- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Farewell to Aaron Swartz, an extraordinary hacker and activist
Aaron Swartz committed suicide on Friday. Aaron was only 26 but in his short life he worked on the RSS specifications, web.py, tor2web, the Open Library, and the Chrome port of HTTPS Everywhere. Aaron helped launch the Creative Commons. He was a former co-founder at Reddit. The article emphasises the current injustice of U.S. computer crime laws, and particularly their punishment regimes. |
|
|
Comments (27)
7 earlier comments in the full thread.
@notbob --
Not quite as simple as that. Here's a question for you:
In what rational universe is hacking a server that holds publicly-funded journals a crime worse than walking into a bank, shooting off assault weapons, and making off with the money?
The guy was facing 50 years in jail. 50 freakin' years. It's not bad enough that the laws themselves have tilted away from their original purpose and towards the big wads of cash calling the shots, but the penalties are insane. This is just plain wrong.
For a comparison, it's like taking all of those Freedom Riders back in the Civil Rights era, those folks who dared to sit down in segregated diners or drink from a "Whites Only" water fountain, and sentencing them to life without parole (fyi -- you are eligible for parole from federal sentences after service 85% of the time, which would have been 42.5 years in this case).
Not quite as simple as that. Here's a question for you:
In what rational universe is hacking a server that holds publicly-funded journals a crime worse than walking into a bank, shooting off assault weapons, and making off with the money?
The guy was facing 50 years in jail. 50 freakin' years. It's not bad enough that the laws themselves have tilted away from their original purpose and towards the big wads of cash calling the shots, but the penalties are insane. This is just plain wrong.
For a comparison, it's like taking all of those Freedom Riders back in the Civil Rights era, those folks who dared to sit down in segregated diners or drink from a "Whites Only" water fountain, and sentencing them to life without parole (fyi -- you are eligible for parole from federal sentences after service 85% of the time, which would have been 42.5 years in this case).
Y'all are assuming that he would have gotten the maximum sentence if convicted. First, he hadn't been convicted of anything just yet. Second, it isn't at all clear that he would have received a maximum sentence. Kevin Mitnick didn't and he did eventually go free. There is no question that the government likes to make examples of people in cases like this but, despite notbob's claims to the contrary, our legal system is not totally rigged and good defense lawyers can do their jobs properly.
Oh, and yes, I make my living in IT (as a government contractor in the criminal justice system, no less) and I have dealt with depression at a couple of points in my life. Thankfully I did get help and I am still here.
Oh, and yes, I make my living in IT (as a government contractor in the criminal justice system, no less) and I have dealt with depression at a couple of points in my life. Thankfully I did get help and I am still here.
@caitlyn --
Not claiming that Swartz's action was rational in any way, however -- I'm terribly sorry, I just can't see making this a crime worse than walking into banks with a gun and shooting the place up.
Not claiming that Swartz's action was rational in any way, however -- I'm terribly sorry, I just can't see making this a crime worse than walking into banks with a gun and shooting the place up.
double +1 dinotrac and same for Ridcully, tuxchick, and most of you others above on Aaron's martyrdom.
Besides Larry Lessig's blog which Ridcully linked near the top of the thread, there is an online petition circulating around both for those who make a living in IT and others, to Remove United States District Attorney Carmen Ortiz from office for overreach in the case of Aaron Swartz. Link is https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-district-attorney-carmen-ortiz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck , it was started by a Larry P located closer to tuxchick's part of the woods, and in just the last couple of days it has already gathered 12K+ signatures.
-fb
Besides Larry Lessig's blog which Ridcully linked near the top of the thread, there is an online petition circulating around both for those who make a living in IT and others, to Remove United States District Attorney Carmen Ortiz from office for overreach in the case of Aaron Swartz. Link is https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-district-attorney-carmen-ortiz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck , it was started by a Larry P located closer to tuxchick's part of the woods, and in just the last couple of days it has already gathered 12K+ signatures.
-fb
Thanks dino. I am fed up with the snitty handwavers (I made the mistake of reading Slashdot) who have no clue of the legal pressures brought to bear on Aaron Swartz, or the level of prosecutorial overreach. Real brave going after a young kid for pretty much nothing. Nobody with a heart and a brain takes this sort of thing lightly-- look at all the people hammered with giant financial judgments for copyright violations (thanks MAFIAA!), Dmitri Sklyarov held in jail for months and not allowed to go home, and on and on. Even when you win you lose-- you lose tons of money, time, energy, and reputation. A little rationality and proportion are not too much to ask.
dinotrac wrote:In what rational universe is hacking a server that holds publicly-funded journals a crime worse than walking into a bank, shooting off assault weapons, and making off with the money?
I'll answer with another question: What makes you so naive as to believe we are living in a "rational universe"?
That's the sad trap for idealistic youth. They think in terms of how it should be, not how it really is. That's not to say there is no place for young idealism. Unfortunately, tragic truth usually prevails over idealism and the sad truth is, information is money and money goes where it is needed, even if that need is in the hallowed halls of what we laughingly call justice.
So, be all inflamed and indignant. But, most of you know damn well that if you step on some moneyed toes, there will be repercussions. It's truly unfortunate that Aaron was not as life savvy as he was technically brilliant.
It's doubly unfortunate Aaron was subject to depression, a shamefully widespread malady mostly ignored by our greedy medical industry. They're too busy scamming the populace with cures for what we once called shyness and fidgiting and giving men who should know better four hour boners. No one cares about real medical problems unless there's a price tag on it. Aaron was as much a victim of this irrational medical reality as he was of our "rational" legal "universe".
@dino. I'm in Texas. To quote one of the locals: "In Texas if you kill someone we kill you back." Shoot up a bank here and if someone dies you'll end up in that big brick building here in town where they have executions every now and again.
Please don't misunderstand me. I think Mr. Swartz's death is tragic. I wish it hadn't happened. I wish he had sought help for his depression. I also wish he had chosen another means to protest the paywall in front of JSTOR. I am not condoning the actions of the prosecutor, particularly when MIT was ready to back off in this case. However, I think it's wrong to blame the prosecutors and US law entirely. There's plenty of blame to go around. It isn't a prosecutor's job to worry about the mental state of someone who's been accused of a felony.
If you think the current statutes are wrong (and I do, to some extent, as everyone else here seems to do) then work through the system to change them. That worked to block SOPA and PIPA and, if public awareness is raised and enough people become angry, it can work in the case of the laws involved here too.
Please don't misunderstand me. I think Mr. Swartz's death is tragic. I wish it hadn't happened. I wish he had sought help for his depression. I also wish he had chosen another means to protest the paywall in front of JSTOR. I am not condoning the actions of the prosecutor, particularly when MIT was ready to back off in this case. However, I think it's wrong to blame the prosecutors and US law entirely. There's plenty of blame to go around. It isn't a prosecutor's job to worry about the mental state of someone who's been accused of a felony.
If you think the current statutes are wrong (and I do, to some extent, as everyone else here seems to do) then work through the system to change them. That worked to block SOPA and PIPA and, if public awareness is raised and enough people become angry, it can work in the case of the laws involved here too.
> I also wish he had chosen another means to protest the paywall in front of JSTOR.
I wish he hadn't gotten caught. :(
> ...then work through the system to change them.
Because that's worked so well in the past. Sorry, Caitlyn, Disney has way more money to buy legislators than I do. And like it or not, that IS how the system works now.
I wish he hadn't gotten caught. :(
> ...then work through the system to change them.
Because that's worked so well in the past. Sorry, Caitlyn, Disney has way more money to buy legislators than I do. And like it or not, that IS how the system works now.
@jdixon: If that was how the system worked we'd have President Romney and a Republican Senate. We don't. The whole protest to stop SOPA and PIPA proved that public outcry can still defeat a whole boatload of money. (The party affiliation or candidates don't matter -- the last U.S. election is only used as an example most people are familiar with.)
Once upon a time I was a lobbyist for an environmental group at the state level. We had little money for anything. We had the ability to motivate people and present a legislator with 6,600 signed cards asking for her to vote for a specific bill. When she won her seat she received 6,200 votes total. We got a conservative Republican vote for what was seen as a liberal Democratic piece of legislation because we demonstrated that was what her constituents wanted. I can think of plenty of examples where you could swap the party names, BTW, so, again, this has nothing to do with ideology or party. It has everything to do with the fact that the United States is still very much a working, albeit indirect, democracy.
Once upon a time I was a lobbyist for an environmental group at the state level. We had little money for anything. We had the ability to motivate people and present a legislator with 6,600 signed cards asking for her to vote for a specific bill. When she won her seat she received 6,200 votes total. We got a conservative Republican vote for what was seen as a liberal Democratic piece of legislation because we demonstrated that was what her constituents wanted. I can think of plenty of examples where you could swap the party names, BTW, so, again, this has nothing to do with ideology or party. It has everything to do with the fact that the United States is still very much a working, albeit indirect, democracy.
@caitlyn -
I don't actually blame the prosecutors, no matter how stupid, heartless, and counter-productive they may have been. There is a justifiable fear of cyber-crime and the losses are not trivial. You might even call this prosecution a gift from anonymous and the good folks at wikileaks.
I expect prosecutors to be zealous, especially with things they don't well understand. The folks who made it possible to threaten this kid with 50 years? Not so impressive.
I don't actually blame the prosecutors, no matter how stupid, heartless, and counter-productive they may have been. There is a justifiable fear of cyber-crime and the losses are not trivial. You might even call this prosecution a gift from anonymous and the good folks at wikileaks.
I expect prosecutors to be zealous, especially with things they don't well understand. The folks who made it possible to threaten this kid with 50 years? Not so impressive.
notbob:
Were you out of diapers yet by the time I lost my naivite?
That process started when I my father was killed in the fighter he piloted. It was pushed along a bit further by walking down the stairs in my house, behind a couple of 19 year-old kids -- barely older than I was -- who had lost their legs in VietName.
Were you out of diapers yet by the time I lost my naivite?
That process started when I my father was killed in the fighter he piloted. It was pushed along a bit further by walking down the stairs in my house, behind a couple of 19 year-old kids -- barely older than I was -- who had lost their legs in VietName.
@caitlyn
>> The whole protest to stop SOPA and PIPA proved that public outcry can still defeat a whole boatload of money.
>> so, again, this has nothing to do with ideology or party. It has everything to do with the fact that the United States is still very much a working, albeit indirect, democracy.
... and, I think, the effectiveness of the public outcry following Aaron's death is ALSO notable given that the petition to Remove United States District Attorney Carmen Ortiz from office for overreach in the case of Aaron Swartz has added another 2.5K+ signatures SOLELY in the 2.5hrs since I posted its link above (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-district-attorney-carmen-ortiz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck.) Granted, the signatures are mostly from donkey Blue states, but still, I think the increasing number is not too shabby given the two days since the petiton 1st came out. Seems to me that many more of us than not hope that democracy as you write it WILL AGAIN PREVAIL and that prosecutor Carmen Ortiz will be at last held ACCOUNTABLE for her trying to ruin Aaron's life!!
-fb
>> The whole protest to stop SOPA and PIPA proved that public outcry can still defeat a whole boatload of money.
>> so, again, this has nothing to do with ideology or party. It has everything to do with the fact that the United States is still very much a working, albeit indirect, democracy.
... and, I think, the effectiveness of the public outcry following Aaron's death is ALSO notable given that the petition to Remove United States District Attorney Carmen Ortiz from office for overreach in the case of Aaron Swartz has added another 2.5K+ signatures SOLELY in the 2.5hrs since I posted its link above (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-district-attorney-carmen-ortiz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck.) Granted, the signatures are mostly from donkey Blue states, but still, I think the increasing number is not too shabby given the two days since the petiton 1st came out. Seems to me that many more of us than not hope that democracy as you write it WILL AGAIN PREVAIL and that prosecutor Carmen Ortiz will be at last held ACCOUNTABLE for her trying to ruin Aaron's life!!
-fb
> If that was how the system worked we'd have President Romney and a Republican Senate. We don't.
Really? Romney had more money than Obama? Somebody must have forgotten to tell CBS: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/12/07/obama-sets-all-tim...
> The whole protest to stop SOPA and PIPA proved that public outcry can still defeat a whole boatload of money.
The details of which are now being reimplemented quietly in piecemeal fashion, without the fanfare of SOPA and PIPA, to avoid a repeat of same.
> ...this has nothing to do with ideology or party. It has everything to do with the fact that the United States is still very much a working, albeit indirect, democracy.
I'm glad you think so. I don't. We could trade examples of where public pressure did and did not work all day, and I think my examples would be at least as convincing as yours. But this isn't the place for that, so I'll drop the matter. It's not like either of us would convince the other anyway.
Really? Romney had more money than Obama? Somebody must have forgotten to tell CBS: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/12/07/obama-sets-all-tim...
> The whole protest to stop SOPA and PIPA proved that public outcry can still defeat a whole boatload of money.
The details of which are now being reimplemented quietly in piecemeal fashion, without the fanfare of SOPA and PIPA, to avoid a repeat of same.
> ...this has nothing to do with ideology or party. It has everything to do with the fact that the United States is still very much a working, albeit indirect, democracy.
I'm glad you think so. I don't. We could trade examples of where public pressure did and did not work all day, and I think my examples would be at least as convincing as yours. But this isn't the place for that, so I'll drop the matter. It's not like either of us would convince the other anyway.
Some of you know that back in '06 I was charged with a crime I didn't commit. The charges were eventually dismissed but the process was long and expensive. During the time I had a felony charge pending I was unemployable. I rolled up my sleeves, started a consulting business, and made a living anyway.
I was told by my attorney that it's the prosecutor's job to believe the accused is guilty and to work accordingly. Prosecutors are judged by their conviction rate and one common tactic is to tell defendants and their attorneys how solid the case is and how they are going for maximum penalties under the law. The purpose is to scare the defendant into a plea bargain, which counts as a win for the prosecutor. So, yes, if the maximum penalty was 50 years that was going to be the threat even if the chances that such a severe penalty was going to be imposed in the case of a conviction was nearly zero. I'm not saying that was the case because I don't know. I am saying that the threat would have been there regardless of whether the case was weak or strong. The threat would have been there whether or not such a severe penalty was likely. It's part of our adversarial system of criminal justice. They want to scare you -- that's the whole point.
During the period I was dealing with the legal issues I had bouts of deep depression so I have some clue what Mr. Swartz was going through. The one advantage I had was that I knew I was innocent and I knew my attorney and his investigator had gathered ample evidence that someone else had committed the crime. It still took way too long and it was way too expensive to get the charges dropped. For someone who was prone to depression and may actually have had more reason to fear (i.e.: actual guilt) I could see where they could become suicidal.
Probably the greatest irony of all is that I now work in the criminal justice system in a position I could never hold if I couldn't pass a rigorous background check. Actually, it was three background checks: two by the state and one by the FBI. My point is that the system, with all it's flaws, mostly does work. It's awfully hard to see that sometimes when you're facing the threat of a prison term.
I was told by my attorney that it's the prosecutor's job to believe the accused is guilty and to work accordingly. Prosecutors are judged by their conviction rate and one common tactic is to tell defendants and their attorneys how solid the case is and how they are going for maximum penalties under the law. The purpose is to scare the defendant into a plea bargain, which counts as a win for the prosecutor. So, yes, if the maximum penalty was 50 years that was going to be the threat even if the chances that such a severe penalty was going to be imposed in the case of a conviction was nearly zero. I'm not saying that was the case because I don't know. I am saying that the threat would have been there regardless of whether the case was weak or strong. The threat would have been there whether or not such a severe penalty was likely. It's part of our adversarial system of criminal justice. They want to scare you -- that's the whole point.
During the period I was dealing with the legal issues I had bouts of deep depression so I have some clue what Mr. Swartz was going through. The one advantage I had was that I knew I was innocent and I knew my attorney and his investigator had gathered ample evidence that someone else had committed the crime. It still took way too long and it was way too expensive to get the charges dropped. For someone who was prone to depression and may actually have had more reason to fear (i.e.: actual guilt) I could see where they could become suicidal.
Probably the greatest irony of all is that I now work in the criminal justice system in a position I could never hold if I couldn't pass a rigorous background check. Actually, it was three background checks: two by the state and one by the FBI. My point is that the system, with all it's flaws, mostly does work. It's awfully hard to see that sometimes when you're facing the threat of a prison term.
@flufferbeer: Well, I live in an elephant red state. (This is where the best job offer was. The decision has nothing to do with politics.) I'm not quite ready to sign the recall petition. Having said that, as I learn more about the case there is a chance I will sign if it really looks like the prosecutor acted inapproriately. However, I think, given what I posted above, that isn't likely. It's simply the way the system is designed to work. The impact on a vulnerable young man who had a lot to offer the world remains tragic. Overreach? Misconduct? Maybe. I don't know yet. I'm not sure I ever will.
What I will say is that I am glad people are getting involved. If the petition is signed by enough people and the public outcry is loud enough at the very least we have a better chance of getting the truth out. We also have a chance at building a movement to actually make changes in the system.
What I will say is that I am glad people are getting involved. If the petition is signed by enough people and the public outcry is loud enough at the very least we have a better chance of getting the truth out. We also have a chance at building a movement to actually make changes in the system.
@catilyn -
That's pretty much why I don't get mad at the prosecutors in this case. They were doing their job the way prosecutors do their jobs, and have done their jobs since who knows when. The problem is the politically-inspired (not to mention the entertainment industry) penalties in this case.
And, of course, there is nothing you can do about people who get scared and wig out. People are, and always will be, people. We are each a bundle of strengths and weaknesses, some of which can do us in when the stars line up in exactly the wrong way.
That's pretty much why I don't get mad at the prosecutors in this case. They were doing their job the way prosecutors do their jobs, and have done their jobs since who knows when. The problem is the politically-inspired (not to mention the entertainment industry) penalties in this case.
And, of course, there is nothing you can do about people who get scared and wig out. People are, and always will be, people. We are each a bundle of strengths and weaknesses, some of which can do us in when the stars line up in exactly the wrong way.
I have followed with great interest the discussion above...the more so because unlike many of you, I am not a citizen of the USA. Like all of you, I share intensely your profound grief at the loss of a brilliant mind. My final comment though, is that I hope Caitlyn is right and enough people get together to force change in and removal of respectively of two things:
1. Changes to the abominable laws that currently permit relatively minor infringements to be dealt with as if they were matters of national security and thereby attached to the grossly "over the top" penalties that national security crimes attract.
2. Removal of the JSTOR paywall (and others that are similar) on what is essentially public owned information. I will never agree to anything less. A nation stands or falls on its ability to share information, and thereby innovate, build on previous work and progress. For want of better words, I now call MIT/JSTOR an "Information Monopoly" which is just as bad as any other business monopoly that has or does exist in the USA. But the MIT/JSTOR's effects are far more sinister....by blocking access to the research of the past, MIT/JSTOR prevents today's scientists from building on it and going further.....put simplistically, unless you hand over wads of cash, these information paywalls force you to reinvent the wheel all over again in order to improve a gas turbine for a jet liner. Greed comes before progress.
There should never be any wall placed in front of past discovery and information so that it is always open to the current generation. My personal take is that MIT/JSTOR and other information monopolies are committing a horrendous crime against the people of the USA that is far more insidious and far more terrible in its effects to the progress of USA society than Swartz' unfortunate efforts to unplug the dam. At least we are now aware of the situation and something can be done......I hope.
1. Changes to the abominable laws that currently permit relatively minor infringements to be dealt with as if they were matters of national security and thereby attached to the grossly "over the top" penalties that national security crimes attract.
2. Removal of the JSTOR paywall (and others that are similar) on what is essentially public owned information. I will never agree to anything less. A nation stands or falls on its ability to share information, and thereby innovate, build on previous work and progress. For want of better words, I now call MIT/JSTOR an "Information Monopoly" which is just as bad as any other business monopoly that has or does exist in the USA. But the MIT/JSTOR's effects are far more sinister....by blocking access to the research of the past, MIT/JSTOR prevents today's scientists from building on it and going further.....put simplistically, unless you hand over wads of cash, these information paywalls force you to reinvent the wheel all over again in order to improve a gas turbine for a jet liner. Greed comes before progress.
There should never be any wall placed in front of past discovery and information so that it is always open to the current generation. My personal take is that MIT/JSTOR and other information monopolies are committing a horrendous crime against the people of the USA that is far more insidious and far more terrible in its effects to the progress of USA society than Swartz' unfortunate efforts to unplug the dam. At least we are now aware of the situation and something can be done......I hope.
Prosecutors have considerable discretion and considerable power to totally hose a person's life even if they're never tried or convicted; there is no requirement to loose the nukes on something as trivial as this. Unfortunately there is no penalty when they screw up and ruin lives and Ortiz should be charged with a crime. But sadly, that will not happen. This went from absurd to tragic in record time, and all for what? Gawdlmighty people, for what?
@tc -
It's easy to focus on the prosecutor, but prosecutors are political animals and they can't do this kind of thing without political cover. The folks who passed the law set the parameters, and the people who run things gave tacit support to run with the ball.
It's easy to focus on the prosecutor, but prosecutors are political animals and they can't do this kind of thing without political cover. The folks who passed the law set the parameters, and the people who run things gave tacit support to run with the ball.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
How many of you make a living managing, manipulating, directing, controlling, and SECURING the flow and use of information, i.e. how many of you make a living in IT?
Here's another: How many of you have lost a loved one to severe depression?
Here's my answers to a few questions:
Q. Is the USA legal system in the hands of big business? A. Without a doubt.
Q. Is the control of information in the USA big business? A. Is water wet?
Q. Is making money in the USA more important than the health of its population? A. Does the sun rise in the East?
Q. Is the prison system one of the fastest growth industries in the USA? A. You can bet your freedom on it!!
Q. Did Aaron Swartz illegally break and enter and illegally obtain information? A. I can't prove it, but looks like it to me.
Q. Was Aaron pushed to suicidal despair over the possibility of ending up in prison? A. I know I certainly would be.
Now, yer turn, again:
Why would a person allegedly so brilliant do something so blattantly stupid as to put himself in danger of being punished in a way so abhorrent to himself?
Do you think anything will become of this tragic episode other than a few news blurbs, then we'll jes go back to breathlessly speculating over the next iJunk offering?
"The fecal matter I stir may be your own" --Mr Redpants