161–170 of 209 posts
In Linus's own words, "here are the sources, so that people can compare them for themselves".
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+LinusTorvalds/posts/1vyfmNCYpi5
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+LinusTorvalds/posts/ggzfzKyrcRQ
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I expect that any criminal defendant, including Aaron, would read her initial statement as "they're going to put me in prison for 35 years". Even as plea negotiations went forward, the implication was "plead this out or you will get 35 years". She made statements that only a lawyer could love - rife with plausible deniability for any responsibility they have in this mess. However, I think any reasonable person would…
It was not at all realistic to think a 35 year sentence would have been handed down for downloading scientific papers, even in America. He was an extremely talented rich white kid, associated with a top university who would have had dozens of high profiles vouching for him in court. I guess his lawyer did a terrible job of telling him not to worry.
Aaron suffered from depression, which can amplify "worries" to existential crises, which can lead to suicide. Depression, like many mental afflictions, affects the operation of thinking itself. That makes it hard (or impossible) to mentally "step back" and consider things from a different perspective.
Linus is dead wrong on this. We have independent confirmation of everything that Ortiz said from the Boston Globe's interview with Aaron's defense attorney. The maximum statutory penalty for the original 4 indictments was 35 years. The prosecutor was planning to seek 6-7 years. There were two plea bargains offered, one was 4 months and no disputing the period, the other was 6 months but the defense attorney would be…
There seem to be two camps on HN, on this issue and on the case in general. One camp says: "The total penalty possible was 35 years. In general this scared Aaron Swartz. In specific Carmen Ortiz now saying that they weren't pursuing this penalty is a lie, since it was always a possibility." The other camp says: "Forget the total that was theoretically possible. Every knowledgable person to talk about this case has sa…
My take on it is that the prosecution did what prosecutors do. Jason Swartz seems to me to have been somewhat bipolar, and in manic phases he was brilliant, enthusiastic, idealistic, and a bit nuts -- which is what got him in trouble. In his depressive phase he killed himself. Blaming the prosecutors for his decisions is a tad harsh. The truth is complex and sad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well if you read through the post, especially Linus's follow-up comments, you'll find that his very point is this distinction between the truth of these technically correct, weasel-worded statements and the bigger picture. Sentencing is ultimately up to the judge, and the truth is that Ortiz used the threat of "up to 35 years" to try to force a plea bargain. When Swartz refused a bargain which would have branded him…
> her office absolutely threw the book at a kid for downloading some PDFs. And repeatedly going around network blocks in order to obtain those PDFs...
Just a few months ago, Linus Torvalds urged "mentally diseased" people to kill themselves over printer security and now, he is a Crusader Against Bullies Who Make People Kill Themselves. Bacteria have more self-awareness than this. In Linus's own words, "here are the sources, so that people can compare them for themselves". https://plus.google.com/u/0/+LinusTorvalds/posts/1vyfmNCYpi5 https://plus.google.com/u/0/+Linu…
Really what Linus hates are stupid people so he spouts off about them from time to time. E.g. like those who can't see the difference between a harsh remark and actual bullying. If he read your remark we might see some fireworks.
At least Linus commented on this very sensitive issue. Not sure why PG has not said anything publicly when he knew and has worked with Aaron during Reddit.
(1) this is not the first brilliant young hacker that PG has lost to suicide and knew closely (2) this must have hit PG like a freight train, I barely knew Aaron and I'm still reeling from it (3) if and when PG speaks is up to him, he's certainly not under any obligation
Just a few months ago, Linus Torvalds urged "mentally diseased" people to kill themselves over printer security and now, he is a Crusader Against Bullies Who Make People Kill Themselves. Bacteria have more self-awareness than this. In Linus's own words, "here are the sources, so that people can compare them for themselves". https://plus.google.com/u/0/+LinusTorvalds/posts/1vyfmNCYpi5 https://plus.google.com/u/0/+Linu…
Just a few months ago, Linus Torvalds urged "mentally diseased" people to kill themselves over printer security and now, he is a Crusader Against Bullies Who Make People Kill Themselves. Bacteria have more self-awareness than this. In Linus's own words, "here are the sources, so that people can compare them for themselves". https://plus.google.com/u/0/+LinusTorvalds/posts/1vyfmNCYpi5 https://plus.google.com/u/0/+Linu…
Linus is dead wrong on this. We have independent confirmation of everything that Ortiz said from the Boston Globe's interview with Aaron's defense attorney. The maximum statutory penalty for the original 4 indictments was 35 years. The prosecutor was planning to seek 6-7 years. There were two plea bargains offered, one was 4 months and no disputing the period, the other was 6 months but the defense attorney would be…
There seem to be two camps on HN, on this issue and on the case in general. One camp says: "The total penalty possible was 35 years. In general this scared Aaron Swartz. In specific Carmen Ortiz now saying that they weren't pursuing this penalty is a lie, since it was always a possibility." The other camp says: "Forget the total that was theoretically possible. Every knowledgable person to talk about this case has sa…
Thus there was a significant chance that he'd have gotten more than a few months of jail time.
Now re-read Carmen Ortiz. She never said she was only seeking a few months in jail. She said she offered him only 6 months in jail and was never going to seek the maximum sentence. What she didn't publicly say is that she was going to seek 6-7 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The first, which she made at the outset of the case, was that he was facing 35 years if convicted at trial. No, that was not what she said. She said that he could be facing up to 35 years. In other words 35 years would be the maximum penalty. There is no implication that she was seeking the maximum penalty at any time.
She identified the maximum the same way a protection racket says "It'd be a shame if anything happened to this nice business you've got here". They never actually say they're going to make 'something' happen if you don't deal. But everyone knows that is exactly what they mean. It's no different for the prosecutors. Stating the maximums in a case that clearly does not compel the maximums is an intentional negotiating…
And that implicitly indicates the prosecutors were gunning for Swartz.
No. This was business as normal. This is what they do to EVERYONE. Whether THAT is OK is a different issue. But they really weren't singling him out for significantly worse treatment than they give to other people.