clearly, even if MIT did make such attempts, they weren't successful, and could not have been all that emphatic.

Post reply on HN