Go Down

Topic: Aaron Swartz sucide (Read 6055 times) previous topic - next topic

westfw

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.

dhenry

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.

wizdum


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.
"Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation."

Electronic props for Airsoft, paintball, and laser tag -> www.nightscapetech.com

GoForSmoke

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.




Nick Gammon on multitasking Arduinos:
1) http://gammon.com.au/blink
2) http://gammon.com.au/serial
3) http://gammon.com.au/interrupts

dhenry

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.

grendle

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.

dhenry

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.

Go Up