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

DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

pjmedia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 96 posts

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#41

Post by s_q_b »

rhizome wrote: post #34
s_q_b wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The comment was restricted to internet-connected devices and in particular network and endpoint security safeguards. Both Snowden and Manning got their information from systems to which they had been granted access. .Mil and IC targets are among the most hardened in the world, even if they were a bit lax about implementing fine-grained access control amongst their cleared personnel.

When 1% of the nation has similar levels of access as these two, I don't know that it's reasonable to exclude the sneakernet vuln.

Not to sidetrack the conversation too much, but I fully agree, and I'm sure those in the agencies do as well. It's a gap they're closing, with two-man rules etc.

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#42

Post by fleitz »

VladRussian2 wrote: post #2

They wanted to send a message. Just like mobsters tripping on power do.

What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men.

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#43

Post by ferdo »

tankbot wrote: post #36
ferdo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NSA spying on all of us is a bigger crime and a bigger scandal than Watergate. I don't see any groundswell for impeachment.

> a bigger scandal than Watergate. Depends on how you qualify its big-ness. Go out and talk to regular, non-techie folks about NSA spying. In the unlikely event that you even find someone who knows what you are talking about, they won't care. They will look at you like you're crazy and they'll say, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about." If it's just a small, quickly forgotten blurb on Fox new…

People affected is my bigness metric, in this instance.

Nixon got outed for spying on a hotel room. The Executive Branch just got outed spying on pretty much everyone.

Watergate was also in a time when people were, by and large, a little more literate about the supposed balance that's supposed to exist between the government and the individual. I was a teenager during Watergate and recall more than one adult being outraged that the president would spy on anyone and shared their outrage.

Today, the almost absolute apathy about being spied on is as disturbing to me as the surveillance itself. It doesn't bode well for the American political future.

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#44

Post by jlgreco »

sp332 wrote: post #37
jlgreco wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, so you think stalkers should not have a right to a fair trial? They are using their right, not abusing it. They don't lose that right just because the accuser is not interested in seeing them.

I never said that. But the prosecution (and the judge) have to take into account the effect the trial might be having on the victim, and reduce the defendant's ability to cause more damage. Prosecutorial discretion is all about minimizing the damage done in the course of the defense itself.

No-matter how you slice it, demanding a fair trial for yourself is never an abuse of your rights.

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#45

Post by mullingitover »

mullingitover wrote: post #35
GauntletWizard wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because in no way would justice have been served. The stringing up of one gang leader by another gang would not have provided the country safety, security, recompense, or even resolution - It would have started an all out war, the one we're now seeing in politics.

I'm all for gang leaders being strung up, especially when it's in accordance with the law as would've been the case with Nixon. If the democrats were similarly guilty of felonies, they should've been brought to justice as well. Remind me again, what felonies did the democrats commit?

Just adding: you'd want to believe that an important feature of having more than one political party in the country is that they would compete and keep each other honest, holding each other to account when wrongdoing is exposed. Colluding to prevent the other team from ever facing justice for their crimes reveals that in fact, both parties are hopelessly corrupt and are conspiring to keep their corrupt enterprise operating. It's quite perverse to claim that this outcome is the best that we could hope for.

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#46

Post by mikegagnon »

tareqak wrote: post #13
sp332 wrote: post #5

This article makes the prosecution sound much more reasonable than other articles I've seen before. "The prosecutor’s response was that it disturbed him whenever a defendant ‘systematically re-victimized’ the victim, and that was what Swartz was doing by dragging MIT through hearings and a trial." The trial must have seemed like a deliberate waste of everyone's resources, when (from the prosecutor's view) Aaron would…

Shouldn't it be the judge's call to decide whether or not resources are being wasted? The fact that the prosecutor raised charges in spite of the fact that the nature and severity of crime did not change seems reprehensible and basically amounts to revenge. It reminds of the time I was reprimanded by a teacher more harshly because I chose to share the sequence of events that unfolded with my parents. My parents calle…

In the American justice system the judge is part of the judicial branch and the prosecutor is part of the executive branch.

Prosecutors have a huge amount of discretion in their jobs. They can choose if they press charges and if so what charges to press.

In this case, there are allegations that the prosecution abused its power by retaliating against free speech.

The prosecutor allegedly said something along the lines of: Aaron Swartz was foolish to exercise free speech because it then went "‘from a human one-on-one level to an institutional level.’ The lead prosecutor said that on the institutional level cases are harder to manage both internally and externally"

I presume by "one-on-one" prosecution, the prosecutor meant it was one prosecutor against Aaron Swartz. But by publicizing the case, it aroused the interest of the "institution" (i.e. the higher ups), who then decided to throw the book at Swartz.

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#47

Post by spiffage »

rhizome wrote: post #34
s_q_b wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The comment was restricted to internet-connected devices and in particular network and endpoint security safeguards. Both Snowden and Manning got their information from systems to which they had been granted access. .Mil and IC targets are among the most hardened in the world, even if they were a bit lax about implementing fine-grained access control amongst their cleared personnel.

When 1% of the nation has similar levels of access as these two, I don't know that it's reasonable to exclude the sneakernet vuln.

Snowden had a far higher level of access than Manning.

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#48

Post by AaronFriel »

rhizome wrote: post #34
s_q_b wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. The comment was restricted to internet-connected devices and in particular network and endpoint security safeguards. Both Snowden and Manning got their information from systems to which they had been granted access. .Mil and IC targets are among the most hardened in the world, even if they were a bit lax about implementing fine-grained access control amongst their cleared personnel.

When 1% of the nation has similar levels of access as these two, I don't know that it's reasonable to exclude the sneakernet vuln.

3 million people have equivalent security clearances as Bradley Manning or even Edward Snowden? I'm going to guess that's a little high.

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#49

Post by YokoZar »

jgross206 wrote: post #33
thufry wrote: post #31

I wouldn't even be 1% surprised if they forced Swartz into committing suicide, by threatening to harm his loved ones if he didn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_suicide

can you share some of your reasoning behind this (quite extreme) belief?

If I remember correctly, Aaron was convinced that the way things were going with the trial it would bankrupt his family by defending him. It's not too hard to imagine that "protecting" them involves taking yourself out of the equation there.
Post reply on HN