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

MIT President on Aaron Swartz

pastebin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 223 posts

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#61

Post by saraid216 »

dialtone wrote: post #57
potatolicious wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except he was guilty, and didn't stand a chance in an actual trial. This part's not even controversial - Aaron was evidently fighting laws that he believed were unjust. The fact that he violated them is not in question. And a court would have no choice but to find him guilty, as that is the purpose of the judiciary. A court cannot let someone walk after a crime simply because the law itself is unjust.

As a matter of fact a jury can do that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification although of course this is a controversial topic.

I actually find it implausible that a jury would have been savvy enough to know, even after courtroom-education by the defense, that nullification was an ideal option.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#62

Post by jacquesm »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #60
losvedir wrote: post #33

I'm impressed with this response. Two quick notes: 1) President Reif is brand new in the role -- the majority of events would have happened under Susan Hockfield, the previous president. It makes sense that he would want a report of what happened previously since he wasn't here yet. 2) Professor Abelson is a very well respected member of the MIT community, and the fact that he is heading up the investigation leaves m…

That's Abelson as in SICP, isn't it?

Yep.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#63

Post by ak217 »

kristenlee wrote: post #7

Aaron Swartz was mentally ill and committed suicide as a direct result of his mental illness. He comtemplated suicide in 2007 long before any of this DOJ stuff happened. http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/dying Furthermore the "glorification" of his suicide is doing nothing more but encouraging other suicidal "hackers" to go over the edge so they have their "story" and inconsequential blog posts plastered all of Hacker Ne…

I don't think anyone is glorifying his suicide. I think people are outraged about the fact that overzealous prosecution based on an unjust law may have contributed to the death of an extremely talented person. People were unhappy with the law before, but it didn't have direct, concrete consequences for them to point to. Now it does.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#64

Post by joshstrange »

potatolicious wrote: post #38
objclxt wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"he was threatened with spending a life in jail and being bankrupted, without the option to get off without pleading guilty." ...I don't quite understand this. Surely he did have an option to "get off without pleading guilty" - to be found not guilty by a jury of his peers.

Except he was guilty, and didn't stand a chance in an actual trial. This part's not even controversial - Aaron was evidently fighting laws that he believed were unjust. The fact that he violated them is not in question. And a court would have no choice but to find him guilty, as that is the purpose of the judiciary. A court cannot let someone walk after a crime simply because the law itself is unjust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

> Jury nullification occurs when juries acquit criminal defendants who are technically guilty, but who do not deserve punishment. It occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the judge's instructions as to the law.

I do not agree with kristenlee but I did want to bring up at a jury can let someone walk who is technically guilty.

Edit: Sorry, didn't mean to post the same as 2 other people I read the article then came back to read the comments and I didn't see the other comments as I hadn't refreshed the page

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#65

Post by rdl »

losvedir wrote: post #33

I'm impressed with this response. Two quick notes: 1) President Reif is brand new in the role -- the majority of events would have happened under Susan Hockfield, the previous president. It makes sense that he would want a report of what happened previously since he wasn't here yet. 2) Professor Abelson is a very well respected member of the MIT community, and the fact that he is heading up the investigation leaves m…

Reif was Provost before, though.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#66

Post by wilfra »

adoyle wrote: post #39
wilfra wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For anonymity. The person who posted it is likely an MIT Student/Alumnus/Faculty who received the email and others might not like them sharing it.

It went to the 'allmit' list ( http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/allmit ) which goes to "all current students (including incoming freshman and graduate students, special and cross-registered students) and all employees listed in the MIT directory or with SAP status=active" which is upwards of 22,000 people.

Right and evidently whomever shared this did not want the other 21,999 people seeing that they had posted it to their blog. So they shared it anonymously.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#67

Post by saraid216 »

kenko wrote: post #27
kristenlee wrote: post #7

Aaron Swartz was mentally ill and committed suicide as a direct result of his mental illness. He comtemplated suicide in 2007 long before any of this DOJ stuff happened. http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/dying Furthermore the "glorification" of his suicide is doing nothing more but encouraging other suicidal "hackers" to go over the edge so they have their "story" and inconsequential blog posts plastered all of Hacker Ne…

"Aaron Swartz was mentally ill and committed suicide as a direct result of his mental illness. He comtemplated suicide in 2007 long before any of this DOJ stuff happened." But he didn't do it then, did he? It's absurd to think that these things are completely unconnected. (Look at the timing, for one thing.) A severely depressed person is perhaps more likely to commit suicide than a person who is not severely depress…

> (Who would commit suicide in order to get attention? You can't get attention when you're dead.)

As someone who has contemplated suicide, I've had significant moments when I'd (1) recognize that my ideation was a direct reaction to someone else's actions or inactions, (2) remind myself that this was a bad reason to commit, (3) stop myself. It was not "getting attention" so much as a willful desire to punish. It was not sane. But it was also real.

Not saying that this is what Aaron went through, but if you're going to generalize, that's not the right question to ask.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#68

Post by olefoo »

potatolicious wrote: post #18
kristenlee wrote: post #7

Aaron Swartz was mentally ill and committed suicide as a direct result of his mental illness. He comtemplated suicide in 2007 long before any of this DOJ stuff happened. http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/dying Furthermore the "glorification" of his suicide is doing nothing more but encouraging other suicidal "hackers" to go over the edge so they have their "story" and inconsequential blog posts plastered all of Hacker Ne…

The witch hunt angle has been bothering me a lot, and should be ample evidence that the people of Hacker News are no better than the reactionaries of Reddit or even 4chan. No sooner had the man's death hit the news that people started foaming at the mouth, writing long manifestos and diatribes, and calling for the head of everyone and anyone related to the prosecution. We are better than this. Actually, evidently, no…

That is a fine display of histrionics; but, the specifics of this case DO merit removing Ms. Ortiz and her assistant Mr. Heymann from office.

Those of us who were following the case before Aaron's tragic episode knew that a great injustice was being perpetrated, but that it could not realistically be undone until after the damage had happened.

Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Heymann should be held accountable for their decision to use charges far out of proportion to the damage done. And the correct way to hold them accountable is to remove them from an office they have proven themselves incapable of using appropriately. They do not deserve to have the full power of the law behind their petty vendettas.

A Federal District Attorney in this country, at this time, has almost no checks on her power to prosecute. Petitioning the Whitehouse and the congress to remove one who has clearly overstepped the bounds of propriety is the only recourse we have.

You should sign the petition, because it is the only way that Ms. Ortiz's power will even be questioned officially. Like most online petitions it will accomplish little without a sustained campaign from many directions.

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#69

Post by dialtone »

jacquesm wrote: post #56
Illychnosis wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A court cannot let someone walk after a crime simply because the law itself is unjust. Incorrect. That's what the power of jury nullification is for. It's been ensconced in Western law for centuries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lilburne Aaron only committed a crime worthy of severe punishment if one takes the point of view of the Crown...I mean, of the government.

Jury nullification is to all intents and purposes mostly a theoretical thing nowadays.

According to Clay Conrad, author of this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Jury-Nullification-The-Evolution-Doctr...

And according to an article that he wrote in 2003[1]:

Jury nullification occurs in 3-4% of all criminal trials. Jurors cannot be ordered to convict or punished for acquitting. A jury verdict of Not Guilty is final.

[1]: http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/02/05/a-guide-to-surviving-...

Re: MIT President on Aaron Swartz

#70

Post by weisser »

danso wrote: post #2

I will not attempt to summarize here the complex events of the past two years. Now is a time for everyone involved to reflect on their actions, and that includes all of us at MIT. I have asked Professor Hal Abelson to lead a thorough analysis of MIT's involvement from the time that we first perceived unusual activity on our network in fall 2010 up to the present. I have asked that this analysis describe the options M…

I was shocked because I too was expecting spin and instead got a promise of action.

The fact that they are taking this so seriously speaks volumes...too bad it took Aaron killing himself for them to analyze their actions.

Post reply on HN