Aaron Swartz was 'killed by the government,' father tells mourners • Hacker News Board

Re: Aaron Swartz was 'killed by the government,' father tells mourners

#51

Post by politician » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 1:10 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #22

politician wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should you always plead guilty to crimes the Government accuses you of?

No, but if there's prima facie evidence of criminal activity (such as the surveillance video, being caught red-handed with the laptop), then maybe you should consider it. Effectively the government was asking him to face up to the fact that whatever his views about the ethics of JSTOR were, the way he acted upon them (breaking into a wiring closet etc.) was illegal. It's not like anybody contests the facts of what he…

What "everybody doesn't contest" is different from the 13 felony charges, including wire fraud (!), the government indicted him on.

For instance, the trespassing charges, supported by the surveillance video of him opening an unlocked closet used by the homeless to store their personal effects, were dropped. [1]

[1] http://boingboing.net/2013/01/13/expert-witness-describes-aa...

Re: Aaron Swartz was 'killed by the government,' father tells mourners

#52

Post by gruseom » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 1:11 AM UTC

tcuk wrote: post #25

I think the consensus here right now is that because people believe the laws he broke shouldn't exist in the capacity they do, he shouldn't have been punished, and that his case is a cause for reform in things that perhaps don't deserve to be reformed on this merit alone. It may very well be that there is need for reform in these laws, but does that give Aaron the right to break them? And if so, does this lead preced…

This idea that "the law" is a fixed and unambiguous thing that can only be objectively enforced, however lamentable a given case may be, is totally at odds with how the legal system really works. There's a good reason why we've been hearing the phrase "prosecutorial discretion" over and over again in the last few days — that is what was driving this case. Not some dispassionate sorry-but-our-hands-are-tied legal code.

p.s. Invoking Breivik in this context is really inappropriate.

Re: Aaron Swartz was 'killed by the government,' father tells mourners

#53

Post by politician » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 1:17 AM UTC

sethist wrote: post #49

politician wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that the boy is dead is grim proof that he was "unable to mentally process his potential punishment".

No it isn't. If anything it shows that he didn't want to endure his potential punishment. If he didn't understand the potential punishment there would be no need to commit suicide.

Your statement could be misinterpreted to mean that any rational competent defendant would consider the potential punishment worse than death.

I'm positive that you meant that he understood what 35 years in jail and a felony charge meant and was thus not unfit to stand trial under an insanity claim. That's fair.

Re: Aaron Swartz was 'killed by the government,' father tells mourners

#54

Post by tcuk » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 1:22 AM UTC

gruseom wrote: post #52

tcuk wrote: post #25

I think the consensus here right now is that because people believe the laws he broke shouldn't exist in the capacity they do, he shouldn't have been punished, and that his case is a cause for reform in things that perhaps don't deserve to be reformed on this merit alone. It may very well be that there is need for reform in these laws, but does that give Aaron the right to break them? And if so, does this lead preced…

This idea that "the law" is a fixed and unambiguous thing that can only be objectively enforced, however lamentable a given case may be, is totally at odds with how the legal system really works. There's a good reason why we've been hearing the phrase "prosecutorial discretion" over and over again in the last few days — that is what was driving this case. Not some dispassionate sorry-but-our-hands-are-tied legal code…

If I proposed that perhaps in an age where cyber crime is not only misunderstood but increasingly high (see anon et al), that perhaps the prosecution wanted to deter Aaron who by all accounts was an activist, from committing further more serious crimes.

What would you think of the above? Is it a plausible reality to the alternative one where the prosecutors are merely evil?

Re: Aaron Swartz was 'killed by the government,' father tells mourners

#55

Post by gruseom » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 1:28 AM UTC

tokenadult wrote: post #31

It's harsh to say, and I know that there is much reason to think that the prosecutor was over-prosecuting Aaron Swartz's case, but this kind of blame-shifting on the part of parents is not helpful to a young person who is at high risk for suicide. Civil disobedience according to Thoreau, according to Gandhi, and according to Martin Luther King, Jr. is all about being willing to do the time after intentionally breakin…

> blame-shifting on the part of parents

That is too harsh. They just lost their son. What can they be but blind with pain?

Re: Aaron Swartz was 'killed by the government,' father tells mourners

#56

Post by anigbrowl » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 1:29 AM UTC

politician wrote: post #51

anigbrowl wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but if there's prima facie evidence of criminal activity (such as the surveillance video, being caught red-handed with the laptop), then maybe you should consider it. Effectively the government was asking him to face up to the fact that whatever his views about the ethics of JSTOR were, the way he acted upon them (breaking into a wiring closet etc.) was illegal. It's not like anybody contests the facts of what he…

What "everybody doesn't contest" is different from the 13 felony charges, including wire fraud (!), the government indicted him on. For instance, the trespassing charges, supported by the surveillance video of him opening an unlocked closet used by the homeless to store their personal effects, were dropped. [1] [1] http://boingboing.net/2013/01/13/expert-witness-describes-aa...

That article strikes me as absurdly biased. To take just one example, the argument is made that Swartz did nothing to cover his tracks, but if this is the case why buy a new laptop for this purpose instead of using his everyday one? What is so wrong about the comparison between spoofing one's MAC address and changing the VIN on a car, when the purpose of both is to identify a specific piece of hardware? Why cover one's face with a cycling helmet if one does not care about being identified? Why place one's computer in a wiring closet if one could have just downloaded freely from anywhere on campus?

Look, I don't want to bash the poor guy for his idea that such material should be free. But plugging into other peoples' networks without permission and so on are criminal offences, and Swartz was educated enough to know this. If you look through the indictment (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/09/swartz...) it's very clear about which statutes were being broken. Boingboing is presenting it as if Swartz was some wide-eyed ingenue that didn't realize that anyone would consider his downloading a problem.

Re: Aaron Swartz was 'killed by the government,' father tells mourners

#57

Post by gruseom » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 1:41 AM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #41

tokenadult wrote: post #31

It's harsh to say, and I know that there is much reason to think that the prosecutor was over-prosecuting Aaron Swartz's case, but this kind of blame-shifting on the part of parents is not helpful to a young person who is at high risk for suicide. Civil disobedience according to Thoreau, according to Gandhi, and according to Martin Luther King, Jr. is all about being willing to do the time after intentionally breakin…

> Civil disobedience according to Thoreau, according to Gandhi, and according to Martin Luther King, Jr. is all about being willing to do the time after intentionally breaking a law The issue I am seeing here is that this take on civil disobedience is only worth it if your incarceration does one or more of the following: threatens to clog the system, infuriates the masses, draws attention to the absurdity of the syst…

> Had Swartz been convicted and served his sentence, would the HN community at large care?

I would have. I totally misread the situation. I thought there was basically zero chance he would be punished so vindictively. And I had no idea that he was all this time in Kafka hell.

Had Aaron gone to prison it would have been a wake-up call for a lot of people, much as his suicide was — except that one could have done something about it. Actually, a trial and conviction would likely have become a cause celebre in the tech world.

And yes I know that people don't just kill themselves for one straightforward reason. It's still sickening.

Re: Aaron Swartz was 'killed by the government,' father tells mourners

#58

Post by anigbrowl » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 1:44 AM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #48

anigbrowl wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but if there's prima facie evidence of criminal activity (such as the surveillance video, being caught red-handed with the laptop), then maybe you should consider it. Effectively the government was asking him to face up to the fact that whatever his views about the ethics of JSTOR were, the way he acted upon them (breaking into a wiring closet etc.) was illegal. It's not like anybody contests the facts of what he…

It seems to me that there is a fine difference between admitting you did the act, and admitting you did the act and conceding the act indeed violated the laws the prosecutors assert. For example, presumably Aaron's lawyers would argue that while Aaron did in fact use a fake name on a captive portal, but that doing so was not wire fraud. Why should you abstain from arguing if your actions violated the law just because…

This is the definition of wire fraud: (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1343)

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

JSTOR was in a different state. Swartz caused signals to be transmitted by wire for the purpose of an artifice to defraud. The indictment is specific and cites to statutory definitions of what constitutes criminal behavior.

As I've said over and over again in relation to copyright issues, maybe things like copyright infringement should not be considered crimes at all, but right now, they are. If the elements of a crime are defined as X, Y, and Z, and there's proof that someone engaged in X, Y, and Z, then that person has committed the crime n question. Now if you want to argue that the law in question is unconstitutional for some reason, that's fine, but that's something you do at appeal. the purpose of a trial Court is simply to establish whether a certain set of facts is true or not.

Re: Aaron Swartz was 'killed by the government,' father tells mourners

#59

Post by anigbrowl » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 1:52 AM UTC

subsystem wrote: post #45

tokenadult wrote: post #31

It's harsh to say, and I know that there is much reason to think that the prosecutor was over-prosecuting Aaron Swartz's case, but this kind of blame-shifting on the part of parents is not helpful to a young person who is at high risk for suicide. Civil disobedience according to Thoreau, according to Gandhi, and according to Martin Luther King, Jr. is all about being willing to do the time after intentionally breakin…

He didn't "test some limits". He did what most people interested in computers have done at one point. Connect to a network you aren't supposed to connect to and download something you aren't supposed to download.

That's outside the limit of legal behavior. He's not saying it was the worst thing ever, just that Swartz's actions crossed the threshold between legal and illegal.

Re: Aaron Swartz was 'killed by the government,' father tells mourners

#60

Post by jlgreco » Wed, Jan 16, 2013, 1:56 AM UTC

gruseom wrote: post #57

jlgreco wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Civil disobedience according to Thoreau, according to Gandhi, and according to Martin Luther King, Jr. is all about being willing to do the time after intentionally breaking a law The issue I am seeing here is that this take on civil disobedience is only worth it if your incarceration does one or more of the following: threatens to clog the system, infuriates the masses, draws attention to the absurdity of the syst…

> Had Swartz been convicted and served his sentence, would the HN community at large care? I would have. I totally misread the situation. I thought there was basically zero chance he would be punished so vindictively. And I had no idea that he was all this time in Kafka hell. Had Aaron gone to prison it would have been a wake-up call for a lot of people, much as his suicide was — except that one could have done somet…

Maybe so. I am not confident that his conviction would cause waves large enough to really cause any sort of change though. I can't help but feel many people here would be less inclined to change their position (or even care enough to read articles about it) were the revelations not accompanied by such a tragic shock. Maybe I'm just being cynical because I found the dismissal from prominent community members so shocking and offensive at the time.

However I am certain that were he someone with even less celebrity who was interested in something more marginal than freeing academic works, getting convicted really really would do fuck-all for his cause.