Edward Tufte's Defense of Aaron Swartz and the "Marvelously Different"

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Edward Tufte's Defense of Aaron Swartz and the "Marvelously Different"

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday January 20, 2013 @08:00AM from the diamond-in-the-rough dept.

zokuga writes "Data visualization pioneer Edward Tufte spoke at hacker-activist Aaron Swartz's public memorial. In his message, he described how he came to know Swartz at Stanford and how Tufte's own college hacking exploits had the potential to ruin his own life."

103 of 152 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Poor young people by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-20 08:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

The stupid stunts I did back in the '80s were as bad, if not worse, both in the real world and the BBS scene. The difference is no one stored my every stunt for posterity and instant access for all.
1. Re:Poor young people by ColdWetDog · 2013-01-20 08:18 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Yeah, I was going to say pretty much the same thing. In high school, a friend and I had a running interaction with NASA security at the Manned Spacecraft Center (Lyndon B. Johnson Spacecraft Center to you modern folk). This involved penetrating the MSC by walking into places we *really* should not have walked into looking stupid / innocent. This was tolerated to a large degree until we found a place were we *** really *** should not have been.
  Then we were politely told by security to cut it out. Enough fun. We weren't arrested. It was logged - when my friend went to get some high security clearance they brought it up (as well as asking for the every time we had done drugs since college - every time). Didn't seem to be a problem.
  I hate to think what would have happened if we had done this in the past decade. We probably couldn't even get past the first gate now. We'd be in some high security prison somewhere learning really useful things like home made weapon production instead of being nominally useful members of society.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:Poor young people by Reverberant · 2013-01-20 08:53 · Score: 2
  
  Then we were politely told by security to cut it out. Enough fun. We weren't arrested.
  Now what would have happened if you kept doing it?
3. Re:Poor young people by nbauman · 2013-01-20 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Potassium chlorate, anyone?
4. Re:Poor young people by ColdWetDog · 2013-01-20 09:12 · Score: 2
  
  Dunno. We were stupid, but not that stupid.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
5. Re:Poor young people by ColdWetDog · 2013-01-20 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Thermite!
  The day goes brighter with a little bit of Thermite!
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
6. Re:Poor young people by Reverberant · 2013-01-20 09:53 · Score: 2
  
  I suspect that if Swartz had stopped the first couple of times MIT tried to block him, that would have been the end of it.
  (No, Swartz did not deserve years in jail for what he did and the whole situation was a tragedy. I'm just noting that you were warned and you stopped. Swartz was warned and he kept at it).
7. Re:Poor young people by sjames · 2013-01-20 10:04 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The great hypocrisy is that the older adults implementing all of this zero tolerance all likely have a history that wouldn't stand up to the level of scrutiny they impose today.
  The law doesn't care if you inhaled, it only cares if you had the tiniest trace of a dried plant in your possession.
8. Re:Poor young people by Jmc23 · 2013-01-20 10:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Of course you're comparing two stupid young kids fooling around and someone working towards a reality where knowledge is freed.
  
  --
  Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
9. Re:Poor young people by ColdWetDog · 2013-01-20 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  And how do you know that we weren't searching for the Texas version of Area 51?
  (Well, we weren't but we could have been).
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
10. Re:Poor young people by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-01-20 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  The silliest thing about this is that JSTOR is working towards exactly the same goal.
11. Re:Poor young people by Weezul · 2013-01-20 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  I did worse.
  Apologies for reposting this, but we really need the 25k signatures on the fire Stephen Heymann petition :
  https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fire-assistant-us-attorney-steve-heymann/RJKSY2nb
  Please spam your friends! :P
  It's a poorly written petition. And nobody who sees only the petition understands that Heymann also drove another probably innocent young hacker to his death, way back when Heymann wanted to be the first ro prosecute a juvenile under the CFAA.
  Anyway this prosecutor seems particularly evil.
  
  --
  The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
12. Re:Poor young people by Jmc23 · 2013-01-20 12:32 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it's a bit more like JSTOR is trying to cover up the underlying wrongness, sure makes academics feel better about themselves though.
  
  --
  Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
13. Re:Poor young people by Jmc23 · 2013-01-20 12:40 · Score: 2
  
  Oh, I'm sure you were. Just as I fondly remember breaking into a top secret, guarded, military facility, to take out some rogue agents. ...though an outsider might just have seen some kids rolling around in the dirt at the local airport.
  
  --
  Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
14. Re:Poor young people by Jmc23 · 2013-01-20 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  Have you read his manifesto?
  
  --
  Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
15. Re:Poor young people by dbIII · 2013-01-20 20:12 · Score: 1
  
  It was out of their hands once a copyright lawyer with an axe to grind heard about it.
16. Re: Poor young people by Eskarel · 2013-01-20 22:32 · Score: 1
  
  We've all done stuff in the past the difference between you and Aaron is two fold. One the times, which is sad but true, but more importantly you were in all likelihood a minor, Aaron was in his twenties. The guards even back then probably would have treated an adult differently.
fuck the "justise" system by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-20 08:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

more like injustice amirite?
RIP Aaron, we'll avenge you.
So Tufte was a phreaker. He and a pal did this "longest long-distance call" thing. AT&T caught onto it of course, and a tech rang 'em up. The tech just said, don't do it again, don't tell anyone, and nothing happens. But seriously, the tech (and by extension AT&T) could have seriously ruined Tufte's life. But didn't because it was just a silly prank that didn't actually harm anyone.
By extension, one of Aaron's legal team contacted Tufte who talked to JSTOR and convinced them not to participate in the ruining of this young man's life. After all, there was no harm to anyone, and nothing of value was lost or stolen (copies were made, which Aaron subsequently deleted after being caught).
So, in conclusion, fuck the system.
1. Re:fuck the "justise" system by erroneus · 2013-01-20 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  *THAT* is the biggest injustice we have in this country. Our justice system should NEVER be privately owned or controlled. It's simply immoral and the stuff of bad science fiction. When we see contractors in charge of delivering policy, punishment, pressure or power on behalf of the government, it should be 100% accountable to that same government. Contractor soldiers? NO! Contractor prison guards and management? NO!!! Mail? Hell no. TSA? Well, as much as we dislike it, I would rather not see airport security controlled by any non-government entities.
2. Re:fuck the "justise" system by blueg3 · 2013-01-20 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  After all, there was no harm to anyone
  Not quite. MIT and JSTOR had to spend resources addressing this problem. (In theory, maybe the didn't really *have* to, but if JSTOR routinely ignored such actions, they'd run in to trouble with the journal publishers. If MIT ignored it, they'd run into trouble with JSTOR. And, they can't tell the difference between something innocuous and something more malicious until they investigate.) As part of it, JSTOR cut off access to MIT. That's the sum total of the harm that resulted. How much of that is attributable as "damage" caused by Swartz's actions is arguable.
3. Re:fuck the "justise" system by similar_name · 2013-01-20 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  I do not think any should be attributable as damage caused by Swartz and here's my thought behind it. If I break a door lock I can be held accountable for replacing it, however I cannot be held accountable for the need to add a dead bolt just because the previous lock didn't stop someone. In the same vain, he could be held accountable if he deleted files or otherwise caused damage, but shouldn't be held accountable for any additional security added as a result.
4. Re:fuck the "justise" system by blueg3 · 2013-01-20 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with your comment. However, the "damages" they're talking about are the expense of a response to his actions -- investigating and mitigating those specific actions. It's not the same as someone exposing a need for more security. It's still arguable, but it's fairly different. (You could argue that unless their expenditures were unusually high, that their actions are simply a normal cost of maintaining security. You can't pin the cost of having a guard on whatever thief he happens to catch. You can also argue that JSTOR's blocking MIT was an option they chose to take, rather than one necessitated by Swartz's actions, and so is not attributable to Swartz.)
Let me guess... by AliasMarlowe · 2013-01-20 08:15 · Score: 2

You were going for a "Funny" mod, weren't you?
The only plausible alternative would be a "Stupid Beyond Belief" mod, and they don't exist...

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
1. Re:Let me guess... by flimflammer · 2013-01-20 21:41 · Score: 1
  
  A bit far from /b/ today aren't we?
Justice system reform by Kohath · 2013-01-20 08:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

Glenn Reynolds just posted his essay Due Process when Everything is a Crime relating in part to the Aaron Swartz case.
Cases like the Aaron Swartz prosecution are a direct result of the huge, intrusive, abusive government we have. Unfortunately most Slashdotters seem to support this government and want to make it even larger and more involved in everyone's daily lives. Will Slashdot learn anything from Aaron Swartz's death? Or are we still just a few more government programs away from living in a utopia -- this time for sure?
1. Re:Justice system reform by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-20 08:34 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Libertarian Logic: I have chronic pain in my knee. Time to get out the bone saw and cut off my leg!
2. Re:Justice system reform by MightyMartian · 2013-01-20 08:38 · Score: 2
  
  Are you saying a Libertarian government wouldn't have data crime laws, or that it would suppress harsh prosecutions, or...
  I'm having a hard time figuring out how Libertarianism would be linked to state prosecutions.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
3. Re:Justice system reform by Kohath · 2013-01-20 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  Libertarian Logic: I have chronic pain in my knee. Time to get out the bone saw and cut off my leg!
  The government probably killed another basically good person during the time it took you to write that. Congrats.
  On the other hand, he probably wasn't a geek and probably didn't invent anything cool when he was a kid. So who cares, right?
4. Re:Justice system reform by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-20 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't that the same logic everyone else is trying to use as an excuse for gun bans?
5. Re:Justice system reform by godrik · 2013-01-20 08:44 · Score: 2
  
  I think you are making a logical leap in your post. The fact that the law is so complex that everybody could be charged and jail for something is definitively true and a major problem. Though I do not see how government involvment is related to any of it.
  Involvment and control are different things. The government needs (in my opinion) enough power to fix things, but not enough to screw things up. Associations and the government are the only entity somewhat interested in teh greater good. But associations typically completely lacks funding to solve large scale problems.
6. Re:Justice system reform by Sique · 2013-01-20 08:49 · Score: 2
  
  And the huge, intrusive, abusive government is a direct result of people actually wanting it that way. Democracy means that you get the government you deserve. If one can get elected on a "tough on crime" platform, and demanding stronger laws and harsher sentences secure votes, I don't see this as a problem of the government, but a problem of the people.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
7. Re:Justice system reform by Concerned+Onlooker · 2013-01-20 08:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "Unfortunately most Slashdotters seem to support this government and want to make it even larger and more involved in everyone's daily lives."
  You must be reading a different Slashdot that I am. For instance, you should check out any post that has to do with gun control, s/w piracy or net neutrality.
  Also, Swartz's death is a sad story, but I'm a little irritated that so many people are using his suicide to further their own agendas, no matter how just they may be. He left no suicide note. The claims that he killed himself because of his legal woes will always remain conjecture. The guy suffered from depression, after all, and depression is a documented killer. Ten percent of people that suffer from it end up committing suicide.
  
  --
  http://www.rootstrikers.org/
8. Re:Justice system reform by Kohath · 2013-01-20 08:52 · Score: 2
  
  The government needs (in my opinion) enough power to fix things, but not enough to screw things up.
  Enough power to "fix" things is always going to be a lot more than enough power to screw things up.
  There's always something that needs to be "fixed" when someone wants more power. He'll always tell you you can trust him too. Sometimes you can. You can't trust all of his successors.
  A better answer: fix it yourself.
9. Re:Justice system reform by Githaron · 2013-01-20 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Democracy means that you get the government you deserve.
  Democracy means you get the government the majority deserves.
  FTFY. Don't claim to know how I vote based on how the majority votes.
10. Re:Justice system reform by Kohath · 2013-01-20 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe some of us can learn something this time.
11. Re:Justice system reform by SuricouRaven · 2013-01-20 08:57 · Score: 2
  
  Libertarianism in general seeks to abolish most laws, leaving in place only those relating to the protection of property and life. If your computers are hacked, it's your own fault for not having good enough security. Sounds almost good, except that they apply this everywhere. Your house burn down? That's your own fault for not paying the local private fire service to send the fire engine around to put it out. Rival business flooding your phone lines with fake calls, posting advertisments in your name promising ridiculous prices and DDoSing your website? Your fault for not paying enough for hosting, but you're free to do the same back. Go to a restraunt and got food poisoning because the chef lets his precious dogs run loose in the kitchen? That's your own fault too for not inspecting it personally, but don't worry - the invisible hand of the market will close the business down, once word gets around.
  As with so many political ideologies, it's the core of a potentially good idea - that the role of government has grown excessive, expensive and invasive, and needs to be tamed - but taken to a ridiculous extreme.
12. Re:Justice system reform by JaredOfEuropa · 2013-01-20 09:03 · Score: 2
  
  Any government should suppress harsh prosecutions. Would a libertarian government fare any better on this score? At the very least they'd be more wary of any wrongdoing in that area, as they have an intrinsic distrust of government (hence the desire to keep it as small as possible). Contrast that with socialists who think everything government does is great, or at least fixable.
  
  I've no idea who Glenn Reynolds is by the way, but he's spot on. I see the same in my country where the actions of (our equivalent of) the state prosecutor seem decidedly questionable, yet go more or less unchallenged. For example the notorious "Nekschot" case, where a cartoonist charged with the grave and unforgivable crimes of insulting muslims and black skinned people was arrested by an 8 man SWAT squad in the middle of the night, and detained for 30 hours. They generally go easier even on armed robbers and rapists. And the opposite happens as well: cases that seem to have merit are not even brought before a judge, for no good reason.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
13. Re:Justice system reform by spire3661 · 2013-01-20 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  Are you saying that is NEVER the correct option?
  
  --
  Good-bye
14. Re:Justice system reform by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-20 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Why bother? Obama's got an executive order for that!
15. Re:Justice system reform by Kohath · 2013-01-20 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  And the "ridiculous extreme" is just that. It has the support of very, very few people.
  So why bring it up? Are you arguing that the government needs to be able to kill an unlimited number of people whenever it wants because otherwise we can't have a fire department to put out fires? Or can we be more thoughtful than that?
16. Re:Justice system reform by sgt_doom · 2013-01-20 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  "..are a direct result of the huge, intrusive, abusive government we have...'
  
  Oh, sweet jaysus! You sound like one of those believers in faux populist, Ron Paul (FYI, sonny, real populists aren't anti-worker and anti-union and forever submitted legislation in congress which is anti-worker --- read up on the greatest congressman populist to ever come out of Texas, the Honorable Wright Patman, now there was a real populist!!!!).
  
  Try AT&T's awesome influence, coupled with that there "regulatory capture" of the gov't which they, the bank/oil cartel, now own.
17. Re:Justice system reform by anagama · 2013-01-20 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  Democracy means that you get the government you deserve.
  Democracy means you get the government the majority deserves.
  FTFY. Don't claim to know how I vote based on how the majority votes.
  You get as much democracy as you can afford, like justice.
  FTFY. Don't claim that it matters how you or anyone votes when all sides are owned, and not by the majority. I will agree that the majority are duped into thinking they have a voice though.
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
18. Re:Justice system reform by anagama · 2013-01-20 09:15 · Score: 2
  
  The fact that the law is so complex that everybody could be charged and jail for something is definitively true and a major problem. Though I do not see how government involvment is related to any of it.
  I don't understand. Who makes the laws? It is the government. If the legal codebase is so large, vague, and complex, that every person commits a Federal felony every day, and the government made that law, how is the government not to blame?
  http://www.harveysilverglate.com/Books/ThreeFeloniesaDay.aspx
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
19. Re:Justice system reform by Ironhandx · 2013-01-20 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  Actually most slashdotters are for a refocusing of the governments efforts. They've been left to the lobby groups and their own devices for too long. Regulation needs to be done but other regulations that have been put into place need to go. I'd go so far as to say peel back every law since Jan 1, 1998 and have done. Require any new criminal law to pass a 30% public vote in favor. The majority of the ridiculous laws have been passed or modified into ridiculousness since then.
20. Re:Justice system reform by anagama · 2013-01-20 09:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You know what, maybe instead of bringing out this offtopic canard about libertarians, you should read the article. It's thought provoking. Like how in the 80s prosecutors would play a game where they prosecute the person not the crime, i.e, pick a famous person like Mother Theresa and find a crime that would put that person in jail, not because they did anything wrong, but because you're such a clever prosecutor. That sounds not like justice, but persecution.
  And how is the complaint that the government has made criminal so much stuff so divorced from common sense, entitled to some epithet about libertarians? Everyone should be worried because when everyone can be charged and sent to prison for random things, the government has total tyrannical power. That's an issue only libertarians worry about? I think not.
  Read the essay. It's only 6 pages -- takes you a few minutes. Then come back and explain what in there sounded like the ravings of a "my property GTFO" type libertarian. It contains nothing like that all -- not even a hint. Instead it talks about how the decision to prosecute and what to charge is made in a milieu of total immunity without any consequences at all, and how that decision is perhaps the most important part of the due process rights which we are supposed to enjoy, but instead we have absolutely no protection at all when prosecutors decide to get medieval.
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
21. Re:Justice system reform by Truekaiser · 2013-01-20 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  *hands him/her a hammer*
  Practice what you preach, go to the east coast and rebuild it. By yourself. Without help.
22. Re:Justice system reform by sjames · 2013-01-20 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  You must be an anarchist then, because libertarians generally support the continued existence of the courts and prosecutors. Some support continued government police forces, others prefer hired goons.
23. Re:Justice system reform by sjames · 2013-01-20 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  Not really, our current government that has degenerated into this mess started out with people so paranoid about government power that they felt compelled to ensure that the people were afforded the tools needed to overthrow it by force (in take 2. The 1st take was so toothless that it fell apart).
  Meanwhile, a socialist revolution would be (for now) deeply suspicious of any prosecution that looked like it could be oppressing the workers for the benefit of big capital.
24. Re:Justice system reform by Kohath · 2013-01-20 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  They should fix it themselves. It's one of the richest areas of the country. They need poor people in Michigan to pay for their repairs?
25. Re:Justice system reform by sjames · 2013-01-20 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  A better answer: fix it yourself.
  In other words, do your best to accumulate enough power to 'fix' things (while messing things up for everyone else) before someone else can gather enough power to 'fix' things for himself while messing it up for you?
  You said it yourself, "enough power to fix things is always going to be a lot more than enough power to screw things up" (emphasis mine).
  Now, look at where you are and compare to Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, the board of Goldman Sacks and most of the current Washington bigwigs and ask yourself, who will get to that level of power first.
26. Re:Justice system reform by Kohath · 2013-01-20 10:57 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Meanwhile, a socialist revolution would be (for now) deeply suspicious of any prosecution that looked like it could be oppressing the workers for the benefit of big capital.
  But, since a vast majority of socialists are basically fools who can be convinced of anything that confirms their personal prejudices, they'll continue to empower the government and continue to be surprised when "big capital" uses this power against them over and over and over again. The resulting anger just reinforces the prejudices, making them even easier to fool.
  Or we could finally learn that concentrating power in the hands of government overlords isn't helping.
27. Re:Justice system reform by liquid_schwartz · 2013-01-20 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  I would be interested to know from Slashdotters in other countries if their justice systems have penalties that are wildly out of balance relative to the crimes. Anyone care to provide some info?
28. Re:Justice system reform by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2013-01-20 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  I don't understand. Who makes the laws? It is the government. If the legal codebase is so large, vague, and complex, that every person commits a Federal felony every day, and the government made that law, how is the government not to blame?
  You, like the OP, are confusing the existence of government with corruption of government. It is a fatalistic view which surrenders our civilization to the worst actors. Government will never be perfect, but that doesn't mean it can't be good enough.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
29. Re:Justice system reform by stms · 2013-01-20 11:23 · Score: 2
  
  Libertarian Logic: I have chronic pain in my knee. Time to get out the bone saw and cut off my leg!
  That's a pretty good metaphor for Libertarian Logic. Cutting off a knee that's giving you a lot of trouble is a good solution if there is a better alternative. We're probably only a decade or so away from prosthetics that are as good or better than the real thing. When that happens I wouldn't be surprised if doctors recommend amputation as a treatment for chronic knee pain depending on severity of the pain lifestyle and age. Actually technology as a replacement for what government once did is one of the reasons I lean toward libertarianism in some cases.
30. Re:Justice system reform by Kohath · 2013-01-20 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  You argument is an old one:
  No one can be trusted to fix anything for himself. Therefore we should give someone vast government power. Because giving someone vast government power somehow magically turns him into a saint. You couldn't trust him before. Now he has lots and lots of power over you. Now we can trust him. Nothing can possibly go wrong. We are wise. See how we care about fixing problems?
31. Re:Justice system reform by sjames · 2013-01-20 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  Now tell me why my objection to your scenario is all wrong. Something that doesn't involve a fantasy world where the less wealthy pool their resources to fight the wealthy madman but somehow the collective doesn't become a government.
  You're not solving the problem, you're proposing a dark age while we re-arrange the deck chairs.
32. Re:Justice system reform by Kohath · 2013-01-20 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  Because who needs thinking and reasoning and reading and understanding? You want to bash someone for "libertarian-style flamebait" and it's bashin time!!!
33. Re:Justice system reform by Kohath · 2013-01-20 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  We must fight these mad wealthy bogeymen! That's why everyone needs to write me a $5000 check right now! No time to think about it! They'll eat you children and steal your reproductive organs if you wait one more second. Write a check before it's too late!
  Do these evil wealthy madmen have a particular skin color you don't like? Or are they part of one of the bad religions? Or is this particular prejudice based on something else?
34. Re:Justice system reform by sjames · 2013-01-20 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  Or we could finally learn that concentrating power in the hands of government overlords isn't helping.
  I fail to see how concentrating it into the hands of individuals will be an improvement. Eventually, one of them gets the upper hand and we have a king again.
  I'll spare you the ad-hominems against the majority of libertarians.
35. Re:Justice system reform by blueg3 · 2013-01-20 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  The burden of a criminal case and spending however many years getting raped in prison in the mind is bound to lead towards depression.
  If that was his concern, than the answer to "however many years" is either 4 months or up to 6 months, depending on which of the two offered plea bargains he took. It's very possible he could have gotten time served, but if he wanted to minimize the risk of prison time, 4 months.
  Of course, it would still be counted as a felony conviction. If he fought it out of principle and lost, he could face more time.
36. Re:Justice system reform by sjames · 2013-01-20 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  Or is this particular prejudice based on something else?
  It's based on thousands of years of human history.
  It's also based on the clear sense of entitlement some (certainly not all) of the wealthiest members of our society demonstrate repeatedly.
37. Re:Justice system reform by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2013-01-20 13:05 · Score: 1
  
  Because who needs thinking and reasoning and reading and understanding? You want to bash someone for "libertarian-style flamebait" and it's bashin time!!!
  Is this really hard to understand? You throw bombs, people are going to throw bombs back at you. "Or are we still just a few more government programs away from living in a utopia -- this time for sure?" is just as much of an off-topic canard as the AC's response.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
38. Re:Justice system reform by SpazmodeusG · 2013-01-20 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  But, since a vast majority of socialists are basically fools who can be convinced of anything that confirms their personal prejudices
  All the proponents of various "-isms" have a tendency to do that. Libertarianism included.
39. Re:Justice system reform by MightyMartian · 2013-01-20 13:42 · Score: 2
  
  Indeed. Proclaiming adherents of an opposing -ism are gullible fools indicates a considerable lack of self awareness on the part of the adherent to the more favored -ism.
  Socialism doesn't have all the answers, neither does capitalism or libertarianism. Reality is somewhere in the middle.
  As to Government, it wasn't dropped down from a UFO. It isn't some alien construct forced upon us. It, like any human creation, can be a force for good or for evil.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
40. Re:Justice system reform by Kohath · 2013-01-20 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  When power is in the hands of individuals, it isn't concentrated.
41. Re:Justice system reform by Kohath · 2013-01-20 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  And I obviously have no problem with that. But does it really have to completely preclude any thinking or rationality?
  Why do Slashdotters keep supporting government abuses? When will they decide that their love of free stuff and their prejudice against the greedy corporatists and the hated religionists doesn't justify the toll of government-caused death and destruction? Can we stop it sometime? Please?
42. Re:Justice system reform by sjames · 2013-01-20 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  That makes no sense at all. Are you saying a king has no concentrated power?
43. Re:Justice system reform by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2013-01-20 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  And I obviously have no problem with that. But does it really have to completely preclude any thinking or rationality?
  You realize you are complaining about what an AC said? There is no preclusion here, just one guy making a response in the spirit of the post he was responding to. Jesus.
  
  Why do Slashdotters keep supporting government abuses?
  Yes, slashdotters are all about supporting government abuses. If you think statements like that are a basis for "thinking and rationality," no wonder you can't grasp what's going on here.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
44. Re:Justice system reform by jedidiah · 2013-01-20 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  We already have mechanisms in place to regulate public utilities. We don't need to invent any new "neutrality police". You are pushing the "but on the Internet fallacy" which basically claims something to be new just because it's being different in a slightly different way.
  It's usually used to abuse the patent system but it works in this context too.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
45. Re:Justice system reform by SpazmodeusG · 2013-01-20 15:43 · Score: 2
  
  But when those evil Libertarians prey on your prejudices and get elected, the endgame in their master plan is ... to leave you alone.
  The other "-isms" claimed the same thing.
  
  So long as the state exists there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state.
  That's a quote by Lenin btw. He claimed and probably truly believed there would be no state and thus some kind of utopia when his particular "-ism" was implemented. Of course it didn't work in reality. His "-ism" was nothing more than a bunch of sound bites designed to gain devout followers who wound up allowing some of the worst crimes in history to occur.
  You always need to take a step back. If you believe your particular "-ism" will fix everything and you allow yourself to become fanatical about it you're setting yourself up to become a sucker. You're going to wind up blindly allowing someone to remove government oversight on themselves.
  There is no magic philosophy that can fix the worlds problems. Sometimes less government regulation is the answer, sometimes it's not. But if you take it to the extreme where you feel the need to push your beliefs on others because you feel it's "the right one", I've got news for you; The people of the past who believed in their particular "-isms" felt exactly the same way. And they fucked things up tremendously.
46. Re:Justice system reform by Kohath · 2013-01-20 18:49 · Score: 1
  
  Not without his government, no.
  And that has been my whole point all along: less government power, more individual autonomy.
47. Re:Justice system reform by Kohath · 2013-01-20 18:57 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, slashdotters are all about supporting government abuses. If you think statements like that are a basis for "thinking and rationality," no wonder you can't grasp what's going on here.
  And yet, Slashdotters continue to support government abuses and continue to vote for and support increased power for government and increased government control of everyone's life.
48. Re:Justice system reform by Kohath · 2013-01-20 19:04 · Score: 1
  
  And your cunning plan is to give a centralized government control of (more or less) everything. Because no wealthy person could ever find a way to exploit that.
49. Re:Justice system reform by SpazmodeusG · 2013-01-20 19:26 · Score: 2
  
  So you can't even acknowledge the clear quote i gave where a proponent of Communism has suggested there will be no state governing over you when he's elected? Do you not see that both Libertarians and Communists rose to power on the promise of a stateless society? Do you not see how easily corrupted such a belief is?
  You do realize how ridiculous you are? Your post history shows absolutely nothing but religious fervor advocating Libertarianism dating back for months. I went a fair way back and couldn't find a single post about anything other than proselytizing for Libertarianism. You scare the hell out of me. Well formed examples of how similar you are to others in the past are just met with nothing more than "No we're different"; an attempt to end the conversation.
  Looking at history it's quite easy to start a political movement. Just post to every media outlet wherever something bad has happened and claim "hey guys this wouldn't happen if you followed foobarism" (foobarism is my new made up philosophy that i created just then). "Foobarism wouldn't allow the state to do this". "With Foobarism you'd have the right to stop this". etc. You don't even need to explain yourself. Just say "nah we're different to all the others!". You do this long enough everyone will start to label their own beliefs as "Foobarism". They'll start supporting others who believe in foobarism even if their viewpoints are quite different - just look at the different types of Libertarians.
  The fact is this trick has been pulled again and again. You have to ask people to take a step back and look at themselves and their beliefs. You try to highlight similarities with political movements of the past. It gets frustrating when the response to that is "No. They don't.". I guess some people just don't want to accept reality.
50. Re:Justice system reform by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2013-01-20 19:33 · Score: 1
  
  Preaching to the choir has never converrted a single soul. With friends like you, libertarians don' t need any enemies.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
51. Re:Justice system reform by dbIII · 2013-01-20 20:20 · Score: 1
  
  Libertarian government
  To a lot of them such a thing is a contradiction.
  To the others - well the word is pretty meaningless when you've got the range full on anarchists to devoted royalists that want to see Koch or similar as King while pissing on Washington's grave. It's a bunch of people wrapped up in a flag to hide whatever they really are, which is often useful idiots to hard right Republicans.
52. Re:Justice system reform by sjames · 2013-01-20 22:29 · Score: 1
  
  It sure seems to beat your idea. At least central governments in democratic republics have some track record of actually working. Your plan has always devolved into a feudal system requiring a bloodbath to eliminate.
  If there is going to be oppression and corruption, it's better if it is inefficient (and preferably incompetent).
53. Re:Justice system reform by sjames · 2013-01-20 22:30 · Score: 2
  
  Because powerful people never amass a private army and become the government, except all the ones that have throughout history, of course.
54. Re: Justice system reform by Eskarel · 2013-01-20 22:55 · Score: 1
  
  We bring it up because it's the argument you're already making. The existing government has issues so the solution is apparently to eliminate it and replace it with some form of magical private enterprise which is somehow angelic despite all evidence. Government has issues, but it also does a lot of good and tends as far as I can see to be slightly less evil than most alternatives. Libertarians could work with the rest of us to try and fix the broken bits, or offer some form of viable alternative, but instead it's " government bad".
  I think that our justice system should be about trying to convert criminals into productive citizens, but most people seem to want blood. I think our current trial system leads to a stupid con job on both sides which leaves the outcome a crap shoot and encourages this kind of press bargaining malarkey as opposed to legit charges (and in this instance, punishments aside and with all respect to the dead, legit charges did exist).
  Problem is, replacing government with private enterprise isn't going to fix any of that, because it's what people want and if they don't get to vote for it, they'll pay for it instead, only the mega rich will be even more unaccountable.
It's all about liability by denis-The-menace · 2013-01-20 08:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

*IF* something would happen, OMG, someone could sue us!
Today, they find ways to make you regret you were even born.
So what's left to blow steam?
Doing bad things because that's all there is left.
You can't sneak into a flooded quarry to swim that's on private property.
You can't jump your bike into a river for fun.
OMG, someone could sue...

--
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
1. Re:It's all about liability by SilverJets · 2013-01-20 08:39 · Score: 2
  
  Blame the litigation happy culture that has arisen.
  "My boy Jonny died on your property. Sure he had to climb a 10 foot electrified fence with barbed wire on top and then get past 5 security guards and surveillance cameras. But you should have done more to stop him. I'm going to sue!!!"
2. Re:It's all about liability by DogDude · 2013-01-20 09:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  So what's left to blow steam? Doing bad things because that's all there is left.
  
  Kiddo, there are plenty of things one can do to "blow steam". If you want to do "bad" things, there are generally consequences, hence the "bad". I don't really know what point, if any, you're trying to make.
  
  --
  I don't respond to AC's.
3. Re:It's all about liability by sjames · 2013-01-20 10:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Blame also the courts that refuse to understand that their process is intrinsically harmful, even to an innocent defendant. Unlike a grieving parent, we have every reason to expect reasonable and rational behavior from our courts, but we don't get it.
4. Re:It's all about liability by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-20 10:36 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "Kiddo, there are plenty of things one can do to "blow steam". If you want to do "bad" things, there are generally consequences, hence the "bad". I don't really know what point, if any, you're trying to make."
  Because decades of kissing ass builds up during our rebellious period. I won't say teen years because it isn't always individuals in their teenage years that are affected. You know when you think most people are morons when you point out their fallacies in their reasoning but still won't listen to you and you have to go your own way which is our way of finding things out and a partial response to the hypocritical world we've created for ourselves. Whenever you push others boundaries it's always bad in their opinion, key word opinion, the other in this case is adults/government. The fact is most things aren't actually bad, others just don't want you to do them.
  Aaron broke a few minor laws that weren't intended for his situation to bring attention to a potentially illegal scam(as far as I know most federal agencies don't allow you to double dip) being perpetrated with public funds. Never mind fully public information being restricted from the public on profit grounds. And if it's not for profit what's the point in restricting it? And what were the prosecutors doing, torturing the guy for doing the public a service to build their careers. Fact is they didn't have shit and should have dropped it when JSTOR did.
  Remember Aaron!
5. Re:It's all about liability by smittyoneeach · 2013-01-21 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  Are you saying that treating law as a business model.
  
  --
  Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
6. Re:It's all about liability by smittyoneeach · 2013-01-21 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  . . .is somehow a bad thing?
  
  --
  Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Who hasn't? by SuricouRaven · 2013-01-20 08:50 · Score: 5, Interesting

I'm guessing every half-decent engineer working in computing has some of this in their past. It's part of the process of how someone becomes an engineer - exploring, testing limits, finding way to use things in ways they weren't intended to be used. I know I did, I know my coworkers did. I work in education, and we've caught a student there trying to hack our network. Give him another ten years, and he'll be the admin trying to keep out the next generation of engineers-to-be. I'm not even an engineer: I'm a lowly technician.
1. Re:Who hasn't? by ColdWetDog · 2013-01-20 09:27 · Score: 2
  
  The problem now is that the law has sort of caught up with computing networks. In the Good Old Days, people did indeed hack into systems, piss off security and make long distance phone calls. But it was on a one off basis. It didn't rise to the level that people thought they needed legislation to protect themselves. There was little legal precedent to go after people with. Then the Feds decided that hacking into systems was a 'crime' and defined it in a nebulous, overbroad fashion. Well, they ALWAYS do that. They define EVERYTHING in a nebulous, overbroad fashion because it's easier and sounds better.
  Then, they managed to ramp up the General Paranoia Level (after 9/11) just a bit more. It had dropped a bit after the evil Soviets became more pathetic than evil but 9/11 gave them a golden (literally) opportunity to raise the ante. Coupled with the tendency of police units everywhere to emulate their big brother (the military), you get a legal system with over intrusive laws and overzealous prosecution, both in the field and in the courts.
  So remember kids. Walk that nice straight line. No need for nonconformity anymore. We've changed from a race of individuals to a hive. And you thought the Borg were fictional.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Perhaps we should take the hint by Smallpond · 2013-01-20 08:52 · Score: 1

More likely the prosecutor is now going after Tufte.
Yet Another True Confession by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-20 08:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

In the Bush-the-first Administration a friend and I "hacked" into a password-less guest account and over-wrote the login shell script with ftp. This made the low-privilage account a lot less low-privilage than the system administrators wanted. We let the administration know after the fact. They fixed the problem.
By today's laws and possibly those of the time, we committed a felony under both state and federal law. Morally I knew it was probably criminal but common sense and the morals of the time would call it a wrist-slap misdemeanor. I guessed correctly that the computer administrators would be more interested in fixing the problem than punishing us. As far as I know neither of us got into any trouble over it. I didn't. The statutes of limitations are long since expired or I wouldn't be making this admission in public. Within a few short years social attitudes changed and what we did would've likely gotten us some serious campus discipline and a "scare/threat" of arrest at a minimum.
The Ode to the noble Aaron Swartz, by sgt_doom · 2013-01-20 09:06 · Score: 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Qb0tCgNzbjk
Prosecutorial discretion is important by davidwr · 2013-01-20 09:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

However, it must be wielded with - pardon the pun - discretion.
It's NOT okay to have strict liability crimes without almost universal knowledge of the crime and likely punishment.
It's NOT okay to use discretion to coerce plea agreements.
In general, the discretion should be based on published, preferably well-known guidelines that all prosecutors in a given geography and who are prosecuting given types of crimes agree on. In other words, there shouldn't be "good luck" and "bad luck" for the defendant when cases are handed out to prosecutors.
You do need proprietorial discretion so prosecutors can deal with things like local priorities, priorities that change over time, laws that have outlived their usefulness, etc. Prosecutors in a city with a high car-theft crime and a publicized crackdown would - and should - be less interested in offering mercy on new car thieves than prosecutors in a city without a high car-theft problem.
You also need to have proprietorial discretion to give leniency where the criminal act may warrant severe punishment but the criminal intent, while present, was not that of a hardened criminal or where "mother nature" has already meted out some punishment. For example, a person who steals a car to joy-ride and wrecks it causing himself severe injury should get a lot more mercy than someone who steals the car for profit. Why? The INTENT was to return the car intact, so the "criminal intent" is much less, and the person's injuries and medical bills will ensure he won't soon forget the experience.
In cases of civil disobedience, the prosecutors in an area should also have a "standard, well-known" response which may be to decline prosecution specifically to deny the citizen the public platform that he is seeking. Another "pre-planned response" may be to seek a very short jail sentence with a long probation period, with a prohibition of associating with other like-minded people during the probation period. Such a response will effectively separate those who are really willing to throw years of their life away for a cause from those who aren't, while appearing to the general public to be showing some leniency.
In the Swartz case, I wonder how differently things would have turned out if the prosecutor had said "Okay, here's our plea offer - 6 months in federal prison on reduced misdemeanor charges. If you don't take it, we'll ask the judge for a felony conviction and a sentence of 'A year and a day.' Talk it over with your lawyer and get back to us."

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
1. Re:Prosecutorial discretion is important by blueg3 · 2013-01-20 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting and well-thought-out. Have you read the Volokh write-up?
  I would argue that in this case it's not civil disobedience, since he was actively trying to avoid being caught. That's not the nature of civil disobedience. (One might argue that he was only avoiding being caught to be successful, and he would reveal himself upon releasing the documents, but that would be conjecture.)
  The Volokh piece talks about the accepted standard for punishment in this case, which is "special deterrence" -- since there's little damage, the object of the punishment should be to prevent Swartz from attempting to carry out his crime (or a similar action).
Re:When does a "prank" become a "crime"? by davidwr · 2013-01-20 09:29 · Score: 2

I should be "made whole" in civil court.
Remember, in the United States, crimes are almost always "the people vs. the defendant" or "the government vs. the defendant" which is just two ways of saying the same thing.
Whether pulling someone's pants down like this should be a crime or not, and if so what the criminal penalty should be, depends largely on society's attitude. Is the frequency of such activity or the harm done by it high enough that the general public wants to stop it so badly that they want to make it a criminal offense? Will making it a criminal offense decrease the frequency enough to make criminalizing it worthwhile? Are there other alternatives, such as public education, that may decrease the frequency? If so, would their impact be helped significantly by pairing them with criminalizing the behavior?
This logic is independent of the impact on this particular victim.
By the way, this sort of "OMG, we have to stop this because of one event" logic is exactly what is playing out with proposed and recently-passed gun regulations in Washington and in some state legislatures. Whether the issue is guns or pulling people's pants down, we need to take a long, sober look at the overall effect of having a law vs. not having a law, not react to a specific circumstance.

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Re:When does a "prank" become a "crime"? by sjames · 2013-01-20 10:24 · Score: 1

All prison would do is render the 'mad pantser' financially unable to compensate you for your loss. Should the 'justice' system be a bit more merciful, all it will do is extract a huge fine from him that should have gone to you as compensation but won't. You're better off if he gets a chance to become a useful member of society and pay you for your damages according to a ruling in civil court.
Re:When does a "prank" become a "crime"? by Dr_Barnowl · 2013-01-20 10:35 · Score: 2

The real bastards here are the people discriminating against you on penis size.
Funny story... by seebs · 2013-01-20 11:02 · Score: 1

I got in a ton of trouble for things. At least one, I finally figured out 20 years later what happened.
The college I was at had terms of use. I read them. I followed them.
One of the rules was that you must not access other student's accounts. So I didn't. But I was curious about a lot of stuff, and I did things like write something to check common dictionary words against passwords (this was before shadow passwords). And I wrote something that emulated, down to the effectively-slower bit rate, the behavior of the terminal multiplexer which lived in front of the login process, and gave people fake login prompts, and recorded passwords.
I got in trouble. I was mystified by this. I had not accessed any other student's account.
Apparently, though:
1. No one was actually looking at logs in any detail.
2. At least one student claimed that I had done stuff to them. (I don't even know if it's a student whose account I had a password for; I assume they lost a file and blamed me because they'd heard I had passwords, or maybe it was just a lie.)
3. Also, you're apparently supposed to know that "don't access other people's accounts" implies "don't collect the passwords for other people's accounts."
Nowadays, if I take time to think about it, I can usually spot the intended "or do anything that looks like you might be planning to..." that people assume all rules carry, but I still have to work at it. I didn't even know why I kept having trouble with rules until I started reading up on autism. :)

--
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
1. Re:Funny story... by Sabriel · 2013-01-20 16:49 · Score: 1
  
  Laughed at the AC who replied to your post with "... you are why we have to lock our doors." He's wrong on so many levels, and he doesn't even know why. Oh, the irony.
2. Re:Funny story... by Sabriel · 2013-01-20 16:51 · Score: 1
  
  No, that's not why the locks are there.
Similar Experience with AT&T by dave562 · 2013-01-20 11:10 · Score: 1

In the early 1990s I was into Audix running on System 85s. I figured out that 800-##AUDIX and 800-AUDIX## were back end access to AT&T's entire Audix infrastructure. With the help of ToneLoc, myself and some like minded individuals were making short work of the ##AUDIX range. I was living at home with my parents at the time.
After a week or two (it was not long at all), I was at the dinner table and my mom explained to me that she had a long conversation with AT&T corporate security. They explained to her in no uncertain terms that what I was doing was highly illegal (toll fraud (since they were 800 numbers), illegal access to a computer system (the System85s that were running Audix), and some other things). My dad shared tales of blue boxing from Harvard in the 70s, my parents explained that I was not going to be using the modem for six months, and we all decided that a life of phone fraud and computer crime was not going to be part of my future.
By the mid to late 1990s after having spent a lot of time at 2600 meetings and Defcon, it was very obvious to me that the Feds were not going to take a light hand to those who them deemed a threat to the system. The "old school" mentality that Tufte experienced up close, and that I had a brief taste of, disappeared long ago. The shift makes sense because of how the culture has grown. It went from hackers in dorm rooms at a few colleges, to people on bulletin boards with only a few phone lines, to EVERYONE (practically) walking around with a full blown computer in their pocket that is continually connected to the net 24/7.
I think the difference between curious exploration of computer systems, and cracking with the intent of liberating information is an important one. In this day and age, the authorities are not in the mindset to tolerate either. It is a shame. Good IT people are those who are curious about how things work. Smart people of any stripe, no matter what their profession, will always be testing the boundaries of the system. The human mind wants to know. It thrives on knowledge. It is criminal to lock the knowledge away. Yet, in the system we live in, just the opposite is true. It is criminal to liberate information, and perfectly legal to embargo it.
Carmen Ortizâ(TM)s Sordid Rap Sheet by sesshomaru · 2013-01-20 20:56 · Score: 2

"In 2009, the 69-year-old owner, Russ Caswell, received a letter from the DOJ indicating the government was pursuing a civil forfeiture case against him with the intention of seizing his familyâ(TM)s motelâ"it was built in 1955 by Russâ(TM)s fatherâ"and the surrounding property. Ms. Ortizâ(TM)s office asserted that the motel had been the site of multiple crimes by its occupants over the years: 15 low-level drug offenses between 1994 and 2008 (out of an estimated 125,000 room rentals). Of those who stayed in the motel from 2001 to 2008, .05% were arrested for drug crimes on the property. Local and state officials in charge of those investigations never accused the Caswells of any wrongdoing."
-- Carmen Ortizâ(TM)s Sordid Rap Sheet
By Christian Stork

The article continues:

"According to the sworn testimony of a DEA agent operating out of Boston, it was his job to comb through news stories for properties that might be subject to forfeiture. When he finds a likely candidate, he goes to the Registry of Deeds, determines the value of the property in question, and refers it to the U.S. attorney for seizure. It is DEA policy to reject anything with less than $50,000 equity." -- Carmen Ortizâ(TM)s Sordid Rap Sheet
By Christian Stork

And, finally:

"Mr. Salzman doesnâ(TM)t buy the message of deterrence. He asserts that just up the street, a Motel 6, Walmart and Home Depot all operate with similarâ"in many cases higherâ"rates of drug crimes on their properties, referencing numbers obtained from the Tewksbury Police Department. " ...
"...But those corporations have extensive financial and legal resources, and would put up much more of a fight than a small business owned and operated by a single family. Before a public interest law firm took on his case, Mr. Caswell had already spent over $100,000 and was near bankruptcy."-- Carmen Ortizâ(TM)s Sordid Rap Sheet
By Christian Stork
What imbecile appointed Carmen Ortiz as a prosecutor, anyway?

--
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
1. Re:Carmen Ortizâ(TM)s Sordid Rap Sheet by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2013-01-21 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  It's clear that the increasingly low standards seen throughout the US justice system have their origins in the normalisation of previously extraordinary Drug War practices.
  
  --
  May the Maths Be with you!
A trubute to Aaron Swartz by hotdogee · 2013-01-20 21:58 · Score: 1

I made this drawing as a tribute to Aaron Swartz: http://goo.gl/E3v6F
Blog Post(Taiwan): http://caq-qoq.blogspot.tw/2013/01/aaron-swartz.html