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

The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

unhandled.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 95 posts

Re: The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

#31

Post by pekk »

rprasad wrote: post #23
todayiamme wrote: post #13

The only conclusion I can draw from his life and the events leading up to his demise is that he must have upset someone deeply entrenched in the circles of power. Otherwise the witch-hunt just doesn't make any sense. After all ask yourself what motive did the prosecutor possess for going after him like that?

No conspiracy, guys. The prosecutor was just doing her job. A simple case like Aaron's probably took up less than 1% of her week. It may have been a big case to Aaron, but compared to their normal cases, it was a relative vacation for the prosecutors working on it. The problem was not that Aaron "upset someone deeply entranched." The problem is that Aaron's activities fall into the definition of a particular form of…

Federal prosecutors do have a lot of discretion. I don't disagree with much of what you say, but this is just out of control and the only way for it to even start to get fixed is for heads to roll.

Re: The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

#32

Post by MichaelSalib »

jlgreco wrote: post #30
MichaelSalib wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? Aaron violated MIT's policies and JSTOR's policies and the result was that a large community of scholars lost access. Those scholars would have had access if Aaron hadn't done what he did.

The only harm was manufactured by the "victims". Were it not for the "victims" manufacturing this harm, they would not be called victims at all. They essentially bootstrapped their own victim-hood. If you don't see why that is relevant in an ethical consideration of his actions, then I cannot help you.

This is taking victim blaming to new heights. Is it now the victim's fault they don't acquiesce to a lawbreakers' demands? Doesn't MIT have the right to decide who is allowed to use their network and in what manner?

Can I break into your home and use your internet connection as I see fit without your complaint?

Re: The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

#33

Post by jlgreco »

MichaelSalib wrote: post #32
jlgreco wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only harm was manufactured by the "victims". Were it not for the "victims" manufacturing this harm, they would not be called victims at all. They essentially bootstrapped their own victim-hood. If you don't see why that is relevant in an ethical consideration of his actions, then I cannot help you.

This is taking victim blaming to new heights. Is it now the victim's fault they don't acquiesce to a lawbreakers' demands? Doesn't MIT have the right to decide who is allowed to use their network and in what manner? Can I break into your home and use your internet connection as I see fit without your complaint?

Is it similarly victim blaming when people call shit on the RIAA for claiming thousands of dollars of damages per mp3? Give me a break, and knock it off with the emotionally charged language. MIT isn't the victim of domestic abuse or sexual assault.

> Can I break into your home and use your internet connection as I see fit without your complaint?

They dropped the trespassing charges, the only charges that had merit.

Re: The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

#34

Post by MichaelSalib »

jlgreco wrote: post #33
MichaelSalib wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is taking victim blaming to new heights. Is it now the victim's fault they don't acquiesce to a lawbreakers' demands? Doesn't MIT have the right to decide who is allowed to use their network and in what manner? Can I break into your home and use your internet connection as I see fit without your complaint?

Is it similarly victim blaming when people call shit on the RIAA for claiming thousands of dollars of damages per mp3? Give me a break, and knock it off with the emotionally charged language. MIT isn't the victim of domestic abuse or sexual assault. > Can I break into your home and use your internet connection as I see fit without your complaint? They dropped the trespassing charges, the only charges that had merit.

But if I broke into your house and used your internet connection, the only harm would come from you, the "victim", objecting to my behavior. You'd be bootstrapping your own victimhood, right?

Re: The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

#36

Post by jlgreco »

MichaelSalib wrote: post #34
jlgreco wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it similarly victim blaming when people call shit on the RIAA for claiming thousands of dollars of damages per mp3? Give me a break, and knock it off with the emotionally charged language. MIT isn't the victim of domestic abuse or sexual assault. > Can I break into your home and use your internet connection as I see fit without your complaint? They dropped the trespassing charges, the only charges that had merit.

But if I broke into your house and used your internet connection, the only harm would come from you, the "victim", objecting to my behavior. You'd be bootstrapping your own victimhood, right?

If I were choosing to object to you on the grounds that you trespassed, then no.

If I were to drop the trespassing charges and choose to object on the grounds that I had to throw out my router because you used it, then I would indeed be manufacturing victomhood.

I'll repeat myself. They dropped the trespassing charges.

Re: The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

#37

Post by [deleted] »

jlgreco wrote: post #36
MichaelSalib wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if I broke into your house and used your internet connection, the only harm would come from you, the "victim", objecting to my behavior. You'd be bootstrapping your own victimhood, right?

If I were choosing to object to you on the grounds that you trespassed, then no. If I were to drop the trespassing charges and choose to object on the grounds that I had to throw out my router because you used it, then I would indeed be manufacturing victomhood. I'll repeat myself. They dropped the trespassing charges.

[deleted]

Re: The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

#38

Post by carbocation »

[deleted] wrote: post #37
jlgreco wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I were choosing to object to you on the grounds that you trespassed, then no. If I were to drop the trespassing charges and choose to object on the grounds that I had to throw out my router because you used it, then I would indeed be manufacturing victomhood. I'll repeat myself. They dropped the trespassing charges.

[deleted]

> "You realize that about 40% of the money that comes into MIT comes from the federal government right?"

Based on this non sequitur, can we infer that you have tacitly accepted jlgreco's point?

Re: The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

#39

Post by omarchowdhury »

erichocean wrote: post #15
jzone3 wrote: post #12

Did Aaron release the articles, or just download them? If he released them, using what medium?

He returned all of the articles he downloaded to JSTOR when he was asked to. He did not distribute them. UPDATE: Here's JSTOR's confirmation of the above: http://about.jstor.org/statement-swartz

How do you return something that was downloaded?

Re: The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

#40

Post by smackfu »

jzone3 wrote: post #12

Did Aaron release the articles, or just download them? If he released them, using what medium?

I don't think he had a chance to distribute them, because the high volume of downloading was noticed and they tracked the computer down and then caught him. The plan was certainly to distribute them of he had not been caught, AFAIK.
Post reply on HN