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

Why Did the Justice System Target Aaron Swartz?

rollingstone.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 37 posts

Re: Why Did the Justice System Target Aaron Swartz?

#21

Post by rayiner »

brudgers wrote: post #15

As I read about the early involvement of the secret service and in light of the later actions of the DoJ, I couldn't help but wonder if there was something to the signature of Swartz's actions that raised the Federal Government's level of interest. To put it another way, how likely is it that that particular closet had been used for similar activities before? Is it more plausible that Swartz discovered the closet or…

> I couldn't help but wonder if there was something to the signature of Swartz's actions that raised the Federal Government's level of interest.

Of course it was the "signature" of Swartz's actions that raised the federal government's interest.

1) The "target" was MIT;

2) There was physical intrusion into MIT's network;

3) Millions of documents were downloaded;

4) Swartz previously did something similar to PACER.

You can argue about whether walking into an unlocked closest is "physical intrusion" or whether the "actual target" was JSTOR but that's all just a matter of characterization. The Feds are not "shades of gray" people--everything is like the show "24" to them. They will assume the worst.

I'd bet money that the "bullet points" similar to the above landed on someone's desk, and even though I think the prosecution definitely was overzealous, I'm not at all surprised at the way they reacted. I'm really shocked that anyone is surprised.

Re: Why Did the Justice System Target Aaron Swartz?

#22

Post by sageikosa »

pyre wrote: post #14
rayiner wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The race point isn't non-sense. The targets of aggressive prosecution are by and large involved in the drug trade or with gangs, and as such are very often black or hispanic. Aggressive prosecution pretty much evolved to target those people. One of the reasons you can get so many years out of what seem like relatively minor convictions is because prosecutors often have to deal reticent minority communities. Everyone…

... So Federal prosecutors said, "He's white and middle-class... Does... Not... Compute... Must... Prosecute..." ?

More like: "well, this'll show the world that we are color-blind when it comes to heavy-handed prosecution."

I think that was the poster's point. Not necesarily agreeing, just clarifying what I read as the intention.

Re: Why Did the Justice System Target Aaron Swartz?

#23

Post by nonamegiven »

"Some of Swartz's advocates believe the prosecution sought excessive punishment to set an example in the age of Wikileaks and Anonymous."

I seriously doubt that setting an example was a significant motivation.

"Ortiz and Heymann refused to offer a deal that didn't include at least six months of prison time and a guilty plea on all 13 charges."

In other words there was no deal being offered that didn't include a guilty plea -- a pelt on Ortiz's belt.

They targeted Aaron Swartz because he was a rung on their ladder, an easy win. One, he was part of an all but not understood minority to the rest of the population, a hacker. Two, it's routine to portray neutral hackers (our sense of the word) as evil hackers (everyone else's sense). Not understanding what we do makes us all potential witches, and no one is sad when an evil witch gets what he deserves, even when we don't understand what he did.

With Swartz ringed in by a large pile of charges, the result would likely have been at least one conviction. It only takes one out of N for Ortiz to put another mark in the "successful prosecutions" column.

Swartz just got in the way of Ortiz's and Heymann's ambitions. Collateral damage.

Re: Why Did the Justice System Target Aaron Swartz?

#24

Post by AnthonyMouse »

jacquesm wrote: post #18
glesica wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's different in the technical details, but the aim is exactly and completely identical: to deny service to other customers as a way to punish the proprietor of a business. Sitting at a lunch counter is legal, sending an HTTP request to a server is legal. In some cases sitting at a lunch counter for too long becomes illegal, and in some cases sending too many HTTP requests can become illegal (DDoS). The difference h…

You're making the (wrong) assumption that all those participating in a denial of service attack are doing so voluntarily. Typically it's a small number of perps that harness a large number of unwitting drones.

OK sure, so the law should prohibit harnessing a large number of unwitting drones.

And it should prohibit DDoS in general. But not as a felony.

Re: Why Did the Justice System Target Aaron Swartz?

#25

Post by epo »

alan_cx wrote: post #10
epo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put your tin hat away. The why of it is really, really obvious. Low hanging fruit, an easy target for prosecutors wanting to score an easy win.

Why are the low hanging fruit / easy win points "tin hat"? The wrong part was the nonsense race point.

The tin (foil) hat part was the rubbish about "those who threaten the system". That is just some pre-pubescent fantasy about being an outlaw and "sticking it to the man" to revive a 60's saying in the same vein. The reality was that the prosecutors wanted to seem tough and here was a case they couldn't lose.

Re: Why Did the Justice System Target Aaron Swartz?

#26

Post by brudgers »

rayiner wrote: post #21
brudgers wrote: post #15

As I read about the early involvement of the secret service and in light of the later actions of the DoJ, I couldn't help but wonder if there was something to the signature of Swartz's actions that raised the Federal Government's level of interest. To put it another way, how likely is it that that particular closet had been used for similar activities before? Is it more plausible that Swartz discovered the closet or…

> I couldn't help but wonder if there was something to the signature of Swartz's actions that raised the Federal Government's level of interest. Of course it was the "signature" of Swartz's actions that raised the federal government's interest. 1) The "target" was MIT; 2) There was physical intrusion into MIT's network; 3) Millions of documents were downloaded; 4) Swartz previously did something similar to PACER. You…

"You can argue semantics about whether walking into an unlocked closest is "physical intrusion" or whether the "actual target" was JSTOR but that's all just a matter of characterization. The Feds are not "shades of gray" people--everything is like the show "24" to them. They will assume the worst."

To the extent I am arguing anything, it is against the convenience of casting events into the form of a morality play...or of a Fox Television apologetic for torture. Cartoon characterizations don't require much of us and simple causal chains don't require us to deal with messy realities.

They just make for easy journalism and lazy citizenship.

Re: Why Did the Justice System Target Aaron Swartz?

#27

Post by rayiner »

brudgers wrote: post #26
rayiner wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I couldn't help but wonder if there was something to the signature of Swartz's actions that raised the Federal Government's level of interest. Of course it was the "signature" of Swartz's actions that raised the federal government's interest. 1) The "target" was MIT; 2) There was physical intrusion into MIT's network; 3) Millions of documents were downloaded; 4) Swartz previously did something similar to PACER. You…

"You can argue semantics about whether walking into an unlocked closest is "physical intrusion" or whether the "actual target" was JSTOR but that's all just a matter of characterization. The Feds are not "shades of gray" people--everything is like the show "24" to them. They will assume the worst." To the extent I am arguing anything, it is against the convenience of casting events into the form of a morality play...…

Sorry, I meant "you can argue" in the sense of "it is possible to argue."

Re: Why Did the Justice System Target Aaron Swartz?

#28

Post by mpyne »

nonamegiven wrote: post #23

"Some of Swartz's advocates believe the prosecution sought excessive punishment to set an example in the age of Wikileaks and Anonymous." I seriously doubt that setting an example was a significant motivation. "Ortiz and Heymann refused to offer a deal that didn't include at least six months of prison time and a guilty plea on all 13 charges." In other words there was no deal being offered that didn't include a guilt…

> One, he was part of an all but not understood minority to the rest of the population, a hacker. Two, it's routine to portray neutral hackers (our sense of the word) as evil hackers (everyone else's sense).

His motives might have neutral but his actions were not, at least in this case.

But either way, I wish we would all take a step back and critically examine why it is that it is so easy for 'hackers' to be portrayed negatively.

Part of it is because "they don't understand", sure.

But there's another large part, which is the feeling of helplessness. Computing controls more and more of everyone's life with each passing day. In the past people could take control of more of what was important to them. They could tweak with their car's engine and chassis, they could put money in the bank and feel reasonably safe it wouldn't have disappeared to some identity thief by the morning, they could go home secure in the knowledge that their work would physically be still sitting on their desk when they went back the next day.

Now computers have taken over everything and there are very, very few people who actually understand what's going on. And when the "average Joe" sees someone taking advantage of that, for whatever reason, it is natural to feel distrustful. You trust Aaron and I trust Aaron (even if I disagree with his methods), but why should everyone trust Aaron?

The past two weeks we've seen a chorus of criticism from hackers regarding a justice system that they don't understand. Much of the criticism is accurate, and much of it wasn't even in the right ballpark. This isn't even the only example, just look at the strictly-technical debates about open source software like Ruby on Rails or systemd where FUD is the rule. So if even the very smartest of us are liable to this type of behavior, why should we expect any better of the general public?

People in general want to think that at least someone understands hacking besides the hackers and is working to keep them safe from those few with the means to destroy those computerized things which are becoming increasingly valuable to them.

Re: Why Did the Justice System Target Aaron Swartz?

#29

Post by [deleted] »

mpyne wrote: post #28
nonamegiven wrote: post #23

"Some of Swartz's advocates believe the prosecution sought excessive punishment to set an example in the age of Wikileaks and Anonymous." I seriously doubt that setting an example was a significant motivation. "Ortiz and Heymann refused to offer a deal that didn't include at least six months of prison time and a guilty plea on all 13 charges." In other words there was no deal being offered that didn't include a guilt…

> One, he was part of an all but not understood minority to the rest of the population, a hacker. Two, it's routine to portray neutral hackers (our sense of the word) as evil hackers (everyone else's sense). His motives might have neutral but his actions were not, at least in this case. But either way, I wish we would all take a step back and critically examine why it is that it is so easy for 'hackers' to be portray…

[deleted]

Re: Why Did the Justice System Target Aaron Swartz?

#30

Post by rayiner »

mpyne wrote: post #28
nonamegiven wrote: post #23

"Some of Swartz's advocates believe the prosecution sought excessive punishment to set an example in the age of Wikileaks and Anonymous." I seriously doubt that setting an example was a significant motivation. "Ortiz and Heymann refused to offer a deal that didn't include at least six months of prison time and a guilty plea on all 13 charges." In other words there was no deal being offered that didn't include a guilt…

> One, he was part of an all but not understood minority to the rest of the population, a hacker. Two, it's routine to portray neutral hackers (our sense of the word) as evil hackers (everyone else's sense). His motives might have neutral but his actions were not, at least in this case. But either way, I wish we would all take a step back and critically examine why it is that it is so easy for 'hackers' to be portray…

> The past two weeks we've seen a chorus of criticism from hackers regarding a justice system that they don't understand. Much of the criticism is accurate, and much of it wasn't even in the right ballpark.

Dead on. The DOJ might have, in a fit of paranoia, jumped to the "evil hacker" stereotype because it didn't understand Swartz's actions, but the "hacker community," in a similar fit of paranoia, jumped to the "big evil government suppressing any threats" stereotype.

I don't think the DOJ understand the "free culture" movement. At the same time, I don't think a lot of hackers understand the public's desire for order, boundaries, and security.

Post reply on HN