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

The Criminal Charges Against Aaron Swartz – Part 2: Prosecutorial Discretion

volokh.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 142 posts

Re: The Criminal Charges Against Aaron Swartz – Part 2: Prosecutorial Discretion

#81

Post by Tloewald »

The article is excellent.

"Finally, I think the instinct to blame the prosecutors in this case should be checked because it is fueled in significant part by a human but improper motive: Making sense of Swartz’s suicide. When a young person commits suicide, there is a natural instinct to restore a sense of order to the world by finding someone to blame. We deal with the sense of shocking and unimaginable and senseless loss by pinning the blame on someone to create a tidy narrative of wrongful actor and wrongful act."

You can disagree with copyright law, mourn Aaron Schwarz, and yet not blame prosecutors for Aaron's suicide and have a sense of proportion.

Re: The Criminal Charges Against Aaron Swartz – Part 2: Prosecutorial Discretion

#82

Post by acheron »

btilly wrote: post #19
rayiner wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a strong grain of truth to what you say. My politics are fairly lawyerly,[1] and I find the anti-democratic sentiment on here disquieting, especially the constant attempts to discredit the democratic process at every turn by unsubstantiated hand waving about how the system is "bought." [1] I think the chicken came before the egg. The profession attracts people who have a strong sense of order and con…

For the record, I do not consider myself anti-democratic. I consider myself pro-democratic. However I do not see that we have a democratic process. As a concrete example, consider the last election. More than 50% of voters voted for Democrats in Congress (even when you discard seats where there was only one party on the ballot, still over 50% voted that way), and a large majority in polls want Congress to become less…

That's not how it works. The Congress as a whole does not represent the US population as a whole; it's not supposed to, and I'd argue it would be a terrible idea if it did. You have one representative, who represents one district. If the whole Congress represents the whole country, then no individual representative represents any specific area.

If a district in Vermont votes 60% R/40% D in favor of a Republican, and a district in West Virginia votes 5% R/95% D in favor of a Democrat, then that argument would say since the total of the two districts is 32.5% R/67.5% D (assuming equal population districts), the "congress" of two districts should have two Democrats, rather than one of each. The Vermont district should have no effect on the representation of the West Virginia district.

Frankly, I would consider myself more towards the "anti-democratic" side: I'm much more on the side of "democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner". Not that the foundation of government shouldn't be democratic, but there need to be very solid protections in place to prevent a majority trampling on a minority. If anything, our system has become too democratic recently; very few of the rights in place to protect us are still respected. (I guess our 3rd Amendment rights are still pretty safe, but other than that.)

Re: The Criminal Charges Against Aaron Swartz – Part 2: Prosecutorial Discretion

#83

Post by czr80 »

gbhn wrote: post #43
smacktoward wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"As for the fetishization of 'democracy' in Kerr's post, sometimes elections produce good outcomes. But often the wisdom of crowds isn't so wise" Well, yes, but that's why we do the whole voting thing again after a period of time, rather than just once. Democracy isn't a means to ensure bad decisions won't get made, it's a means to ensure they can be un-made. "Many times, perhaps most times, the crowd votes after som…

That's why the issue is contentious. Was the government of South Africa justified in taking special deterrence measures to deter Nelson Mandela from pursuing his anti-democratic efforts to unlawfully oppose the government? This is absolutely crazy talk. The fetishization of democracy cannot be allowed to undermine principled opposition to bugs found in its operation. I agree with Kerr that civil disobedience merits p…

Since at the time the majority of people in South Africa were not allowed to vote, you could hardly call it a democracy.

Re: The Criminal Charges Against Aaron Swartz – Part 2: Prosecutorial Discretion

#84

Post by sp332 »

czr80 wrote: post #83
gbhn wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why the issue is contentious. Was the government of South Africa justified in taking special deterrence measures to deter Nelson Mandela from pursuing his anti-democratic efforts to unlawfully oppose the government? This is absolutely crazy talk. The fetishization of democracy cannot be allowed to undermine principled opposition to bugs found in its operation. I agree with Kerr that civil disobedience merits p…

Since at the time the majority of people in South Africa were not allowed to vote, you could hardly call it a democracy.

The majority of people in ancient Greece couldn't vote either but they definitely had a democracy.

Re: The Criminal Charges Against Aaron Swartz – Part 2: Prosecutorial Discretion

#85

Post by czr80 »

cgio wrote: post #76

I am especially concerned about the author's logic /q When the police catch someone in the course of criminal conduct and intervene mid-way, the punishment is properly based on what the person was in the course of doing rather than how much he succeeded before he was caught. Let's say I issue a manifesto where I support free food for all. Would me picking up things in a store mean that I wanted to steal them or give…

He just means that if you picked up food and walked out without paying it wouldn't matter if you were caught in the parking lot while trying to escape(and so could return the food immediately) or caught two weeks later at home, long after the food has been eaten.

Re: The Criminal Charges Against Aaron Swartz – Part 2: Prosecutorial Discretion

#86

Post by karma_fountain »

jacquesm wrote: post #62

I love this George Bernard Shaw quote: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." Orin Kerr strikes me as a very reasonable man. There are lots of reasonable men. They're all going to stand around and argue about how many legal angels can dance on how many pins. Meanwhile, unreasonable…

Orin did suggest quite a few ways in which the law could be changed to become more reasonable.

Re: The Criminal Charges Against Aaron Swartz – Part 2: Prosecutorial Discretion

#87

Post by twoodfin »

spin wrote: post #75
rayiner wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a strong grain of truth to what you say. My politics are fairly lawyerly,[1] and I find the anti-democratic sentiment on here disquieting, especially the constant attempts to discredit the democratic process at every turn by unsubstantiated hand waving about how the system is "bought." [1] I think the chicken came before the egg. The profession attracts people who have a strong sense of order and con…

> unsubstantiated hand waving about how the system is "bought." On December 16, 2005, The New York Times reported that the Bush administration was spying on American citizens without a warrant. Most of the major Telecoms were participants in this massive, warrantless eavesdropping system. So the EFF and the ACLU filed lawsuits against these telecoms. Federal courts began ruling against the telecoms (Yay! Democracy in…

On December 16, 2005, The New York Times reported that the Bush administration was spying on American citizens without a warrant.

Unintentionally: Deliberately (albeit perhaps inadequately) avoiding purely domestic intercepts and destroying them when found. Subsequent legislation has attempted to make such intercepts even less likely and more transient.

That's a pretty important qualification. Why didn't you mention it? Your phrasing could equally apply to a program targeted at phone calls between California and New York.

Re: The Criminal Charges Against Aaron Swartz – Part 2: Prosecutorial Discretion

#88

Post by [deleted] »

spin wrote: post #75
rayiner wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a strong grain of truth to what you say. My politics are fairly lawyerly,[1] and I find the anti-democratic sentiment on here disquieting, especially the constant attempts to discredit the democratic process at every turn by unsubstantiated hand waving about how the system is "bought." [1] I think the chicken came before the egg. The profession attracts people who have a strong sense of order and con…

> unsubstantiated hand waving about how the system is "bought." On December 16, 2005, The New York Times reported that the Bush administration was spying on American citizens without a warrant. Most of the major Telecoms were participants in this massive, warrantless eavesdropping system. So the EFF and the ACLU filed lawsuits against these telecoms. Federal courts began ruling against the telecoms (Yay! Democracy in…

[deleted]

Re: The Criminal Charges Against Aaron Swartz – Part 2: Prosecutorial Discretion

#89

Post by [deleted] »

spin wrote: post #75
rayiner wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a strong grain of truth to what you say. My politics are fairly lawyerly,[1] and I find the anti-democratic sentiment on here disquieting, especially the constant attempts to discredit the democratic process at every turn by unsubstantiated hand waving about how the system is "bought." [1] I think the chicken came before the egg. The profession attracts people who have a strong sense of order and con…

> unsubstantiated hand waving about how the system is "bought." On December 16, 2005, The New York Times reported that the Bush administration was spying on American citizens without a warrant. Most of the major Telecoms were participants in this massive, warrantless eavesdropping system. So the EFF and the ACLU filed lawsuits against these telecoms. Federal courts began ruling against the telecoms (Yay! Democracy in…

[deleted]

Re: The Criminal Charges Against Aaron Swartz – Part 2: Prosecutorial Discretion

#90

Post by [deleted] »

spin wrote: post #75
rayiner wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a strong grain of truth to what you say. My politics are fairly lawyerly,[1] and I find the anti-democratic sentiment on here disquieting, especially the constant attempts to discredit the democratic process at every turn by unsubstantiated hand waving about how the system is "bought." [1] I think the chicken came before the egg. The profession attracts people who have a strong sense of order and con…

> unsubstantiated hand waving about how the system is "bought." On December 16, 2005, The New York Times reported that the Bush administration was spying on American citizens without a warrant. Most of the major Telecoms were participants in this massive, warrantless eavesdropping system. So the EFF and the ACLU filed lawsuits against these telecoms. Federal courts began ruling against the telecoms (Yay! Democracy in…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN