Arduino Forum

Community => Bar Sport => Topic started by: Grumpy_Mike on Jan 12, 2013, 08:13 pm

Title: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: Grumpy_Mike on Jan 12, 2013, 08:13 pm
I had not come across him but apparently I had seen the fruits of his labors. One of the founders of the Creative Commons license and RSS standards and only 26.

http://boingboing.net/2013/01/12/rip-aaron-swartz.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+boingboing%2FiBag+%28Boing+Boing%29 (http://boingboing.net/2013/01/12/rip-aaron-swartz.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+boingboing%2FiBag+%28Boing+Boing%29)
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: robtillaart on Jan 12, 2013, 08:49 pm
Way too young ...
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: Jimmy60 on Jan 12, 2013, 10:51 pm
Same age as my son. Terrible.

The world can be an unkind place to the genius.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: flyboy on Jan 14, 2013, 05:53 pm
I think it's a testimony to the ferocity with which we are faced when demanding that information be free to all.  The powers that be are not friendly to many freedoms, especially the freedom of information.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: kf2qd on Jan 14, 2013, 11:05 pm
The bigger problem is that he seemed to think that it was his right (or obligation) to free other peoples ideas. It is what is known as theft if I choose to free your cattle or sheep or other property. If you come up with an idea should I have the right to publish it and benefit from it without your permission? He, like the Occupy Wall Street folk seemed to think that because he wants it a certain way, then all others should submit to his "superior" ideas.

My personal thought is that this is the end result of a spoiled life that was not taught right from wrong, or respect for others. He broke the law, stole other peoples property and could not accept that he was not the supreme abitter in this situation.

The game wasn't being played by his rules so he took his ball and went home. The ultimate act of a selfish individual.

As part of a society, I either have to work within that societies means for change of be prepared to deal with the results of my refusal to conform.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: keeper63 on Jan 15, 2013, 05:56 am
The bigger problem is that he seemed to think that it was his right (or obligation) to free other peoples ideas. It is what is known as theft if I choose to free your cattle or sheep or other property.


Theft deprives the owner of physical property. If I steal or "free" your cattle or sheep or other property, you can no longer make use of that property.

If however, I were to somehow make a copy of all your cattle, sheep or other property - while you still retained your original - what have you lost? You can still do with your property as you like.

Or - are you trying to say that just because you came up with some form of ephemeral "information" - that anyone who wants it -must- pay you for it, that you -deserve- payment for it? What if I don't pay you, nor do I take a copy - haven't I just denied you money, and in effect have "stolen" something from you (that is, I didn't give you the money you were entitled for the idea you created)?

That's the nature of information - anything that is infinitely copyable technically has zero value; we only make up these laws and such to give artificial value to something that naturally should have little to no value at all, if left to it's own devices, so to speak.

If you come up with an idea should I have the right to publish it and benefit from it without your permission?


If you did it on my taxpayer-funded dime - well, yeah, I should be able to get a copy of that information for a reasonable fee to cover copying, material, and handling expenses (which, in this day and age, should be essentially free - what with torrents and such; it's not like you -have- to host this stuff on a paid-for server any more, but even then, it should cost as much as it does to get some publications from the government - at one time, when you could only get a paper copy, it was one thing - but today it shouldn't cost much, if anything).

He, like the Occupy Wall Street folk seemed to think that because he wants it a certain way, then all others should submit to his "superior" ideas.


Were you paying attention to anything OWS was saying? Or were you too busy worrying about who was going to be the front-runner for the regressive party?


My personal thought is that this is the end result of a spoiled life that was not taught right from wrong, or respect for others. He broke the law, stole other peoples property and could not accept that he was not the supreme abitter in this situation.

The game wasn't being played by his rules so he took his ball and went home. The ultimate act of a selfish individual.


I sincerely doubt that he committed suicide solely due to any of his legal issues; while I am sure they played somewhat into his demise, likely he was suffering from depression of some sort or another, and eventually it became too much. Surely you're not so heartless as to not to see that possibility?

As part of a society, I either have to work within that societies means for change of be prepared to deal with the results of my refusal to conform.
[/quote]
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: draythomp on Jan 15, 2013, 06:24 am
It's an interesting problem of mine that I often find myself totally agreeing with cr0sh and Grumpy_Mike.  This young man had the energy and drive of the young with the skills and ideas of the hacker.  Not a combination that would lead to a calm peaceful life, but certainly not deserving the diatribe that kf2qd spouted.

He copied data that was produced under public funding and being held ransom by one of the "evil corporations."  Were I younger and had access, I would have gladly done the same thing.  And later bragged about it.  There's simply no comparison to actually stealing something that someone else would have to buy to replace.  This was a case of a prosecutor wanting to upgrade a reputation, and driving an immature, certainly depressed, young man to suicide.

And for those of you that continue to think that suicide is the easy way out, it isn't.  It takes a lot of personal courage to make that final commitment.  To know that what you're going to do will end your life is a tough decision, it's much easier to blame everyone else.  This young man knew that once he was hanging at the end of the rope, he would suffer severely, and not be able to change his mind.  That was hard.

For crying out loud the freaking 'victims' in the case had already stated they were withdrawing from the prosecution.   

And yes, I totally believe in non-violent civil disobedience.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: AWOL on Jan 15, 2013, 09:42 am
Quote
If however, I were to somehow make a copy of all your cattle, sheep or other property - while you still retained your original - what have you lost?
I've lost margins in a free market economy - you've just depressed the price of cattle, by artificially increasing supply.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: EVP on Jan 15, 2013, 01:09 pm

Quote
If however, I were to somehow make a copy of all your cattle, sheep or other property - while you still retained your original - what have you lost?
I've lost margins in a free market economy - you've just depressed the price of cattle, by artificially increasing supply.


If the nature of the product is that it is infinitely copy-able surely there is nothing artificial in increasing supply through that process.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: rvasque on Jan 15, 2013, 09:00 pm
If you spent thousands of dollars in gear and software, and hundreds of hours more in time, composing, writing, recording, mixing, mastering a song.... then offer that song for sale, should you be fairly compensated for all your work?  Yes? No?

On the other hand, if someone copied that same song you did and gave it away freely to others (without your permission), can that person claim you didn't really lose anything... since you still have your song? That he didn't "steal" your song, he only made copies, not making money off it, and giving it away to others because he believes music should be free. 

It's sad he killed himself, but I think he went about this whole JSTOR caper in the wrong way.

Jimmy Wales (founder of Wikipedia) didn't go to all the other encyclopedia companies and stole their information, and give it away to the masses because he believes in free information... no, he started his own Wikipedia foundation.

Aaron Swartz could have done the same thing for academic journals... but nooooo... he went about it the wrong way.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: robtillaart on Jan 15, 2013, 09:42 pm
@vasco
You have an important point. As the writer/composer of the music YOU should be compensated. Agree completely but...

I know that most of the money I pay - price in NL is €10~30 for a CD (bought hundreds of them) is max 20 cents for the cd + box + booklet production price, and about 1 Euro per CD for recording (estimation). From the 10 Euro I think the artist gets 1 Euro and the rest (80%) goes to the music industry. Is that fair compensation?

When artist make CD's themselves and sell them at a performance they get "100%" of the money, I think that is a fair deal.

another view on this I heard is that musicians have the option to sell their music digitally or by CD or .... There is no-one that says they have to.
So if they do, they know what 'system' they choose. And I think most musician make more money with live acts than with CD/downloaded(payed) music.

That said, it is not an argument for illegal downloading.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: udoklein on Jan 15, 2013, 09:47 pm
You might want to read this http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartzs-crime/ (http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartzs-crime/) and then consider again the "theft" theory.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: draythomp on Jan 15, 2013, 10:18 pm
I agree with you vasquo, but that's not what happened with Swartz.  He grabbed documents that were part of a repository that was totally open within the campus.  Most of the documents were funded by public money for research and had been published and sold already.  They were taken from an archive.  The value of the archive is not so much in its documents; the value is in the search capabilities that JSTOR provided in addition to the documents.  It's of great value to do a text search among tons of documents to find what you need, but that isn't what Swartz downloaded.

He took what was freely available on the network to anyone at MIT.

It was highly notable that JSTOR made a deal with him and agreed to drop it, then after (I think it was a month later) it should have been settled, the 'authorities' came in and started inventing charges.

It's sort of like someone taking the CD you describe, you notice it and tell them to give it back, they do, then the cops come, lock them up, and throw away the key.  The original argument was settled, but the government has to get into it and escalate it beyond reason.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: rvasque on Jan 15, 2013, 10:35 pm
I see... I've read a few articles these past few days that says he took from a subscription service ($50K a year?) or something... there seems be a lot of news article out there that are misleading.

but it looks like he just used "curl" to download free files.

There's a petition going on to oust the government prosecutor in this case... he took it too far. He wasn't trying to seek justice, he's probably trying to make a name for himself... add a notch to his political belt, bragging rights.  I've seen murderers/rapists get away with lighter punishment than what he's trying to throw on Aaron.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: Osgeld on Jan 16, 2013, 05:43 am
Quote
If however, I were to somehow make a copy of all your cattle, sheep or other property - while you still retained your original - what have you lost?


easy, the value of cattle goes down and you share in my profit while contributing none of the work

I, out of all people am grey when it comes to this stuff, but I never will buy into this copy is not theft idea.

You take something of commercial value, the product is not the box or the 5 cent CD or the shrinkwrap it all comes in.

Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: Big Oil on Jan 18, 2013, 03:03 am
Honour to bold Robin Hood,
Sleeping in the underwood!
Honour to maid Marian,
And to all the Sherwood-clan!
Though their days have hurried by
Let us two a burden try.
- John Keats
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: AWOL on Jan 18, 2013, 08:53 am
Quote
If the nature of the product is that it is infinitely copy-able surely there is nothing artificial in increasing supply through that process.

Cattle are also infinitely copy-able, aren't they?
The scale and energy input are different, but it's actually a pretty good analogy, IMO.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: EVP on Jan 18, 2013, 04:53 pm

Quote
If the nature of the product is that it is infinitely copy-able surely there is nothing artificial in increasing supply through that process.

Cattle are also infinitely copy-able, aren't they?
The scale and energy input are different, but it's actually a pretty good analogy, IMO.


mm yeah. They are not instantly copy-able though that isn't one of the property's of a cow. If it was it would be a normal part of farming and the economic model around farms would be different.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: wizdum on Jan 18, 2013, 07:41 pm

The bigger problem is that he seemed to think that it was his right (or obligation) to free other peoples ideas. It is what is known as theft if I choose to free your cattle or sheep or other property. If you come up with an idea should I have the right to publish it and benefit from it without your permission? He, like the Occupy Wall Street folk seemed to think that because he wants it a certain way, then all others should submit to his "superior" ideas.

My personal thought is that this is the end result of a spoiled life that was not taught right from wrong, or respect for others. He broke the law, stole other peoples property and could not accept that he was not the supreme abitter in this situation.

The game wasn't being played by his rules so he took his ball and went home. The ultimate act of a selfish individual.

As part of a society, I either have to work within that societies means for change of be prepared to deal with the results of my refusal to conform.


Its sad to see how this case is getting whitewashed.

The documents he "stole" are in the public domain. His only issues were with MIT (unauthorized access to a janitor's closet), and JSTOR (potential TOS violation, which they admitted did not exist). The feds should not have been involved at all. He shouldn't have been facing 35 years for computer fraud and hacking charges, for making an automated script that simply downloaded freely available files. He broke no encryption, used no exploits, had legitimate access, and did not distribute anything that was not in the public domain. The script simply went to the website and issued a download request, the same as a person would. This is yet another case of a government prosecutor trying to make a name for themselves by saving us from the evil "hackers".

Both JSTOR and MIT dropped their charges. Both of them realized that their TOS agreements failed to protect them from this type of case. The government continued their attack in an attempt to make an example of him.

The newsmedia trying to paint him as some spoiled brat anti-government type makes me sick.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: dhenry on Jan 18, 2013, 11:44 pm
Quote
The documents he "stole" are in the public domain.


What's in the "public domain" is quite subjective: if the "spread the wealth" folks have their way, what's theirs is theirs and what's yours is theirs too.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: Grumpy_Mike on Jan 18, 2013, 11:51 pm
Quote
What's in the "public domain" is quite subjective:

No it is not. The authors were payed by your tax dollar, therefore you have a right to see them.

They got no extra payment for writing the stuff, they would have got payed the same if they never produced any papers.
Then this "publishing house" grabs the "rights" to the contents and do not pay the authors.
If any theft has taken place it is by the publishers.

It is a totally different situation to someone distributing another persons music which I am dead against.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: draythomp on Jan 19, 2013, 12:13 am
Be fair Grumpy_Mike, they did index them and setup a database for full text searches.  However, it doesn't give them exclusive rights to the documents themselves since they are public, and that is what Swartz downloaded.  He didn't use their search to find them, he searched the old fashioned way.

He did nothing illegal in my opinion, and the plaintiffs withdrew complaints after they had looked into it.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: dhenry on Jan 19, 2013, 12:28 am
Quote
He did nothing illegal in my opinion,


That's why things like this should be decided by a court, not by you, or me, or Mr. Swartz.

Quote
and the plaintiffs withdrew complaints after they had looked into it.


The fact that the plaintiffs withdrew their complaints shouldn't be sufficient to prove one's innocence. Lots of domestic abuse cases should be sufficient in convincing anyone of that.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: sbright33 on Jan 19, 2013, 02:26 am
It wasn't suicide!

http://www.naturalnews.com/038650_Aaron_Swartz_suicide_assassination.html
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: dhenry on Jan 19, 2013, 02:35 am
Quote
http://www.naturalnews.com/038650_Aaron_Swartz_suicide_assassination.html


It shows you that for every right-wing nutjob, there is a left-wing nutjob.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: draythomp on Jan 19, 2013, 04:12 am
Quote
Quote
He did nothing illegal in my opinion,


That's why things like this should be decided by a court, not by you, or me, or Mr. Swartz.

Quote
and the plaintiffs withdrew complaints after they had looked into it.


The fact that the plaintiffs withdrew their complaints shouldn't be sufficient to prove one's innocence. Lots of domestic abuse cases should be sufficient in convincing anyone of that.


Regarding courts, they cost a LOT of money.  Prosecutors often ruin people and their entire extended family losing a case by simply running up the costs.  The power of a prosecutor's office is incredible and has extremely deep pockets.  When no one was hurt and the plaintiffs have removed their complaint, leave it the heck alone

dhenry, your second sentence should tell a whole lot of people how you think.  Coffin v. United States way back in the late 19th century set the stage in the U.S. and it has been reinforced thousands of times.  It's even explicitly stated in many country's constitutions.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: dhenry on Jan 19, 2013, 04:20 am
Quote
When no one was hurt and the plaintiffs have removed their complaint, leave it the heck alone


Then it is upon Mr. Schwartz and his defense to prove that no one was hurt.

Quote
dhenry, your second sentence should tell a whole lot of people how you think.  Coffin v. United States way back in the late 19th century set the stage in the U.S. and it has been reinforced thousands of times.  It's even explicitly stated in many country's constitutions.


I am not really sure how Coffin vs. US is connected to your notion that the plaintiffs' dropping the complaints proved one's innocence.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: draythomp on Jan 19, 2013, 04:24 am
You did it again, this time in the first sentence.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: dhenry on Jan 19, 2013, 04:34 am
Quote
You did it again


I am not sure what "it" you are referring to.

I actually agree with your statement that if no one is hurt, we should leave it alone.

But to satisfy that condition (or assumption) that no one is hurt, Schwartz and his team will have to prove that no one is hurt. If he cannot, he will have to go to the court and let his peers judge his innocence (or lack of).

That, in case you didn't realize, has no thing to do with presumption of innocence.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: draythomp on Jan 19, 2013, 04:38 am
It has everything to do with presumption of innocence; you probably don't understand what that actually means.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: GoForSmoke on Jan 20, 2013, 10:26 pm

It has everything to do with presumption of innocence; you probably don't understand what that actually means.


Good luck with that. Since the Police State took over, innocent until proven guilty doesn't happen until you hit court and they're working on fixing that too.

Get deep in tard-con country and you'll hear gems like "He didn't EARN his rights!". That gets Amens. Yup, and they're all patriots too. Here's to the Evangelist States of America, everyone else Howdy Now Git!

Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: draythomp on Jan 20, 2013, 10:42 pm
Sadly, you're right.  However, if we don't keep correcting the idiocy every time we see or hear it, we're part of the problem.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: GoForSmoke on Jan 20, 2013, 11:30 pm
There is no correcting those people. None whatsoever. They live in fact-proof bubbles.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: Grumpy_Mike on Jan 20, 2013, 11:40 pm
Quote
They live in fact-proof bubbles.

Brilliant quote, I may use it. +1 on the Kama
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: dhenry on Jan 21, 2013, 01:22 am
Quote
However, if we don't keep correcting the idiocy every time we see or hear it, we're part of the problem.


I consider more of a problem when the "elitists" couldn't think logically and insisted that others follow them off a logic cliff.

Swartz didn't like the laws and decided that he would be the final arbiter of what's right and wrong and executed the people's will, whether they liked it or not.

He probably didn't expected the potato to be so hot.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: draythomp on Jan 21, 2013, 03:49 am
Neither did Ghandi.  Oft times, the laws are bad, and the only way to change them and not hurt people is to simply disobey them.  Get enough attention to the problem and will be addressed.  Keep your mouth shut and hide behind the 'law' and you're part of the problem again.

No, being so young and idealistic, he wasn't prepared for an aggressive hound of a prosecutor playing games with virtually unlimited resources and ambition.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: GoForSmoke on Jan 21, 2013, 09:39 am
Swartz tweaked powerful noses. And who knows what he might do next?

Loose cannon and all that, threat to the comfort of his betters, someone get a hound on his tail, grumble-grumble where's my tea? And my oxy?

Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: dhenry on Jan 21, 2013, 03:20 pm
Quote
Neither did Ghandi. 


Bad example.

Quote
No, being so young and idealistic


Yeah. He was such a genius that he failed to anticipate how the mortals would have reacted. Too bad for him.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: draythomp on Jan 21, 2013, 06:44 pm
Nice one GoForSmoke.  dhenry, you're just a troll; totally ignorable from now on.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: wizdum on Jan 21, 2013, 08:28 pm

Quote
However, if we don't keep correcting the idiocy every time we see or hear it, we're part of the problem.


Swartz didn't like the laws and decided that he would be the final arbiter of what's right and wrong and executed the people's will, whether they liked it or not.


Sounds like he has achieved Stage 6 of Kohlberg's Six Stages of Moral Development.

"Moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Legal rights are unnecessary, as social contracts are not essential for deontic moral action. Decisions are not reached hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way, as in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. This involves an individual imagining what they would do in another's shoes, if they believed what that other person imagines to be true. The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself; the individual acts because it is right, and not because it is instrumental, expected, legal, or previously agreed upon. Although Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at that level."

People keep asking why we are seeing a decline in brilliant people in America. Well, here they are. Diagnosed with mental conditions and driven to suicide, because brilliant people don't fit social norms.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: GoForSmoke on Jan 21, 2013, 11:28 pm
Not being understood is a good way to be either cast out or "straightened out".

It's also weird how many 'tough individualists' not only conform to an image but push others to do the same.



Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: dhenry on Jan 22, 2013, 12:06 am
Quote
why we are seeing a decline in brilliant people in America.


Fortunately for those "brilliant" people, THEY don't have a lot of them.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: draythomp on Jan 22, 2013, 12:09 am
Quote
It's also weird how many 'tough individualists' not only conform to an image but push others to do the same.


I was keeping up until you said this.  I'm a bit lost could you expand on this statement a little more?
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: GoForSmoke on Jan 22, 2013, 12:36 am
No. More words won't help. How many sheeple do you know that put on a "stand on their own" image while doing a social line-dance? Who led them? Start with the faux hippies of the 70's and don't forget to look to the right now and then.

Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: draythomp on Jan 22, 2013, 03:16 am
Ok, I understand now.  You can't articulate this in a form that other people will actually understand, so you rely on platitudes or parables that leave the meaning unclear trying to appear sage.

Master Po: "Old man, how is it you can hear such things?" 
Student Caine: "Young man, how is it you cannot?"
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: westfw on Jan 22, 2013, 10:03 am
There are better ways to do what Swartz apparently wanted to accomplish.
The "computer fraud" laws are pretty sucky, but there are reasons that they're that way.
It's standard practice to charge criminals with the most serious possible interpretation of their actions.  It's supposed to elicit plea-bargains instead of trials.  Maybe Swartz should paid more attention to how these things go.
I don't like laws where the "method" is more illegal than the "results."  But if the president of the US can be impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice WRT a non-crime, I don't see how the little guy stands a chance.
The people most hurt by Swartz's actions are likely to be those who won't be able to get guest access to MIT's network, or free and easy access to the research papers, after they tighten up their security so that this can't happen again.
I don't understand why Swartz wasn't in jail.  I'm pretty sure if some <minority> were up against 35 years in prison, he'd be locked in a cell where means for suicide were unavailable.  Just more pampering of white, white collar criminals, I guess.  Usually derided by the public when the "crime" looks worse.
And yeah, the law "bullies" people.  No one is very sympathetic for the 'real' criminals; jokes abound about how they'll get theirs when they're raped in prison, from classes of people that really ought not be "happy" about such things.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: dhenry on Jan 22, 2013, 01:55 pm
Quote
The people most hurt by Swartz's actions are ...


Everyone gets hurt by Swartz's actions, including Swartz's himself. If everyone, or even a meaningful portion of the society takes laws into their own hand (aka "gone Stage 6"), many of us, including Swartz, wouldn't have survived this long.

Those "Stage 6" geniuses can afford to disobey the law only because there is law and order.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: wizdum on Jan 22, 2013, 02:25 pm

There are better ways to do what Swartz apparently wanted to accomplish.
The "computer fraud" laws are pretty sucky, but there are reasons that they're that way.
It's standard practice to charge criminals with the most serious possible interpretation of their actions.  It's supposed to elicit plea-bargains instead of trials.  Maybe Swartz should paid more attention to how these things go.
I don't like laws where the "method" is more illegal than the "results."  But if the president of the US can be impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice WRT a non-crime, I don't see how the little guy stands a chance.
The people most hurt by Swartz's actions are likely to be those who won't be able to get guest access to MIT's network, or free and easy access to the research papers, after they tighten up their security so that this can't happen again.
I don't understand why Swartz wasn't in jail.  I'm pretty sure if some <minority> were up against 35 years in prison, he'd be locked in a cell where means for suicide were unavailable.  Just more pampering of white, white collar criminals, I guess.  Usually derided by the public when the "crime" looks worse.
And yeah, the law "bullies" people.  No one is very sympathetic for the 'real' criminals; jokes abound about how they'll get theirs when they're raped in prison, from classes of people that really ought not be "happy" about such things.



Actually, JSTOR's response was to expand a program called "register and read" to allow anyone up to three articles for free over a two week period. This includes the articles that you normally have to pay for, everyone already had free access to the public domain articles.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: GoForSmoke on Jan 22, 2013, 03:03 pm
It's not against the law to put up hurdles to access what was given to be free.

It's not against the law to raise the levels of HYPE to where people start killing and committing suicide either yet to yell FIRE in a crowded movie theater is.

Swartz committing suicide is another symptom of the right wing hate and fear insanity, same as the latest with a cop at the trigger this time.

I watched in the 90's as bible-radio whipped up hysteria until one "Christian" murdered an abortion doctor with a shotgun.

It's a proven formula. Push hard enough and the members of society who are close will jump over the edge and carry out the mandate. When Moslems do it it is terrorism, when Christians do it it is righteousness, when political groups do it it is Business As Usual.

Holding people accountable for calls to violence or lies to create panic will do more than all the background checks and weapon limitations currently being called for.




Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: dhenry on Jan 22, 2013, 11:33 pm
Quote
by calling left wingers names?


You would be wrong in doing that.

Left wingers, by definition, have the moral high ground and are always right, and should never be challenged.

Right wingers, in comparison, are always stupid, mentally and intellectually challenged and wrong by definition. They don't even deserve to exist in the same universe as the left wingers.

That's how the world works, in the mind of the left wingers.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: grendle on Jan 23, 2013, 12:18 am
well you know what, i took my post down, because im not here to argue that, i want to enjoy my arduino, and not associate it with political arguing. i am here to ultimately build the Evilduino™ the most awesome arduino controlled robot anyone has ever seen. i think anyone who kills an innocent person in this country should burn, whether it be christian killer, right winger killer, or leftwinger killer. i have served my country over 10 yrs in 3 different combat zones, and i will continue to protect my neighbors and countrymen as best i could, from deranged gun toting morons. thats all im gonna say about that. the evilduino™ cannot come to fruition without this forum, so im backing down on this one. peace.
Title: Re: Aaron Swartz sucide
Post by: dhenry on Jan 23, 2013, 03:25 am
Quote
so im backing down on this one. peace.


That's why you can never  be a liberal: every liberal I know is genuinely and extremely tolerant of others, as long as those others agree with the liberal's point of view.