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

Aaron Swartz was prosecuted for scraping, while Meta does it without consequence

blog.curiousquail.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 427 posts

Re: Aaron Swartz was prosecuted for scraping, while Meta does it without consequence

#281

Post by khazhoux »

tptacek wrote: post #34

I don't think it matters much for the argument, which is valid (or not) regardless of whether you get the precise facts about the Swartz prosecution right, but Swartz was not facing 35 years. That's the statutory maximum sentence you'd get if you ignored the sentencing guidelines and grouped none of the charges, which is not how anything works. The prosecutors threatening Swartz and his attorneys claimed they'd pursu…

Also, Aaron was pals with some of the brightest people in tech and law. I have a hard time imagining that they didn't try to ease his stress by pointing out that 35 was just the typical bluster.

Re: Aaron Swartz was prosecuted for scraping, while Meta does it without consequence

#282

Post by khazhoux »

alex1138 wrote: post #279
searealist wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aaron had a history of depression and suicidal ideation that long predates his prosecution. Also: https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2013/01/noam-chomsk...

He did. But it in no way excuses the way they treated him

He was treated poorly. But somehow a lot of otherwise-smart people think you should not charge a person who suffers from depression or suicidal thoughts.

Re: Aaron Swartz was prosecuted for scraping, while Meta does it without consequence

#283

Post by Xcelerate »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #109
giantg2 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Maybe the real issue is selective outrage about legal injustice." The real issue is selective enforcement of the law. If it applied equally to everyone, then more people would be outraged as it affected them.

> If it applied equally to everyone, then more people would be outraged as it affected them. In order to do this you need to have laws that are designed to be reasonable for people to actually follow instead of laws that are designed to allow prosecutors to find a violation whenever they want to. Actually enforcing them would create pressure to do that, but it would also create pressure to go back to selective enforc…

> If you can show that someone else was doing the same thing without being charged then the prosecution either has to charge them too or that law is struck down

I’ve often thought this about laws involving speed limits. When 95% of the people driving in a major downtown area are technically breaking the law, what is the purpose of the law but to target whoever you like then? Either enforce it unilaterally or come up with new laws.

Re: Aaron Swartz was prosecuted for scraping, while Meta does it without consequence

#284

Post by deaux »

ninjahawk1 wrote: post #78

I think that large companies having next to no consequences is in large part due to capitalism doing what it does over a long period of time. There’s a deeper and deeper consolidation of money and power the longer time goes on it seems like. If we think back to the various lawsuits Facebook has gone through, they paid out about $10 or so per individual affected, totaling a few hundred million dollars, which they woul…

> It’s difficult to actually punish a machine that acts almost like infrastructure.

It's not at all. There is zero reason this couldn't be applied to Zuck. [0] There's also no reason why fines couldn't be 10% of global revenue, or more.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/20/business/evergrande-found...

Re: Aaron Swartz was prosecuted for scraping, while Meta does it without consequence

#285

Post by alightsoul »

goldie_wilson wrote: post #185

Maybe I'm missing something, but didn't Aaron break into an MIT network closet and then spoof and use exploits to secure data vs Meta who is just scraping everything that can be found on the public web. I despise just about everything Meta does, but it seems like people are quick to compare two situations that are not identical so they can further their "big corp and America = bad" agendas.

Oh my god I have seen this argument here repeated so many times with different rephrasings. I do not want to believe it is a bot or astroturfing.

Re: Aaron Swartz was prosecuted for scraping, while Meta does it without consequence

#286

Post by orochimaaru »

milkytron wrote: post #3

The part that still bothers me so much about the US vs Swartz case is that JSTOR didn't pursue civil litigation against Aaron. It was the US government that pursued him. There was little for the government to lose in the case. In a case vs Meta, at the scale it has reached, it could have wide ranging economic implications limiting the investment in AI, which the US is absolutely not willing to pursue at this point in…

He was done in by a career prosecutor who just wanted to use him as a stepping stone in their path. They had little or no humanity.

Re: Aaron Swartz was prosecuted for scraping, while Meta does it without consequence

#287

Post by FireBeyond »

greyface- wrote: post #230
FireBeyond wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting spin that means precisely nothing. I'm not authorized to enter facilities or building maintenance spaces in buildings in my town because I'm a "community member".

The general public was authorized to enter the facilities 24/7. The exterior doors were unlocked and it was considered an "open campus". The access controls you see today have only existed since COVID. Whether he was a student at the time also means "precisely nothing".

Really? The expectation was that they could go into facilities closets and plug into the core networking equipment?

Re: Aaron Swartz was prosecuted for scraping, while Meta does it without consequence

#288

Post by zombot »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #109
giantg2 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Maybe the real issue is selective outrage about legal injustice." The real issue is selective enforcement of the law. If it applied equally to everyone, then more people would be outraged as it affected them.

> If it applied equally to everyone, then more people would be outraged as it affected them. In order to do this you need to have laws that are designed to be reasonable for people to actually follow instead of laws that are designed to allow prosecutors to find a violation whenever they want to. Actually enforcing them would create pressure to do that, but it would also create pressure to go back to selective enforc…

Careful there, you're attempting to introduce elements of reason and justice into law. When has that ever worked?

Re: Aaron Swartz was prosecuted for scraping, while Meta does it without consequence

#289

Post by stonedivot »

FireBeyond wrote: post #287
greyface- wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The general public was authorized to enter the facilities 24/7. The exterior doors were unlocked and it was considered an "open campus". The access controls you see today have only existed since COVID. Whether he was a student at the time also means "precisely nothing".

Really? The expectation was that they could go into facilities closets and plug into the core networking equipment?

Don't waste your time arguing with people like this. They can't admit the nuance of the situation: what Aaron did was blatantly wrong, and what the government did in response was disproportionate. They will only focus on the latter, and make endless irrational justifications for the former.

Re: Aaron Swartz was prosecuted for scraping, while Meta does it without consequence

#290

Post by Dylan16807 »

necovek wrote: post #256
Dylan16807 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even flat-out rejecting the desire to charge them more wouldn't be bending over backwards for them. It would simply be charging them based on harm done rather than what affects them. And the post you're responding to is making a much less extreme position, that it's hard to scale the fine properly.

With laws, you generally want to charge and cover for the harm done, but also to disincentivise law breaking. For instance, someone might be significantly speeding for 10 years, and never hurting anyone or causing any harm (financial or otherwise). Should they pay nothing? Or should we distribute harm from all speeders (accidents, injuries and deaths) to everyone speeding? But does a fixed fee speeding ticket disince…

> Or should we distribute harm from all speeders (accidents, injuries and deaths) to everyone speeding?

Yes, that one. Increasing everyone's risk is harm, sorry if I wasn't clear about that part.

> But does a fixed fee speeding ticket disincentivise behaviour that is known to cause harm statistically?

The line of thought here is: Does it matter? If the average speeder pays $2 of fines per $1 of harm, it's a net positive. Yes that does let rich people buy priority. But rich people can usually buy priority. At least they're not getting a helicopter involved.

Post reply on HN