1. Brilliant programmer gets chance of a lifetime.
2. Turns that into lots of money early in life.
3. Decides to change the world in his own way.
4. Consciously & purposefully breaks the law.
5. Has a webpage to get others to pay his legal bills.
I've never met Aaron but I've always enjoyed his writing and looked forward to meeting him one day. But there is something seriously wrong about this.
Aaron should man up, take responsibility for his actions, and pay his own bills.
And if this is his idea of changing the world, perhaps he should reconsider his choices and find a better way of paying it forward to other brilliant programmers who never got the breaks he did.
1) I don't think Aaron made more than six figures from Reddit. Soon after acquisition, he went on walkabout, and then he got canned. He probably got some money, but did not vest most of his share.
So, don't worry - he's poor enough for your pity and support.
2) As to your second line of thought, that we should punish him because he consciously broke the law... I disagree with anyone on this forum who says that Aaron didn't know the potential consequences of his actions, and therefore should not be punished. But I also disagree with you.
This was a victimless crime, and the only ones pursuing it are some relentless G-men. Where is the corporation or person that has been wronged? Who, in the public, wants to pillory Aaron? What did Aaron gain? Do we really need to make an example of him, so this doesn't happen again? Is this really good a use of taxes?
My reaction is just shame and disgust... I mean, really? This brilliant kid is going to jail because of civil disobedience? Just so we can show there is still a book than can be thrown?
From the prosecution's vantage point --- and please stop for a minute and consider that perspective even though there's no chance you'll agree with it --- this was not a victimless crime.
As the prosecution sees it, Aaron broke into a service and took information that JSTOR charges 5 figures for access to with the intent of putting it on a file sharing network and thus destroying the commercial value of that information. If you read the indictment, the prosecution's vantage point seems to show that Aaron did this with the intention of destroying the commercial value of the information, because he opposes the commercialization† of that kind of information.
The prosecution's charge is that Aaron deliberately set out to harm an organization because they were incompatible with his own ideology.
>"The prosecution's charge is that Aaron deliberately set out to harm an organization because they were incompatible with his own ideology."
Sort of like how Rosa Parks decided to harm an organization because it didn't agree with her ideology. I mean, we're a nation of laws, she should have just sat where the bus driver told her to, am I right? Do we even have to debate the idea that sometimes laws are dictated to the people, not by the people?
Thankfully there are people who are actually willing to take action, rather than shilling for the powers that be. Academic research by public institutions should be free, in both senses of the word.
>"the prosecution's vantage point seems to show that Aaron did this with the intention of destroying the commercial value of the information"
Of course they will claim that, what else would they argue?
Huh? Rosa Parks didn't set out to harm the Montgomery Bus Line. She just took the "wrong" seat.
It's funny that people can play the Anti-Godwin without even really knowing who Rosa Parks was; at least you can assume the people who invoke Hitler actually know why Hitler was evil.
>"Rosa Parks didn't set out to harm the Montgomery Bus Line. She just took the "wrong" seat."
And Swartz didn't set out to harm JSTOR commercially. That's only the view of prosecutors, which is completely expected.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? The point of bringing up Rosa Parks is that you make claims like, "We are a nation ruled by laws, not people. It is not up to Aaron Swartz". Substitute Aaron Swartz for Rosa Parks/Gandhi/whatever other examples people have brought up, and you should see what a ridiculous statement that is.
>"It's funny that people can play the Anti-Godwin without even really knowing who Rosa Parks was"
What's really funny is that, between calling opposing ideas "dumb" and "retarded", you've managed to conceal from most of the HN community the fact that you're really an arrogant blow-hard.
Funny, because I see him repeating, over and over, that the purpose is to set academic research free. It's called the "Open Access Manifesto" for crying out loud, not "Let's bankrupt JSTOR!"
And it's that idea that myself and other "retards" here are able to get behind, despite the fact that he broke the law to try to accomplish it, and will likely suffer consequences.
Only on a message board are these two dots hard to connect. Because after JSTOR's whole database is made public, people will continue to pay JSTOR because they're nice guys.
>"Because after JSTOR's whole database is made public, people will continue to pay JSTOR because they're nice guys."
Because Universities and research facilities are going to download the JSTOR torrent as opposed to purchasing access, just because it's available, right?
That sounds a lot like the argument the record labels and MPAA make. I can't remember, do people still pay for music and movies?
> Huh? Rosa Parks didn't set out to harm the Montgomery Bus Line. She just took the "wrong" seat.
Ah, the intellectual inconsistency of conservatism, where condemnation or condonation is so dependent upon the arrow of time. Urging caution to slow down the rate of societal change is valid; fallacious arguments to further that goal are not.
At the time, the same cryptofascist arguments were bandied about for dear Rosa - she's upsetting the system of segregation between seats, she's destroying the value of the bus lines because white people won't want to ride them, she's delaying the bus and inconveniencing others, she's destroying the value of all businesses that rely on serving white customers, etc etc etc.
But since Rosa Parks is in the past, we embrace Rosa Parks and claim her as part of our American Heritage, responsible for helping usher in an era of freedom and equality. She was guilty of breaking the law, but consciously and respectfully submitted to the immutable system. But the system was wrong back then, so we no longer consider her a criminal.
But Aaron Swartz? He's guilty of stealing (hold pinky to mouth) millions of dollars. For a straightforward downloading of too many articles combined with an upsetting mens rea. Use the vague modern-witch hunting laws to lock him in the clink and throw away the key!
I agree that Aaron Swartz is guilty - of breaking into a closet. If MIT wishes, he should be prosecuted by the Middlesex DA and given the same punishment any non-poor white kid would receive - restitution and probation.
Oh boy.. I had wondered if you were going to say this. Sorry to break it to you, but you are conservative. (at least as far as your HN comments go)
Just go back and reread any thread of yours regarding TLS versus designing new protocols. The liberal cryptographers will design dozens of protocol implementations with starry-eyed visions of new unformalized properties that don't actually exist. Most will be used in places where TLS would have sufficed and most of them will be broken. But eventually something new will come out this mess, provide enough advantages to gain traction, and become hardened canon over the years. Conservative philosophy will never design a crypto protocol, but it will prevent a lot of damage from the redundant badly-designed protocols. Both philosophies are needed.
One could be both liberal and conservative in different areas, but your non-technical comments read the same way. Or perhaps you're just a bit confused about what conservatism actually is. Totally reasonable given the shifty name calling that masquerades as political "debate". This is quite long, but got me started on seeing where the continuum underlying the political spectrum actually comes from. http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/01/gentle-... . Eventually, despite that series's mischaracterizations and slightly wrong decomposition, I realized I am liberal (sorry MM) (also, this does not imply that I support politicians who use that label).
Harm? No, certainly not. But to make sure it's totally clear, she knew exactly what she was doing and had been trained in non-violent protest and civil disobedience at the Highlander Folk School.
During that era, having Rosa Parks (and potentially many other men and women of color) in "the wrong seat" could have potentially diminished the attractiveness of taking that Bus line for the patrons, thus damaging the Bus Line's profitability.
A more modern example of the presence of something "unwanted" bringing upon "damages", is Walmart moving into a high end town (which from what I understand, leads to a decrease in property values).
I am playing devil's advocate here, but Rosa Parks certainly could harm the Montgomery Bus Line with her inaccurate seat occupation.
The prosecution's perspective is warped by incentives - we should never care about how prosecutors feel or think - they are just tools of the people. Prosecutors need convictions, promotions, and press to succeed at their jobs. At this point, it's not JSTOR who wants this case prosecuted, it's just government agents. And they are just going through the motions.
It may be up to a jury to do the right thing - they stand a better change of being unbiased, thankfully for Aaron.
"We should never care about how prosecutors think" is a nonsense statement even for someone who believes that AUSAs and DAs are invariable corrupt and self-interested.
How does that follow? Their job is to prosecute. They're not corrupt--they're doing their jobs. No one is faulting them. They're just part of a system that is meant to be punitive even in the face of doing net damage to society.
What does putting him in prison accomplish? Obviously they're prosecuting him just because he broke a law. Not because he hurt anyone, or because he stole a bunch of money, or because he is a danger to society. They're trying to put him in prison as punishment for breaking a rule. Which is fine, except that in this case, he's obviously someone capable of making meaningful contributions to society. It just doesn't make sense to lock him up like they're trying to.
And all of this doesn't mean he shouldn't be punished--its just very plain to see that prosecutors have a job to do, and being sympathetic to who they're prosecuting isn't part of their job. If they're particularly good at their job, it would be a net loss to society.
Nobody is suggesting that the outcome of every case should follow what prosecutors think. What we are instead now discussing is the ridiculous notion that nobody should even care what they think. Well, pretty Aaron Swartz cares a whole lot about what they think, despite disagreeing strongly with all of it.
The subtext of this argument is obviously, "prosecutors are self-interested, and what they claim to think has nothing to do with what they really think, which is 'I am going to pursue whichever cases present the best opportunity for career advancement'." This, too, is a dumb way to think, because however much prosecutors may or may not think that way, judges and juries do not think that way, nor do they believe prosecutors are entirely animated by career concerns.
A prosecutor's job is to seek justice, not convictions. If a prosecutor believes a conviction would be unjust despite being technically compatible with the law, it would be unethical to pursue such a conviction.
A prosecutor's job is to seek justice, not convictions.
No, a prosecutor's job is not to seek justice, their job in adversarial legal system is to prosecute a case in the guidelines of the law. Its pretty clear that the prosecutor has a case against Aaron and its not their job to decide on whether the law is "just" or "right" their job is to prosecute that case to the fullest extent of the law. The last thing we need are prosecutors choosing what laws should and should not be enforced.
Its the judge and jury's job to decide what and what is not just.
Wrong. "The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done." -- Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935)
Even if you don't care what prosecutors think generally, do you think they characterized his intent pretty accurately? To destroy the commercial value of the information by making it freely available to everyone?
I doubt, that releasing a torrent would have destroyed the commercial value of the service. Torrent is a rather poor way of distributing scientific articles. I doubt researchers would use it much, or that there would be a huge loss of revenue.
1) Reddit's acquisition was a cash deal, reportedly $20M. Aaron made a blog post at one point about walking out with a check with more zeroes than he ever expected to see. I think it's likely he made about $5-7M off it, given that Reddit and Infogami merged right after the SFP, before either had much success.
The same article says there were two original founders, and two later founders, which kind of tells me they didn't split that $10-20M evenly.
Even if it was all cash with no sort of vesting or earn-out, and Aaron got 10% (sounds about right for a non-true-founder), that would only be $1-2M, and that would be taxed down to six figures. All my financial speculation is based on what I find on the internet, though I have met Aaron a couple of times.
so this brilliant kid, is allowed a different set of rules from the rest of the populace? he committed a crime with the very intention of stealing and was caught. as a modern society we have rules to curb this behavior - obviously, Aaron, by your post, is above this and needs his own set of rules.
>He probably got some money, but did not vest most of his share.
If I had no faith at all in your word, I would consider that very unlikely since Aaron was probably an impoverished student at the time, and he seems rational enough not to throw away income in such a reckless way.
Anyway, now you've got me curious.
ADDED. "If I had no faith at all in your word," was probably not the best way to phrase it. All I meant was, "Before reading your comment, I would have considered it unlikely . . ."
He did it to, as far as I know, set the information free from the paywall. To release that information so anyone and everyone can access the research we'd already paid for.
A noble cause? yeah I think so.
I don't want to compare it to Ghandi's salt works but the comparison could be made. A stand against artificial restrictions on something that should be free or cheap for all.
No. Imagine a museum was displaying an oil painting that had been illegally taken by the Nazis in the 1940s and kept from its rightful owners, who were alive today and appalled that their property, evidence of the 20th Century's worst war crime, was hanging on someone else's wall. Now imagine someone broke into the museum, took the painting, and returned it to their owners.
That person is guilty of breaking and entering and, I believe, of theft.
We are a nation ruled by laws, not people. It is via the due process of law that claims like "all the information held in JSTOR is the property of the citizens of the US" are resolved. It is not up to Aaron Swartz.
That's the Civics class version. The real version is more about realpolitik. People make the laws, and use violence (or the threat of it) to carry them out. And these laws will predictably reflect distributions of power in society.
When we had slavery, those laws deserved to be broken without hesitation. Repeatedly. Virtually no one believes all laws, in each country, should be followed. In fact, direct action basically means you will not Do As You're Told, and thereby disobey someone's law.
(What does the US goverment do in places like the Middle East and South America? Try to remove governments which make laws they don't like, and install ones which do.)
So back to your example, yeah, no one sheds a tear if someone returns paintings to their rightful possessors, having taken them back from thieving Nazis (and their shady beneficiaries). Same goes for the British Museum and anything they stole via colonialism.
What right do I have to restrict your access to knowledge?
What if someone went around the entire country and put every book into a huge safe. Then locked the safe shut and let anyone enter the safe for $25 a pop. Would you be okay with this? Would you cite the law and accept your fate?
Yes, this is a country governed by laws, and we're all grateful. But those laws can and are at times abused to create monopolistic practices, like restricting access to research.
Ask yourself, just what value does JSTOR add that's worth $25 per article in the modern day of digital distribution?
Huh? What right does a museum have to display that painting?
No reasonable person questions that the laws get things wrong or create opportunities for market abusers. But hopefully, most reasonable people don't believe that the antidote for those problems is vigilantism.
It's not a natural right, but that statement makes it sound like you're against copyright. If that is the case, I don't think many people agree with you.
No. Imagine a museum was displaying an oil painting that had been illegally taken by the Nazis in the 1940s and kept from its rightful owners, who were alive today and appalled that their property, evidence of the 20th Century's worst war crime, was hanging on someone else's wall. Now imagine someone was invited into the museum, took a picture of the painting, and wanted to, but didn't post it online.
That person is guilty of breaking arbitrary laws guided by poor analogies between the physical and digital worlds and, I believe, of nothing.
We are a nation ruled by laws, not people. It is via the due process of law that claims like "wow, we need to wake up and change some of these ridiculous laws" are resolved. It is not up to just Aaron Swartz.
Did he only "free" publicly funded research papers? What about all the work that is funded by private foundations or even self-funded? In some disciplines, for example physical anthropology, most research is not publicly funded. You didn't pay for it. What gives you the right to set it "free"?
Maybe he can't. Maybe he is broke already. Maybe his fortune from previous enterprised wasn't that much. Who knows .. there must be a good reason. I'll support him.
I must be crazy then. I would've sworn that aaronsw wrote a blog post where he talked about having "fuck you money", depression, and other things like that.
Exactly. Mr. "Demand Progress" needs to understand that we are a nation of laws, and that those who knowingly break those laws will be -- and should be -- punished.
And, no, this is not a case of civil disobedience. If it was, Swartz would have publicly violated the law (rather than attempting to conceal the crime) in order to draw attention to its putative unfairness.
Aaron Swartz is a spoiled brat. I hope that they throw the book at him.
You are posting this comment on a forum that is run by a business co-founded by someone who was convicted under the same statute as Swartz is accused of violating. You knew that, right? Many years ago, he "broke the law" and was convicted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. But he served no jail time. I guess the situation was different in many ways. Tell us how. Or maybe it was not so different. What do you think?
I think the most interesting aspect of this case is that JSTOR is not pressing any sort of civil charges. In fact, they said Aaron's actions urged them to expedite something they were planning on doing anyways.
People keep bringing this up like it means something. JSTOR isn't pressing civil charges because there's no upside in it for them to do that. Relative to the overwhelming majority of criminal cases, this case is a media shitstorm. If I was a director at a nonprofit, I too would avoid sticking my whole head into the angry wasp's nest that is the Swartz federal case.
You cannot reasonably read tacit support for Aaron Swartz into JSTOR's failure to press charges.
I was mugged last year and I didn't press charges (my three muggers were, as it turned out, barely old enough to have graduated high school). Do I support muggings?
(Some nerd is typing as fast as he can to make the argument that I tacitly am doing that, so let me head you off at the pass NO I DO NOT.)
If the consequences were in line with his actions this logic would work, but life in prison is an extraordinarily oppressive response to this type of disobedience.
Further, using the legal system to extract a huge penalty before any jury has decided on guilt is the worst type of bullying by the big against the small.
Lastly, many of us relate to what Aaron is going through, and simple compassion compels us to help. Saying Aaron should "man up, take responsibility for his actions, and pay his own bills" belittles him and those of us who have chosen to support him.
There is virtually no chance Swartz is going to spend time in prison. People convicted of far more malicious computer frauds have spent minimal (and sometimes no) time in prison.
Swartz, on the other hand, is a young, successful first-time offender.
I know it makes the story a lot more boring to talk about when the only consequences are financial and reputational, but consider that perhaps when you talk about Swartz spending "35 years" in federal prison, you are being ghoulish.
Yeah, also a good point. For what it's worth: I don't support what Aaron did. I do hope he wins his case. And, like you said, it seems clear that the specific array of charges he's facing constitute a deliberate shock-and-awe campaign on the part of the AUSA prosecuting the case.
You maybe figure, the AUSA's position is, whatever happens in this case, Swartz is at least walking away with a felony conviction.
Out of curiosity, if you believe what he did violates the rule of law (I hope I have correctly summarized your view from other posts), why do you hope he escapes the legal consequences of his actions?
I certainly don't want Aaron to face unduly severe consequences for his actions, but I'm not sure how you are reconciling those two views.
From serving on a federal grand jury I got the distinct (though unstated) impression that the indictment was used as leverage in plea negotiations. It is fine and good to display "I will fight this to the bitter end" bravado on the internet, but when faced with an uncertain trial outcome (all are, even if you are 100% innocent) where the cost of losing is say 20+ years in the federal system (which has no parole, so if you get 20 years you serve 20 years), people tend to welcome deals/pleas. In one view everyone wins, the govt. has a victory and the defendant avoids the worst outcome. On the other hand it is depressing to see the justice system used in this manner (i.e. bullying/threats used to get defendants to agree to a plea deal so the govt. doesn't have to bother with a real trial).
Even if he argued the whole case pro se, he still probably wouldn't get prison time. Again: people far dumber and more malignant than Swartz have avoided prison time in CFAA cases.
The DoJ definitely wants to make an example of Swartz, they don't hate him more than carders.
What the fuck is meant by "man up" in these kind of circumstances?
Is your average man supposed to take 30 years+ on the chin for trying to release academic papers?
If he didn't have a penis would you feel more compassion? As I have never heard it be suggested that a woman in desperate circumstances has a need to man up.
As for what could he do to give more breaks to other programmers, he was trying to give out academic papers for fuck's sake. On the scale of things, that is giving more breaks to others, than most people accomplish in a lifetime.
Aaron should man up, take responsibility for his actions, and pay his own bills.
And if this is his idea of changing the world, perhaps he should reconsider his choices and find a better way of paying it forward to other brilliant programmers who never got the breaks he did.