Slashdot Mirror


DoJ Admits Aaron Swartz's Prosecution Was Political

An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from a blog post by Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman, founder of corporate watchdog SumOfUs.org and partner of the late Aaron Swartz: "The DOJ has told Congressional investigators that Aaron's prosecution was motivated by his political views on copyright. I was going to start that last paragraph with 'In a stunning turn of events,' but I realized that would be inaccurate — because it's really not that surprising. Many people speculated throughout the whole ordeal that this was a political prosecution, motivated by anything/everything from Aaron's effective campaigning against SOPA to his run-ins with the FBI over the PACER database. But Aaron actually didn't believe it was — he thought it was overreach by some local prosecutors who didn't really understand the internet and just saw him as a high-profile scalp they could claim, facilitated by a criminal justice system and computer crime laws specifically designed to give prosecutors, however incompetent or malicious, all the wrong incentives and all the power they could ever want. But this HuffPo article, and what I’m hearing from sources on the Hill, suggest that that’s not true. That Ortiz and Heymann knew exactly what they were doing: Shutting up, and hopefully locking up, an extremely effective activist whose political views, including those on copyright, threatened the Powers That Be."

326 comments

  1. Re:I Don't Get It by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Rolled over at the first sign of adversity?

    Are you seriously?

    I don't think you have made yourself even remotely familiar with the case, whatsoever, by that statement alone.

  2. Re:I Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The thought of years of federal "pound-me-in-the-ass" prison, combined with his recorded bouts of depression, were plenty to drive him over the edge.

  3. It IS somewhat shocking. by apcullen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not at all shocking that it was politically motivated. What's shocking is that they admitted it.

    1. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically a big f- you to democracy or even the idea of it... I mean we know it's not democracy, but when you stop even paying lip service. That's over the line.

    2. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by oodaloop · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What would really be shocking is if anyone went to jail for this.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    3. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by DFurno2003 · · Score: 1

      My stomach turns when I think of the lengths that people will go to in the name of justice.

    4. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by BigSlowTarget · · Score: 4, Informative

      They didn't. They said an arguably political paper "played a role in the prosecution" . They don't consider the paper political or they don't consider it the whole motivation. It's a short paper, probably worth reading so you can make up your own mind how wrong they were.

      http://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamjuly2008_djvu.txt

    5. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      you know what's worse than a conspiracy? a peon(prosecutor) who thinks there is a conspiracy and acting on as if there was one and as if he/she would be rewarded for being a dick in order to further that conspiracy.

      an actual conspiracy has planning and bullying schwartz didn't really help the powers that be at all.. yet the prosecution thought that for some fucked up reason they should do their thing. like a soldier committing mass murder of random people of some ethnic distinction because he thinks that's the reason he was deployed.

      as for the copyright lobby, it's not really a conspiracy - it's all in the open.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    6. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, no. That's too shocking. That could never happen.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    7. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by malkavian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the name of "Law". Nobody (especially Lawyers) pretends it's a system of Justice.

    8. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Justice is the judges job to ensure everything proceeds fairly. lawyers only care about winning their case.

    9. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by fredrated · · Score: 1

      My God, man, how could you even imagine that?

    10. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by alexo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Justice is the judges job to ensure everything proceeds fairly. lawyers only care about winning their case.

      The judge's job is to ensure that the game is played by the rules. Whether the rules are "just" or not is completely irrelevant.

    11. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by sycodon · · Score: 2

      I didn't read anything suggesting that they admitted it.

      A HuffingtonPost (not exactly your objective source) article claimed that the DOJ "admitted it". This was picked up by the OP's cited source which then added its own spin:
      UPDATE #2: A DOJ official says (in the outlet “Broadcasting & Cable,” an odd choice if you ask me) that my characterization of the prosecution as “political” is inaccurate. No argument as to why or how, so color me unconvinced.

      So, biased source to biased source to here.

      Show me a transcript.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    12. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by LateArthurDent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not at all shocking that it was politically motivated. What's shocking is that they admitted it.

      They didn't. The blog post is a really biased interpretation of the article it is commenting upon.

      What was actually said is that the manifesto was taken into account because it was evidence of his intent to distribute the papers he downloaded. Now, I personally agree with Aaron's views, but if you consider the current copyright law just as it is, it's perfectly acceptable to use that manifesto as evidence that his motives was to commit widespread copyright violations. There's nothing political about it in the sense of "we need to shut this guy up." In the way the law is currently written, what he wanted to do is illegal. That's why Aaron himself called it civil disobedience in his manifesto.

      That said, the whole, "we can get you for a maximum sentence of 30 years, but we'll agree to a plea bargain of 3 months" is really bullshit, and I'd really like to see it go away. We all agree that 30 years for downloading and distributing some digital files is unacceptable, and the DoJ's excuse is, "well, we weren't really going to imprison him for that long. It was going to be 3 months, and his lawyer might even successfully argue for no jail time." That's not the point. The point is that the maximum sentence should be set to a reasonable value, so that it can't be used to blackmail someone into plea bargaining.

    13. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copyrights are not worth some kids life you piece of shit scumbags. Hang them all! NOW!

      This is also a 'political statement'. As in you will NOT subvert the law for you own end or pay the ultimate price.

    14. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by bkaul01 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Exactly. In particular, what they said was that due to this manifesto of his, they believed that his intent was to make the documents he was downloading publicly available - that is, violate the copyright by redistributing them. In other words, he publicly said, "We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks," and was in the process of doing said downloading. They had reasonable cause to believe that his intention was to upload these papers to file sharing networks, in violation of the law, as stated in his manifesto. While his intention to break the law might have been "politically motivated," the prosecution was based on his stated intention to break additional laws, not on silencing his political beliefs.

    15. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by SternisheFan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Until this country creates and enforces better anti-bullying laws that do not exempt government officials, no one will be held accountable. It's very, very sad that this young man took his life away over this (Never ever give up! Ever!). No matter how you view this case, the bottom line is a human life is gone because of frickin' copy protection statutes!! Very sad, there needs to be change. Enough lives have been damaged already. $600,000 fines for trading a few songs on a file sharing site? A13 year old girl is fined thousands of dollars because she liked and wanted to dance to a song she liked and "illegally" downloaded?? A young man without proper coping skills facing 30+ years in jail because he thought charging 10 cents a page for documents paid for by tax dollars should be free??!!! While murdererers and rapists are given minimal sentences for their true crimes. On the face of it, it is all quite insane.

    16. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by alexo · · Score: 2

      Is it time for mob justice yet?

    17. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod up

    18. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think copyright killed this man.

      "A young man without proper coping skills facing 30+ years in jail because he thought charging 10 cents a page for documents paid for by tax dollars should be free??!!!"

      Yes we have what we like to call "laws" in our civilization, deal with it or go away, I really do not give a fuck how many exclamation points you use.

      Do you people get paid by the pound of stupid?

    19. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer bankrupting and kicking them to the street.

      In the long run, its much more painful that way.

    20. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by lennier1 · · Score: 2

      That level of honesty so soon usually means that someone was about to publish proof and they wanted to do damage control.

    21. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Admitting it is not shocking either. What would be shocking is every single person in this stack frame being sent to jail for life.

      In reality what is the worst that happened in the past when such criminal acts were admitted? Not much, so they do it again and again.

    22. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only person that should go to jail for this is Aaron Swartz. Fortunately his killed himself.

    23. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting... When did intent become a crime? (And who said that the prosecutor gets to decide what my future intent is? They have enough trouble arguing what a defendant's past intent was.)

    24. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by Weezul · · Score: 1

      According to the DOJ’s testimony, if you express political views that the government doesn’t like, at any point in your life, that political speech act can and will be used to justify making “an example” out of you once the government thinks it can pin you with a crime.

      --
      The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    25. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by hey! · · Score: 1

      It's not at all shocking that it was politically motivated. What's shocking is that they admitted it.

      Well, I'm not sure they have. The summary, after all, is third hand. The HuffPo article seems to be the closest to the original source of the information as is available, and it appears SumOfUs is taking sentences from that article out of context. The article says:

      A Justice Department representative told congressional staffers during a recent briefing on the computer fraud prosecution of Internet activist Aaron Swartz that Swartz's "Guerilla Open Access Manifesto" played a role in the prosecution, sources told The Huffington Post.

      It seems to me a lot depends on what "role" you imagined the manifesto played. The summary is assuming that it was used to select him as a target, but that's not what the rest of the HuffPo article says:

      The "Manifesto," Justice Department representatives told congressional staffers, demonstrated Swartz's malicious intent in downloading documents on a massive scale.

      So the role they are referring to is not singling out Swarz for political persecution, but establishing that he had criminal intent. The intent to commit civil disobedience *is* the intent to commit a crime, because if doing it is *not* a crime, it's not disobedience. Civil disobedience is the intentional commission of an act that is technically illegal, but in the opinion of the actor should not be.

      That said, the prosecutors don't come off scott-free here:

      Some congressional staffers left the briefing with the impression that prosecutors believed they needed to convict Swartz of a felony that would put him in jail for a short sentence in order to justify bringing the charges in the first place, according to two aides with knowledge of the briefing.

      Nobody should be put behind bars to "justify" anything. Nobody should be imprisoned because not doing so will make a government official look bad.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    26. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes we have what we like to call "laws" in our civilization, deal with it or go away

      Thanks for the comic relief. It immediately created a mental image of a character from Hogan's Heroes saying "zere are rules, zese must be enforced!".

      Unfortunately, people in positions of power with your mentality can't be dismissed so whimsically. It doesn't matter whether one thinks Swartz was right or wrong. Even if he was wrong, what sort of "crime" did he commit? Was he part of a terrorism or mass murder conspiracy? Did he murder a single person? Steal billions from investors? Commit rape? And yet he was threatened with a sentence that exceeds that normally given for rape or manslaughter. "There's a law against it" is a pathetic defense of threatening someone with an absurd sentence for a minor infraction. 30+ years for downloading some scientific papers goes way beyond any reasonable understanding of cruel and unusual punishment.

      All legal investigation and prosecution are selective, because prosecutors and courts have only so much time. Thank heavens our wise and unbiased prosecutors decided to spend so much effort on Swartz. My tax dollars well spent defending the public safety.

    27. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no. That's too shocking. That could never happen.

      I disagree. Sheesh, It's not like they'd get the chair.

    28. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      You mean add Reddit? :) Quite honestly, I can't believe it got modded up either. :\

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    29. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Excuse me but this was not in the name of justice it was in the name of 'Unlimited Greed' ie the profits generated by copyright. They publicly admitted that Aaron Swartz was prosecuted, 'ney', persecuted for his public political opposition to the unlimited greed of attempted manipulations of copyright law. They were in matter of principle executing the individual ie silencing his political opposition to the current Obama/Biden administration and a major source of their campaign dollars.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    30. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Justice is the judges job to ensure everything proceeds fairly.

      That's their job, but the incentive of many judges in the US is to get re-elected by a populace obsessed with vengeance and possessing an ignorant and unrealistic idea of what constitutes "criminal justice". Also true of many prosecutors in the US.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    31. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would really be shocking is if anyone was executed for treason for using their govt. position to violate the 1st amendment (and other constitutional guarantees) for this.

      FTFY

    32. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by SternisheFan · · Score: 1
      When the law is fundamentally flawed, not to mention harmful to otherwise law-abiding citizens, and asinine, then the 'law' is an ass, and needs to be changed / amended. If the law is wrong but allowed to continue, the people naturally will quickly learn to disrespect the governing body in general. Now you'll have the populace openly rebelling against idiotic laws, beginning to ramp up their rebellion. They'll begin riots, civil disobedience taken to the next level. And that's when it'll get real bad, a modern day repeat of the sixties, when peace-loving hippies were getting beaten and killed for the simple act of protesting a war that they felt was unjust. And like then, the people in power will think they can control things by force, by using the media to paint the protesters as the 'bad guys'. And it might be your son or daughter that gets hurt protesting.

      And if it's your kid breaking what she thinks is a terrible 'law', you won't assist her in any way, huh? Let him/her rot in jail, after all, he/she broke copyright laws. And if your kid suicides because he/she couldn't live being threatened by your government with the best years of their young life, you would be ok with that. Just asking...

    33. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by slick7 · · Score: 1

      It's not at all shocking that it was politically motivated. What's shocking is that they admitted it.

      This is the arrogance that has become our leadership. What should happen next is the displeasure of the American people, just like the displeasure that occured on December 8, 1941. If these CONgressMEN do not step down, then they should be forced to do so. But we all know that won't happen. You will not see it on Facebook, therefore, it never happened.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    34. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by slick7 · · Score: 1

      What would really be shocking is if anyone went to jail for this.

      Yeah, some innocent schmo with a different opinion than the status quo.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    35. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Is it time for mob justice yet?

      Unfortunately, the politicians are the mob, it's just that all the other mobsters work for them. So, in essence, justice has been served.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    36. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by marnues · · Score: 1

      Given that the legal framework of our land is Common Law and that the Constitution was designed to build a fair playing field, it is absolutely the job of Judges to ensure Justice. That's the entire purpose of judicial review in America, and a cornerstone of the Judicial Branch's check on the other 2 branches.

    37. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by alexo · · Score: 2

      The difference between theory and practice is much larger in practice than in theory.

    38. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by pugugly · · Score: 1

      Yes - and the law says that information created in the government isn't covered by copyright.
      Note that none of the charges against Aaron Swartz include infringement of copyright, but "Computer Fraud and Abuse" and "Wire Fraud".
      They didn't have a case for copyright infringement, and they knew it. This was about defending a monopoly of information that was *not* constitutionally protected, but under the auspices of contractual relationships that Aaron Swartz had not signed to protect access to information that as a citizen he was legally entitled too.

      Aaron Swartz was right. And this was about destroying him for that.

      Pug

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
    39. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by Holladon · · Score: 1

      Justice is the judges job to ensure everything proceeds fairly. lawyers only care about winning their case.

      Yes and no. Do you know many actual lawyers? While it's true that we're ethically required to put our clients' interests paramount (and by "ethically required" I mean that if we breach this obligation, we face consequences up to and including disbarment, as in it would then be against the law to continue in our profession), and while it's true that, as in any profession holding the promise of some worthwhile amount of money, there are plenty of legal professionals who ignore any internal moral compass they have, it's equally true that there are many, many lawyers who not only care about justice, but who actively work on persuading their clients to seek just outcomes. Those who have never hired attorneys are likely unfamiliar with what an attorney-client relationship looks like from the inside, but in my experience it's exceedingly rare to have an attorney pushing his or her client to litigate aggressively. Far more often, we're the ones trying to reign in the rabid pit bull clients, detailing the uphill battles they'll face, incessantly reminding them of the potential risk and consequences of litigating aggressively, and encouraging reasonable settlements. It's easy to paint lawyers as bad guys because we are literally legally prohibited from sticking up for ourselves at the client's expense.

    40. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by sjames · · Score: 1

      They can consider it what they want, but the fact is, they admitted to throwing the book at him because they didn't like a seperate but perfectly legal thing he said. That makes him a political prisoner.

      Welcome to the USSR, alive and well.

    41. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by sjames · · Score: 1

      As officers of the court, it is a lawyer's duty to care about justice. They just aren't held to that, especially prosecutors.

    42. Re:It IS somewhat shocking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. In particular, what they said was that due to this manifesto of his, they believed that his intent was to make the documents he was downloading publicly available - that is, violate the copyright by redistributing them. In other words, he publicly said, "We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks," and was in the process of doing said downloading. They had reasonable cause to believe that his intention was to upload these papers to file sharing networks, in violation of the law, as stated in his manifesto. While his intention to break the law might have been "politically motivated," the prosecution was based on his stated intention to break additional laws, not on silencing his political beliefs.

      So bkaul01 is a supporter of the thought police. Good to know.

  4. Naturally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course they can admit it was political. There's no downside to this for them. They can't be successfully sued, and no one will ever be held personally responsible.

    "Yeah, we did it for political reasons. But, we didn't use a drone. It just turned out that our unreasonable tactics were extremely effective. And the taxpayers should be happy that they didn't get the bill for a large public trial."

    1. Re:Naturally by TrentTheThief · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I know a professional who would disagree with you about personal responsibility. He has made his living for the last ~30 years providing people with a very final dose of personal responsibility. All it takes is someone willing to pay for his services.

    2. Re:Naturally by mjr167 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I can't tell if you are talking abut a lawyer or a hitman... And is there a difference?

    3. Re:Naturally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And people will vote the same people into power, over and over and over and over....

    4. Re:Naturally by Dekker3D · · Score: 2

      One of them ends your life financially and legally, and gets away with it legally too. The other just ends your life. And just gets away with it, if he really is a professional.

    5. Re:Naturally by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Is there no legal downside? It sounds like unequal prosecution, that he was singled out for rough treatment for doing other, perfectly legal things. He wouldn't have had such charges but for other, legal activities.

      Justice is thus not blind. If that isn't illegal, it should be.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    6. Re:Naturally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you can counter attack by putting some bullets in the lawyer's head.

    7. Re:Naturally by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Is there a difference?

      Yeah! One's an amoral whore hired by you to effectively destroy a person's life. The other is the hit man.

      --
      That is all.
    8. Re:Naturally by alexo · · Score: 1

      I know a professional who would disagree with you about personal responsibility. He has made his living for the last ~30 years providing people with a very final dose of personal responsibility. All it takes is someone willing to pay for his services.

      Sounds like the perfect case for crowd-funding.

    9. Re:Naturally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What they didn't admit is that they coerced Aaron Swartz to commit suicide, as a public execution to limit his credibility and attack his mental health. There is no proof for, or against this explanation. However, it makes the most sense, given modern capabilities in military/government psychological warfare.

    10. Re:Naturally by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      Or a Bell Box..

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    11. Re:Naturally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there a difference?

      Yeah! One's an amoral whore hired by you to effectively destroy a person's life. The other is the hit man.

      This summary brings up the political prosecution of Julian Assange. The above definition seems to be true in that case too.

      What is the difference between China and US? You know which cards are on the table when it comes to China. In the US, all the lobbying by different entities really screw things up. For someone like Aaron to be persecuted? Really?

      In China, if he was some anti-gov't activist, there maybe pressure to send him to re-education camp for a year. Maybe some physical intimidation (ie. beat him up to shut him up).

      But in the US, 30+ years in some hole.

      It is a sad sad day when China looks like a better place of the two to be an activist.

    12. Re:Naturally by Nyder · · Score: 1

      Is there a difference?

      Yeah! One's an amoral whore hired by you to effectively destroy a person's life. The other is the hit man.

      This should be modded Insightful instead of Funny

      --
      Be seeing you...
    13. Re:Naturally by TrentTheThief · · Score: 1

      The hitman is scrupulously honest.

  5. Re:I Don't Get It by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1, Funny

    Come on, man. We're all adults here. Leave your shitty rhetoric at the door and cite your sources.

    Citation needed

    --
    You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
  6. Re:I Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is easy for you to say when you are not in the situation. A young man who was doing it for all the right reasons, but who was naive about the justice system.

    Remember he admitted it was him, he surrendered his equipment without warrants, etc.

    I hope someone pays dearly for this and I hope the public gets wind of this and revolts against these people that are purchase by corporations.

  7. Alpha Centauri applicable. by MRe_nl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master".

            Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights"

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    1. Re:Alpha Centauri applicable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama is already your master.

    2. Re:Alpha Centauri applicable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beware of he who would deny you access to information,
       
      Or a 3D printer.

    3. Re:Alpha Centauri applicable. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master".

                      Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights"

      What I really love about this quote, aside from it being amazingly insightful, is that it always seemed to turn up just after I'd gotten done refusing to share some piece of tech I'd developed with one of my "allies" because I wanted to have every advantage when I inevitably steamrolled them. It's like Commisioner Lal knew me, man.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:Alpha Centauri applicable. by alexandru_preoteasa · · Score: 1

      Demagogues can spout all they want on freedom of religion / speech / etc... When the pedal hits the metal, they're only human, and the guns / censorship / misinformation / propaganda / etc come out. Somewhat apropos, Lal was always a dick when I used to play Alpha Centauri. Aggressive motha...

  8. Re:I Don't Get It by niftydude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yet at the first sign of adversity he rolls over like a stuck pig.

    Suicidal depression is a serious mental disease. You can't just wish it away by smiling and singing a plucky song.

    People need to understand that mental diseases are actual diseases, and at least as difficult to cure as any physical disease out there.

    The idea that someone suffering severe depression can simply just "stand up for themselves" in adversity is incredibly insensitive.

    --
    You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
  9. Silver lining by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    At least they just prosecuted him instead of launching a Hellfire missile at his house.

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
    1. Re:Silver lining by Ogi_UnixNut · · Score: 2

      The result was pretty much the same, though. No?

    2. Re:Silver lining by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It was far worse. Hellfires tend to be relatively quick and painless. They basically threatened him until fear and despair drove him to suicide.

      I'll take hellfire over that kind of torture any day.

    3. Re:Silver lining by cpghost · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They may not have fired a Hellfile missile at his house, but the end result was just as lethal nonetheless.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    4. Re:Silver lining by geirlk · · Score: 1

      Albeit with less collateral damage.

    5. Re:Silver lining by Dekker3D · · Score: 1

      I'd say his family suffered a bit more collateral damage. And the US government is getting its eyebrows scorched, figuratively. No huge damage, but they are seeing a bit of backlash.

  10. Re:I Don't Get It by rmdingler · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Like many folks who are very successful at such a young age, Andrew was unprepared for the level of adversity he was faced with when he took his own life. Hats off to his idealism, but he would have been a more potent thorn in the man's side if he had spent any significant time poor and struggling.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  11. Re:conspiracy by TemperedAlchemist · · Score: 1

    There's no concrete proof of a link, but the coincidences? They keep uncannily piling on, and as soon as we take a peek under the rug I think we'll find it all out.

  12. RIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd say rest in peace, Aaron, but he's probably rolling over in his grave right now. I hope the people responsible feel remorse but they are incapable of feeling human emotion.

  13. Enter the tin foil hat contest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'm looking at the political manifesto being quoted, and the only bit of data was this quote:

    > A Justice Department representative told congressional staffers during a recent briefing on the computer fraud prosecution of Internet activist Aaron Swartz that Swartz’s “Guerilla Open Access Manifesto” played a role in the prosecution, sources told The Huffington Post.

    *OF COURSE IT DID*. It shows that *Swartz* was being political, and that messing with copyright apart was, *for Swartz*, a political act. That means he's going to do it again, and encourage other people to do it again, and it's a completely relevant part of criminal prosecution and sentencing. If someone doesn't believe what they did was wrong, or believe that it was a political action, it makes them more likely to do it *again*.

    And make no mistake, Swartz had repeated opportunities to stop, and he was screwing with research worldwide, not just at MIT. He *deerved*( prosecution.

    1. Re:Enter the tin foil hat contest by Marxdot · · Score: 1

      "Political persecution is fine if it 'screws with research' (read: disrespects corporate 'intellectual property')" -- Anonymous Coward.

  14. Re:I Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Maybe he didn't commit sucide.

  15. Re:I Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember he admitted it was him, he surrendered his equipment without warrants, etc.

    Because he honestly believed he had done nothing wrong! This article uses the phrase "civil disobedience" and that means to break the laws and only the laws that you feel are unjust and wrong. In doing so you get your day in court and if they still imprison you then at least the rest of the world can see it tried in court.

  16. TFA is a ranting leftist blog post, not a story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This would be like linking to an NRA member's blog about the gun control debate as if it were an accurate reporting on events.

  17. Re:I Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We're all adults here.

    Evidently not. You are asserting that a young man's suicide was merely a political statement, and an ineffective one at that. Such a statement bears no relation to a modern understanding of depression and suicide.

  18. Re:I Don't Get It by EasyTarget · · Score: 1

    Yes, he is serious; he's a RIAA/DOJ/greedist schill, and a comment placed like this gets him a bonus.

    --
    "Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
  19. Sums it up ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But the terrifying fact I'm trying to highlight in this particular blog post is this: According to the DOJ's testimony, if you express political views that the government doesn't like, at any point in your life, that political speech act can and will be used to justify making "an example" out of you once the government thinks it can pin you with a crime.

    This is awful. The idea that copyright (and in fact ideas about copyright) should be enforced as vigorously as this is absurd.

    America has started doing show trials now of people who haven't committed crimes on the basis that their ideas are radical and dangerous?

    The copyright lobby has won, apparently. And doing anything contrary to their wishes will cause the government to go after you.

    Welcome to the oligarchy folks, it's all down from here. I'm not sure how free of a society you can be when commercial interests lead to something like this.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Sums it up ... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is awful. The idea that copyright (and in fact ideas about copyright) should be enforced as vigorously as this is absurd.

      No, you're wrong. That's not what this is about.

      This is about a policy in which political propaganda is held above human life, liberty, rights, the law, everything. A policy by which goals are set and the rest is just a front. This is a government that lies to the people and that works against their interests, that fights against the will of change, that uses selective force of law and mock-law to suppress ideas and ideals.

      This is the same tyranny as gun control, global warming, and stem cell research: things we either can't know without major amounts of research or just can't know period, because the political views have covered up and even shaped the facts. Global warming is the biggest offender: we can cite stem cell research and see what was adult and embryonic, even though that's usually left out of casual activism (a lot of embryonic stem cell proponents point to "stem cell research" using adult stem cells); but with global warming, any research about the trends, the causes, and the impacts not following the political dogma is actively prevented as a first line of defense, and then picked apart and ridiculed by measures that would similarly debase current consensus. The same one-side slant is applied to everything, to varying degrees of effectiveness, regardless of whether the dogma is accurate with reality or completely fantastic.

      This is the same with copyright. The media and the government want to provide a slanted view of copyright, to ridicule and debase research contrary to their position, to hide all research that doesn't contradict but does show the other impacts (weak copyright DOES hurt business; but it also GREATLY improves the wealth of society by slipping works into the hands of consumers after a shorter time, and by reducing punishments to not be retaliatory and destructive but rather simply just). They have set out to destroy their opponents to cover the important facts that must be brought to the public mind.

      Hang them all.

    2. Re:Sums it up ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      That is someone's interpretation of the testimony, not the actual testimony. In fact, the "political speech" they are referring to is the 'Guerilla Open Access Manifesto' which the prosecutors were going to use as evidence of criminal intent. The manifesto itself is only a part of *how* he was being prosecuted, not *why* he was being prosecuted.

    3. Re:Sums it up ... by cpghost · · Score: 1

      America has started doing show trials now of people who haven't committed crimes on the basis that their ideas are radical and dangerous?

      The concept isn't new.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    4. Re:Sums it up ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was unaware of Aaron before his death. I did hear about SOPA and signed the petition but didn't see why these movements are so crucial.

      Aaron died for a cause and in turn has inspired many people like me to fight for what is right. Each one of us has the potential to create change as Aaron did. Its upto us to realize this and make it happen.

      I get more inspired by him everyday.

    5. Re:Sums it up ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Global warming is the biggest offender:"

      Bullshit.

      Global Warming is as easy to demonstrate as putting more and more jumpers on will make you warmer and warmer.

    6. Re:Sums it up ... by paiute · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nice manifesto, but the truth is pretty simple. It's about the money. It's always about the money.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    7. Re:Sums it up ... by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the oligarchy folks, it's all down from here.

      In other breaking news, the Egyptian foreign minister just announced the completion of the Great Pyramid of Giza.

      --
      Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
    8. Re:Sums it up ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats actual a really bad analogy, FAIL...Please try again.

    9. Re:Sums it up ... by stenvar · · Score: 1

      This is the same tyranny as gun control, global warming, and stem cell research: things we either can't know without major amounts of research or just can't know period, because the political views have covered up and even shaped the facts

      Welcome to the real world. However, the sky isn't falling. People still can buy guns, the US hasn't adopted stifling European-style global warming policies, and stem cell research is still legal. Fair use is still more liberal in the US than anywhere, and you're less likely to get in trouble for copyright violations in the US than elsewhere. Is it perfect? Of course not. There are ugly compromises and big problems buried in copyright law, CFAA, etc. But your kind of FUD and misinformation doesn't help.

      And when it comes to Swartz and his prosecution, anybody who voted for Obama really doesn't have cause to complain: this is exactly the kind of government you voted for.

    10. Re:Sums it up ... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is the same tyranny as gun control, global warming, and stem cell research: things we either can't know without major amounts of research or just can't know period, because the political views have covered up and even shaped the facts.

      You're veering into lunacy with that one.

      Global warming is a fact (basically all respected scientists agree on this one). It is not a tyraanny, a political movement, conspiracy (either liberal or conservative) a policy or any other thing you may choose to accuse it of. It is a scientific fact. The global mean temperature is rising.

      Lots of people with an axe to grind like to pretend it's a political thing and that there is a political "dogma", but the science is pretty clear at this point.
      The fact is the fact. Politics surround it, but that does not change the nature of it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    11. Re:Sums it up ... by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

      Apparently most slashfags have voted for hope and change.

      I wonder what the breaking point event will be for the intelligent Slashdot community, where you will actually get mad rather than diverting the issue and believing nothing will be abused.

      Wait until one day the civilian national security force in their brown uniforms, armed with 1.6 billion rounds of ammo start marching on the streets the same time the King announcing the suspension of the Constitution.

      When Slashdot is full of people like these , you will understand why history keep repeating itself.

    12. Re:Sums it up ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow.

      You combined utter shite with a few rational points (which have nothing to do with the shite you were spewing), and almost come across as sane. Well done.

    13. Re:Sums it up ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "People still can buy guns"

      Fuck you liar. Come to NY and buy an AR.

      Fuck off all of you statists.

    14. Re:Sums it up ... by alexo · · Score: 1

      Posted so cannot upmod. Have a salute instead.

    15. Re:Sums it up ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It is a scientific fact. The global mean temperature is rising."

      No it isn't.

      "but the science is pretty clear at this point"

      You want to fundamentally change the way of life for everyone on the planet bringing us all back to the dark ages based on "PRETTY CLEAR".

      Well you can go fuck yourself, morons like you care nothing about reason, logic and fact - AGW is religion to you people.

      I say but the science is pretty clear at this point that you are a fucking moron.

    16. Re:Sums it up ... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      I'm much more worried about people shooting me in the street because I'm part of a group they think is going to take over the world, and where they are the last chance for civilization to survive. You know, the ACTUAL way that the Nazis gained power in Germany. But you wouldn't know anything about that.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    17. Re:Sums it up ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when it comes to Swartz and his prosecution, anybody who voted really doesn't have cause to complain: this is exactly the kind of government you voted for.

      FTFY. I love how right wingers pretend their guy isn't 100% behind the same draconian rules. Considering the ~5% difference in views between Obama and Romney, there wouldn't have been a single slight shred of change no matter who won. Don't let cognitive dissonance win the battle inside your head please.

    18. Re:Sums it up ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, they make deals with EBEs for technology in exchange for human genetic material. I'm not talking a sperm sample or a hair sample, but taking something like an apple corer but about 5 inches in diameter and 8 inches long to your fucking asshole. Human subject does not live.

      And what do you get in exchange? You got nice LCDs, touch screens, and fast computers. The real good shit (gravity/inertia control, ZPE integration, teleportation for fucks sake) is blackops military only. And you can fuck off.

    19. Re:Sums it up ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Copyright == Global Warming? Fuck your red neck and the fundamentalist christian horse you rode in on.

      Anthropogenic global warming is a reality the lobbyist have been trying to suppress for the last several decades. The people arguing for it are climatologists who have risked their carriers, when not their lives digging holes in the arctic. The agreement among the scientific community is about 99.98%. The people arguing against it are politicians, lobbyists, corporations... and ignorant red necks.

      And stem cell research? What's different about researching this kind of cells than any other kind of cells? This is not an issue for anyone, except red necks and their obsessive love for embryos.

      Next you are going to tell me there is a gubermint conspiracy to brainwash children with EVILution.

      Fucking red necks...

    20. Re:Sums it up ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being a statist does have its advantages though. In NY you can always stay warm by standing near the perpetual bonfires of the collected works of Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein.

    21. Re:Sums it up ... by tibman · · Score: 1

      1.6 bil rounds is enough to train on but they'll be out of ammo when your "one day" comes. Either that or their marksmanship will be piss-poor and little practicing militias will drive them into hiding. It takes a lot of ammo to train up a force.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    22. Re:Sums it up ... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "America has started doing show trials now of people who haven't committed crimes on the basis that their ideas are radical and dangerous?"

      how is breaking in, illegal access a computer system, illegally adding code to a computer system not a crime?

      How is offering a deal of 0(zero) time in prison an oligarchy?

      "The idea that copyright (and in fact ideas about copyright) should be enforced as vigorously as this is absurd."
      agreed, as does the DoJ. sadly many sights misrepresent this case and it's facts to twist it to being about copyright when the DoJ didn't really give 2 shits about that?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    23. Re:Sums it up ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, you know that global warming is a fact because all respected scientists say it is so. You would not wan't to perhapes actually examine some of the data along with your observations of weather in you own neighborhood, and come up with you own conclusion. No don't do that, that would be thinking. You just need to believe whatever the scientist tell you.

      Here is a list of some things that all respected scientist have believed at one time.

      1) Men have more teeth than women.
      2) The shape of the head determines ones character and intelligence
      3) Steroids have absolutely no anabolic effect on muscle development (as determined by a double blind peer reviewed study)
      4) Kimono dragons are not poisonous
      5) The Sun revolves around the earth.

      I could go on but you probably get the point. Or perhapes you don't. In that case keep your blind faith in scientist, and experts. No need to think or use some of that old fashioned horse sense god gave you.

      In today's society an 'expert' is more likely than not someone with an agenda to sell you.

    24. Re:Sums it up ... by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Apparently most slashfags have voted for hope and change.

      Morons like you are an even bigger threat to our liberties than Obama, and that is saying something.

      And in the last election, it didn't really matter who you voted for, since the two frontrunners were equally bad on civil liberties, wars, and the economy.

      When Slashdot is full of people like these , you will understand why history keep repeating itself.

      Slashdot is dominated by left wing tech nerds. What they believe or don't believe only has limited relevance to the real world.

    25. Re:Sums it up ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And thus you admit both that I am right, we are not allowed to buy guns - a right that is god given and enumerated in the constitution; and that b: you also believe in censorship of those whose opinions you disagree.

      Why not just outright kill those you disagree with then? You have already disarmed them?

      How do you like it statist that they are able to ignore the constitution at will? What happens when they get around to the parts of the constitution that are important to you? You understand that's what the BOR is for, every right - not limited to - for every man, no exceptions, no infringements.

      When the Constitution is gone there will be nothing left for us to use to defend ourselves, nothing but these seven round mag's, of which I am making sure I will have plenty of.

      We understand that you are of the party of "we just want to steal the other guys shit but cannot say so out loud". Well let me tell you something uber-liberal; that time has not come yet and when it does it will not be pretty. If only I can be the guy who ends up on the receiving end of your shit, I will help myself with a smile on my face, that would be sweet.

    26. Re:Sums it up ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you were saying in your post then, is that you're a right wing crackpot?

      I don't understand what this has to do with the discussion though.

    27. Re:Sums it up ... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Wasn't so worried about whether or not guns need to [not] be banned or global warming is [real/caused by SUVs/etc] more that the facts are non-trivially obfuscated. Global warming is actually a fun one to poke at because it turns out that gasoline lawn mowers (2 stroke engines that you mix the oil into the gasoline for and have very poor exhaust emissions systems...) collectively output more crap--unburnt hydrocarbons, CO2, CO, particulate, toxic waste, etc--than all the cars on this planet. 50 times more crap. If we went to electric mowers, the impact would be much bigger than going to electric cars--whereas electric cars are nearly a no-op because cars are efficient and power plants are slightly more efficient (unlike inefficient-as-hell weed whackers). While I don't think the sky is falling, I do like clean air.

      It goes like that. Is global warming real? Well I can spit out other interesting facts about it at you, though the bulk main body research is "Science say yes, but science is being leaned on by the Mafia." Is copyright critical? "The vast majority of paid-off economists say piracy is the death knell for our economy." I happen to agree that if Napster had been left to continue as-is, we would have destroyed the recorded entertainment (movie, music) industry and been left poorer for it; but the figures showing current piracy impacts are total bullshit... not that anyone can prove or disprove that. Gun laws, pit bulls, the works.

    28. Re:Sums it up ... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's not even about the accuracy. It's about how if your research group does any research that questions AGW as it stands politically, you lose all funding. You lose respect if you challenge global warming, and private funding goes away (except for Royal Dutch Shell, and only for your anti-AGW work, and only as long as your works are loud and favorable to them), and Federal funding vanishes (forever).

    29. Re:Sums it up ... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      "Puts some thought into how things work" = "crackpot" now.

      It's a known fact that some information is suppressed and some is supported. Funding goes toward research shops that churn out favorable research to a cause for the backer. In extreme cases, big funding sources are completely cut for any shop that produces any unfavorable results--AGW is one such case, whereby if your research group produces any papers suggesting AGW isn't a thing and that the climate patterns are a mainly natural deviation will get all your funding pulled FOREVER.

      Today it's copyright. Research papers showing copyright is harmful are suppressed. Research PEOPLE who un-suppress these ideals are eliminated.

    30. Re:Sums it up ... by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      The science is clear, however it was generated politically. Contradictory information was discarded and singular results are pursued. Of COURSE it looks clear, they have an amazing filtering process. I do believe the Earth is getting warmer, but that does not mean I believe a liar telling a half truth is a good thing.

  20. And nothing will change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because so what if they admitted it? Is anyone going to be held responsible or punished for it? No. At most there might be a slap on the wrist (NOT for the prosecution, but for letting it get out of hand), then it will be business as usual.

    Remember, all the rules are there just for the plebs, not for the elites in the ruling class.

  21. ironic by IT.luddite · · Score: 5, Insightful
    that the quote appearing at the bottom of the page is Mizner's:

    "If you steal from one author it's plagiarism; if you steal from many it's research."

    As someone mentioned, it's not shocking the prosecution was politically motivated but shocking that they admitted it. I'll add that it's also not shocking that they think they didn't do anything wrong!

    1. Re:ironic by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Whether we tolerate computer fraud or not is a political choice. Whether we tolerate some kinds of copyright violations or not is a political choice. Whether we tolerate drug use or not is a political choice. Whether we tolerate illegal immigration or not is a political choice.

      The people elected a president and Congress that were clearly going to be tough on compute fraud and copyright violations, while they also elected a president that was going to be lenient on immigration. The DOJ translates those political choices into cases to prosecute. Perhaps the reason they "admitted it" and didn't think they did anything wrong is because this is how our system works. Remember that prosecutors are not judges, and prosecutions are not convictions.

    2. Re:ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you misspelled persecution.

    3. Re:ironic by geekoid · · Score: 1

      If would take your head out of the anti-copyright advocates asses and read the case, you will see that, in fact, he broke several laws not including copyright, the DOJ offered a deal of no time in prison, and the MIT killed the deal.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  22. recanted, apparently... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    tfa has an update at the bottom:

    "UPDATE #2: A DOJ official says (in the outlet âoeBroadcasting & Cable,â an odd choice if you ask meâ¦) that my characterization of the prosecution as âoepoliticalâ is inaccurate. No argument as to why or how, so color me unconvinced."

    whoever the "doj official" is, is likely out of a job soon..

  23. Re:I Don't Get It by crazyjj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Keep in mind that you're talking about a kid here, one who in the typical American fashion had been raised on idealism and "good government bullshit" (to quote Goodfellas). It's quite likely he had no idea going in just how hard the government can push back when citizens threaten corporate interests.

    It's real easy to envision yourself a hero when you embark on a fight against the man. But when confronted with the very harsh reality that you are engaging in the fight largely alone and against all odds, it can be overwhelming.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  24. And who runs the DOJ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    I just love it. You socialist morons who in such great numbers attack conservatives and support ultra liberal radicals like Obama your virtual king, what do you have to say?

    Who runs the DOJ? Holder, stooge of Obama and the left, tyrants all of them.

    Or am I missing something and it this all in reality the fault of the EVIL BUUUUUUSH!!!!!

    You fucking drones.

    Capthca: ENFORCER

    Bwhaahahahahhahahahahahah

    1. Re:And who runs the DOJ? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      It's the new slashdot system that flagged you as copyright enforcer and gave you a captcha you can type in without typos.

  25. Re:I Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, always look on the bright side of death
          Just before you draw your terminal breath

    Life's a piece o' shit
    When you look at it
    Life's a laugh and death's a joke it's true
    You'll see it's all a show
    Keep 'em laughing as you go
    Remember that the last laugh is on you

  26. Why I can't live there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you are innocent but a little dangerous the system overreacts and goes into bug squish mode. I didn't have the resources to defend myself without being driven to poverty, I am not too big or important to fail, the perfect target. My crime is being invited by a friends kid to give a first aid and rope safety class to some tree worshiping hippies after a fatality, that got me into the sights of a federal prosecutor as a enviro-terrorist. I found out thanks to a college friend in the prosecutors office. I am a natural born in the continental US citizen, fortunately with an inherited second passport, I had the resources to go expat rather than gamble what the feds would do with their new DHS/patriot act powers.
    Is my life good now, sure, but I still feel that I can not ever visit the US until there is massive change.

  27. Re:I Don't Get It by Luckyo · · Score: 2

    Well, for starters you could read the linked article. It has plenty of what you're asking for mr. AC/troll/shill.

  28. Yep by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just like Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., etc., etc., etc. "deserved" prosecution.

    Did you ever stop to consider, even for a moment, that the reason Aaron Swartz was going to continue this pattern of behavior might just possibly be that he was right?

    --
    Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
    Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    1. Re:Yep by tibit · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Comment of the day, right here!

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    2. Re:Yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Having to pay for academic journals is not on and equivalent level with segregation.

      The problem ultimately with Aaron (and his faithful) is that they largely view the rules as not applying to them. That if you're clever and knowledgeable about computers, you get to make your own rules for appropriate/legal conduct when using them.

      He is of course wrong in this view, and the govt was going to remind him that yes, computer/copyright law still applies, even to geniuses and prodigies.

    3. Re:Yep by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Did you ever stop to consider, even for a moment, that the reason Aaron Swartz was going to continue this pattern of behavior might just possibly be that he was right?

      He was right on open access. But his means for fighting for it were dumb.

    4. Re:Yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      OMFG are you seriously putting this jerk who downloaded some files along with the likes of Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr.?

      You idiots just continue to amaze me with the depths your ignorance. Who the fuck thought it was a good idea to let you morons vote.

    5. Re:Yep by Dekker3D · · Score: 0

      Well, paying for academic journals.. it just reminds me of this quote I read just a few posts up:
      "As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master".

                      Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights"

      Especially the last part. "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master".

    6. Re:Yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wasn't "fighting for it". He was stealing documents and, in the process, breaking access for everyone at MIT and other people using JSTOR. That's not making the documents available, that's "you can only see the documents on this site I will set up to do things my way". Political ego, not political altrusim.

    7. Re:Yep by RazorSharp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He is of course wrong in this view, and the govt was going to remind him that yes, computer/copyright law still applies, even to geniuses and prodigies.

      Yet he could have raped and murdered someone and would have faced a lesser penalty. Maybe he was willing to accept the consequences of his actions, assuming that they were constitutional under the eighth amendment, which guarantees that excessive penalties wouldn't be levied against him.

      Making examples of people isn't justice. Furthermore, Schwartz's actions are comparable to those who fought segregation because in both cases the crimes they committed weren't just ethical, they were actions taken because they felt ethically compelled to do so. You may say that segregation is an obvious evil whereas research paid for by government grants being kept private/patented/non-free is not, but during America's struggle with civil rights, there was nothing obvious about the evil of segregation. Just ask Barry Goldwater.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    8. Re:Yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to miss the point.

      The safeguard against tyranny (state) is the free flow of information regarding the STATE and its activities legal or otherwise.

      Far from denying people access to information, JSTOR was about gathering and distributing large volumes of information for a minimal fee.

    9. Re:Yep by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1
      One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty.

      Martin Luther King Jr. -- "Letter from a Birmingham Jail "

    10. Re:Yep by FuzzNugget · · Score: 1

      No, they believe (and rightly so) that *certain* rules shouldn't apply to *anyone* on the basis that those rules are bullshit, oppressive policies bought and paid for by powerful and connected corporations with the purpose of maintaining and increasing that power.

    11. Re:Yep by fredprado · · Score: 1

      There is no clear distinction. All information regards the state, is used by it, and when denied can serve as a source of empowerment and domination for those that control it.

    12. Re:Yep by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Until punishment for breaking any unjust law becomes capital punishment. Then nobody does it anymore and all unjust laws prevail. We would never have had Rosa Parks, or Martin Luther King if the punishment they would get for civil disobedience was death or life in prison. A few people may be crazy enough to try in these conditions, but they would be few and fewer each generation.

      At this point civil disobedience cannot happen anymore, and anything short of a full and bloody revolution is completely ineffective. A point where a person can be condemned to 35 years in prison for "crimes" like Aaron's.

    13. Re:Yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is that they largely view the rules as not applying to them. That if you're clever and knowledgeable about computers, you get to make your own rules for appropriate/legal conduct when using them.

      It's not that the rules don't apply to us, it's that we're familiar with the rules and know that most of them are bullshit. We know that some laws are unenforced. Some are unenforceable. And some are completely batshit insane. A lot are only so much paper unless you have a lawyer and a lot of money to back it up. Same goes for a lot of fields. Here's a good example. You know those speeding cameras? Turns out, at least in Iowa, there's really no legal ground for them. They can issue you a ticket, ask for money, but if you don't pay they can't do anything about it. It's not like a ticket that a cop gives you. And there is that sort of legal nuance that you become aware of with any field.

      Most people like to pretend that the law is black and white. That there's a definitive “legal” and “illegal”. If that were true we wouldn't have court system. And perhaps it's more settled when you come to old problems. The courts have had longer to think about how many goats you owe when you break another's arm in anger. But for the digital realm? No, sorry, we live in a perpetual shade of gray.
      How closely are you bound by the terms and service of Slashdot? Who is liable if I spout some hate-crime which Slashdot hosts and other ISPs handle? Does that EULA that you clicked pass absolve you of all legal obligations? If someone sues you for violating the GPL, how do you prove you're clean? What's the difference between Microsoft suing you and the BSA suing you?

      These are things that, frankly, haven't been fully determined. The legal system hasn't had time to figure out how big of an infraction it is to walk into an unlocked closet, plug in a laptop, and download a block of data that really ought to be freely available in the first place.

      Furthermore, the legal system is constantly changing. The legislation pertaining to things like intellectual property rights, what you can and can't do with property you own, and how you're allowed to communicate with others is in a constant state of flux, and the court system has not kept up. There's a reason Aaron was charged with “wire fraud” rather than violating the DMCA clause about bypassing digital locks.

      Aaron Swartz was right in his view that this data should be freely available. The legal system just lagged behind a little. And without people like Aaron, nothing would change.

    14. Re:Yep by eriqk · · Score: 1

      MLK was wrong.
      By accepting the penalty, you accept the validity of the system. If rules and laws are unjust or immoral, ignore them, and fight thoise who would uphold those laws.

  29. Just as with the Occupy movement and Wikileaks: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Remember when it came out, that the FBI actively worked with the banks, to forcibly (and illegally anyway) shut the movement down? They added agents provocateurs, false flag operations, and sowed the seed of conflict, to get them to fall apart.

    The *exact* same thing happened to Wikileaks.

    There's a highly active and highly powerful force in the USA, that shuts down everyone and everything that goes against he enforced groupthink or doesn't let them distract him.

    It's why there are no real other parties, why the media only focuses on two views that are virtually the same and are portrayed as the most extreme differences there could be, and it's especially the reason why there aren't constant riots and attempts to overthrow the dictatorial government, even though it's ripe since a looong time.

    The CIA, the FBI, Homeland Insecurity, the TSA, the NSA, and especially those most powerful government agencies no-one has ever heard of but which somehow are involved in everything. They're all part of it.

    And the people live in extreme schizophrenic denial, flee to the delusions of religion, the reality distortion of the "American dream", and the lies of the "free market".

    1. Re:Just as with the Occupy movement and Wikileaks: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the people live in extreme schizophrenic denial, flee to the delusions of religion, the reality distortion of the "American dream", and the lies of the "free market".

      Someone is definitely in extreme schizophrenic something.

    2. Re:Just as with the Occupy movement and Wikileaks: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the lies of the "free market" ...the biggest lie being that we actually have one.

      (We are talking about the most expensive, most powerful, and most far-reaching government in human history. The idea that a free market can exist here is about as logical as corporatism dominating the Amish society.)

    3. Re:Just as with the Occupy movement and Wikileaks: by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      the lies of the "free market" ...the biggest lie being that we actually have one.

      The biggest lie is that "either" party wants one.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Just as with the Occupy movement and Wikileaks: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The CIA, the FBI, Homeland Insecurity, the TSA, the NSA, and especially those most powerful government agencies no-one has ever heard of but which somehow are involved in everything. They're all part of it

      Yes -- and no!
      The "most powerful agencies involved in everything" don't exist in the physical world. They exist only as IDEAS: the idea that copyright should allow corporations to control massive databases, for example. All these ideas feed off the "big idea" that "your life will work fine as long as the current system of ideas continues."

      Read what the prosecutors said exactly. They were defending the system of ideas which they are charged with defending. No, we don't know if they were paid off or told to do this, but it would not have been necessary. The "Guerilla Open Access Manifesto" said "part of the current system of ideas is dumb and needs to be torn down." The prosecutors saw this, saw that Aaron had started on the path of tearing the system down, and reacted accordingly. Unfortunately, their "system of ideas" is not perfect, it's given to inhumanity and ruthlessness, and so they went too far and unwittingly did more than Aaron ever could to bring down "the system."

    5. Re:Just as with the Occupy movement and Wikileaks: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always thought that, although the term "Illuminati" is conspiracy theory idiocy, the concept of it pretty much describes the USA and those controlling it. So in reality, although the term isn't used, it's pretty much accurate. They may not control the entire planet, but damned if they aren't trying. I could probably name on the fingers of one... MAYBE two hands... the countries that wouldn't bow to the USA.

    6. Re:Just as with the Occupy movement and Wikileaks: by c0lo · · Score: 1

      It is so prevalent, it's already bearing a name: it is called the iron triangle

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  30. Re:I Don't Get It by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Civil disobedience of that calibre isn't punished with 30 years of gulag. Except maybe back when Stalin was still alive. It's punished with fines in civilized world, and maybe short term prison in 3rd world.

    After Stalin died, even in USSR they didn't push for those kinds of punishments for that calibre of "civil disobedience".

    Worth noting that current for profit prisons are arguably worse then gulags. On one hand, you have better conditions (i.e. no risk of freezing to death during winters), on the other hand many prisoners helped each other in gulags because they were all in it together.

  31. Bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    His manifesto shows conspiratorial intent... He declared he wanted to make all information "free" and then he went in and STOLE the information to distribute it.

    The DOJ was doing its job and Taren is the one politicizing it.

    But if we way to go there, lets... Why did OBAMAs DOJ feel the need to persecute and torture Swartz like they did?

  32. Summary (and article) by Fox News? by Theaetetus · · Score: 5, Insightful
    DoJ Admits Aaron Swartz's prosecution was political! The DOJ has told Congressional investigators that Aaron's prosecution was motivated by his political views on copyright!

    ... but then you go to the article and see the quote and it's:

    A Justice Department representative told congressional staffers during a recent briefing on the computer fraud prosecution of Internet activist Aaron Swartz that Swartz’s “Guerilla Open Access Manifesto” played a role in the prosecution, sources told The Huffington Post.

    Doesn't sound quite the same as "admitting it's political". In fact, let's see what the HuffPo said:

    The "Manifesto," Justice Department representatives told congressional staffers, demonstrated Swartz's malicious intent in downloading documents on a massive scale.

    ... yeah. Sorry, Submitter, but we mock that kind of Gotcha Journalism when Fox News or Breitbart twists someone's words to make a splashy headline, or when James O'Keefe does one of his out-of-context videos to smear Planned Parenthood.

    1. Re:Summary (and article) by Fox News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Doesn't sound quite the same as "admitting it's political"

      Not until you get to the part about it being the only thing they had.

      How many files did he distribute? To whom?

    2. Re:Summary (and article) by Fox News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait...

      The "Manifesto," Justice Department representatives told congressional staffers, demonstrated Swartz's malicious intent in downloading documents on a massive scale.

      That statement doesn't have conservative pro-copyright written all over it? I didn't know that downloading documents on a massive scale is in fact a malicious act.

      So this "Manifesto" played a role but wasn't part of the motivational factors behind the prosecution? What role did it play then? A de-motivational factor?

  33. Anonymous Cowards vs the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well if ever you need to remind people why anonymity is so important, perhaps the Aaron Swartz case illustrates it.

    No doubt they'd get a girl to seduce him, then prosecute him for rape if all else failed.

    1. Re:Anonymous Cowards vs the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No doubt they'd get a girl to seduce him, then blackmail him to tell his boyfriend about it if all else failed.

      FTFY.
      BTW I got the Assange reference, well played sir/madam!

  34. Re:It was not political. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    From what I've read he broke a TOS, not the law.

  35. Re:It was not political. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you had to plea bargain (what would have been a fine plus points) down to only two years in prison because politically motivated prosecutors what to make a career and send a message, how would you feel then?

  36. Re:It was not political. by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More like you speed and get a ticket for felony reckless driving.

    The point isn't that he was prosecuted, it was that A) he was prosecuted beyond any reasonable interpretation of the wrongdoing B) the prosecutor drew up a huge list of charges to try and scare him into taking a plea C) the reasons for A and B, it has just been admitted by the DOJ, were political. That shouldn't happen in the US, it just shouldn't. There shouldn't even be the shadow of a possibility that it could possibly have happened.

  37. Re:I Don't Get It by DFurno2003 · · Score: 2

    Mental illness is very serious and sometimes people get pushed beyond their limit. I can't imagine the need for any government employee to push someone that far.

  38. Scooped by HN - Anonymous Staffer, No Story by Yebyen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5284311

    The story was reported yesterday on Hacker News, and the headline on /. is just as sensational as it was in the other forum.

    There is no admission, and there is no source. The anonymous staffer who will not be named is some underling with no pull or sway, and nobody has resigned. He didn't even say what the headline claims he said.

    --
    Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
  39. Re:It was not political. by Creepy · · Score: 5, Informative

    The thing is, he really didn't break the law, he took freely available, public domain documents from JSTOR and published them on the internet so that the public didn't have to pay 10 cents per page to get access to them. The law being used against him was the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), specifically the section that was put in for ATMs. Lawyers creatively turned this section of the CFAA to apply to terms of service agreements by saying the 10 cents per page was a network based "financial transaction." Basically, they used a law that was never designed for a networked computing based world and applied it to a network computing based world. The same law basically bans the world wide web, requiring you to have explicit permission to visit any computer on the internet, so congratulations on committing several felonies by browsing today.

  40. Re:It was not political. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's part of the issue. If you break the TOS, you have voided the contract granting permission to access a computer system. If you access it, you are accessing a computer system without authorisation - a criminal offence in the US under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Legally, it's really no different from cracking your way in. That's why the maximum penalty he was threatened with was so high, and why there is such an outcry: The law used was not intended to criminalise violating a website TOS, but it implicitly does just that.

  41. Is this news? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 0

    Or is it just a different slant on things we already knew about? The first link in the posting was to a tumblr blog formatted to look like a magazine article. But if you read it, its author breathlessly recounts rumors. The second link cited is a Huffington Post article about how prosecutors viewed his "manifesto," which has already been discussed on slashdot.

    TarenSK is entitled to his opinions. But they're not very interesting. Who would have expected publicly defying the law would motivate prosecutors to come down hard on a suspect?

    Seriously, is Slashdot news for nerds anymore? Or just Talking Points Memo for the Pirate Party?

    1. Re:Is this news? by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      Aaron Swartz was many things, but as it happens gay was not one of them. TarenSK was his girlfriend.

      But who would expect insightful commentary from someone who hasn't noticed even that?

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    2. Re:Is this news? by number11 · · Score: 1

      Who would have expected publicly defying the law would motivate prosecutors to come down hard on a suspect?

      The "law" was a TOS/AUP. Are you saying you've never violated any of the terms of a network or website's TOS/AUP? I strongly doubt that you even read them (nobody else does either.. you may remember the game vendor who included a term ceding ownership of the user's soul to the publisher, and nobody even noticed). Do you agree that violating any of those terms ("defying the law", as you phrase it) should be treated as a felony?

    3. Re:Is this news? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Who would have expected publicly defying the law would motivate prosecutors to come down hard on a suspect?

      The "law" was a TOS/AUP. Are you saying you've never violated any of the terms of a network or website's TOS/AUP? I strongly doubt that you even read them (nobody else does either.. you may remember the game vendor who included a term ceding ownership of the user's soul to the publisher, and nobody even noticed). Do you agree that violating any of those terms ("defying the law", as you phrase it) should be treated as a felony?

      No. I'm saying that if you're going to commit a felony, telling the world that you're going to do it an encouraging others to do so is a pretty reliable way to get a prosecutor's attention.

    4. Re:Is this news? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Aaron Swartz was many things, but as it happens gay was not one of them. TarenSK was his girlfriend.

      But who would expect insightful commentary from someone who hasn't noticed even that?

      I guess that explains why she defends Schwartz and claims he was doing nothing wrong even when he knew he was breaking the law.

  42. Re:I Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I said that on day 1

  43. Re:It was not political. by Eldragon · · Score: 1

    Drive down any highway in the United States. If the Speed Limit is 70 mph, the troopers aren't pulling over every car going 71 mph and up. They are pulling over whom they choose to pull over; sometimes its the guy going 85, sometimes its the car going 71 and "happens" to be driven by a minority.

    Police departments throughout the United States don't have a history of profiling or racism through selective application of the law. What happened to Swartz is no different; just at a higher level.

  44. Re:I Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Who's Andrew?

  45. Re:I Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone downmod this fucking $hihll troll pro-copyrighter

  46. HuffPo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? That rag is still around? It's the Fox News of our world, except it actually has less credibility. Slashdot... for scientific minds, citing HuffPo, or Wapo? Admittedly (very biased) rags. So sad

  47. Re:I Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The idea that someone suffering severe depression can simply just "stand up for themselves" in adversity is incredibly insensitive.

    People saying that are stupid, not insensitive. You might as well tell someone with diabetes or AIDS to just "stand up and shake it off."

  48. Re:It was not political. by tibit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The anti-segregation activists were breaking the law too. The fact that there is a law doesn't necessarily make it good, you know? How else can one fight immoral laws?

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  49. Voir Dire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it has not happened already, watch judges start citing contempt prospective jurors for mentioning Aaron Swartz.

    The defining characteristic of nation-states is that their governments must hold at least ONE political prisoner. Human nature is such that it is impossible otherwise.

  50. Sadly by argStyopa · · Score: 2

    "Politician admits obvious truth everyone knew already" ...really IS "news". /sigh /downfalloftherepublic

    --
    -Styopa
  51. Re:I Don't Get It by niftydude · · Score: 1

    You are of course correct - stupid is a much better characterization than insensitive. I was angry at the op, and so chose to tone down my original language to avoid being inflammatory :-)

    --
    You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
  52. Re:I Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, the modern understanding is that even when you succeed at life you can still fall into a depression. And the modern understanding is also that depression is a disorder where the brain chemistry and functions change in a measurable way. If the technology existed to easily sample brain chemistry levels, that is how depression would be diagnosed. There are studies that have found that you can diagnose and differentiate different types of depressions with fMRI, which may be the way it is diagnosed in the future. So yeah, it is real and it is not self-caused (except in the sense that depression can be 'self-caused' by abuse, sexual assault, or genetics).

  53. Re:I Don't Get It by starworks5 · · Score: 1

    If he was wanting to make a political statement, he should have just self-immolated himself on the doorsteps of capital hill, that would have really made a media circus out of it.

  54. Re:I Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you ever experienced a diagnosed mental illness? I just want to know where your expertise on this subject comes from.

    Btw, do you also go to children's cancer wards and yell at the patients about how they shouldn't stick around?

  55. Re:I Don't Get It by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Remember he admitted it was him, he surrendered his equipment without warrants, etc.

    Everything about what was done to him was wrong, but this was seriously fucking stupid. Don't admit anything. Don't even admit you were there. Nuke everything. Better to be harassed for concealing evidence (and if there's no evidence, how can they prove you destroyed anything incriminating?) than to be raped for not even committing a crime.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  56. 2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why there's a Second Amendment, people.

    "Who needs an assault rifle," you ask? Obviously anyone with opinions of his/her own.

    1. Re:2nd Amendment by Mike+Frett · · Score: 1

      Yes and, those Guns do you a lot of good when Tanks and Jet's are pounding your ass. You think they wouldn't do it?.

    2. Re:2nd Amendment by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm sure that they would have no qualms about committing mass murder if they thought it was in their best interest. Think about it though. Did the Nazis use panzer divisions and the Luftwaffe to round up people and ship them to concentration camps? Obviously not. You don't bomb a building full of the sheep you're trying to subjugate just to kill a few political dissidents who decide to resist.

      When tyranny comes, the government goons will be kicking down doors in the middle of the night and snatching specific people off the streets. Precisely why firearms will be very useful.

  57. Re: I Don't Get It by nanospook · · Score: 1

    But. . We are the public. .

    --
    Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
  58. You can make it so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It won't change in 1 month, next year or maybe even in 5 years.

    But somewhere along the line, other people'll adopt your very ideas you put out.
    Living this on a daily basis now regarding organic non-toxic and vegetarian foods among dozens of other areas.
    It doesn't even take that much energy. You don't have to marry your ideas, just back them up with facts.

  59. Re:I Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Ah yes, the groupthink module has been contaminated, DEATH TO THOSE WHO STRAY FROM THE PARTY LINE.

    Democrats good, Republicans bad. Cognitive dissonance is to be ignored.

    From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

  60. Prosecutors == Bullys by tekrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And don't we have anti-bullying laws now?

    I mean seriously, these guys are getting away with what has now literally (and I'm using the term accurately) been defined as MURDER.

    Remember that case where another "private citizen" bullied some young girl over the internet, that young girl committed suicide, and then the bully was put on trial for her murder?

    So why is the prosecutor, who performed EXACTLY the same act, still walking free, and is probably still bullying others into killing themselves?

    Nice dual-justice system there, America.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:Prosecutors == Bullys by sudon't · · Score: 1

      It's because prosecutors have immunity for their actions. They get away with murder everyday.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

  61. so what? by stenvar · · Score: 1

    Of course, the prosecution was motivated by his views on copyright, just like the prosecution of a pot grower is motivated by their views on growing pot. What people still don't seem to get is that the DOJ position represents the majority view of the elected representatives, both on copyright and on computer fraud.

  62. "political" or "coporate" by RichMan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I would not really call it a "political" detention, but rather a "coporate" detention. Views on copyright do not really reflect on political issues but rather on corporate profit issues.

    Sure copyrights and patent are part of the legal process of civil society decided by our politics. But in the end their purpose as defined in the laws that enact them is purely to drive a profit.

    Aaron Shwartz, death by corporate agenda.

  63. The real religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The religion of the american dream is lies of capitalistic greed

  64. Re:It was not political. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But your view of traffic law might lead to you getting forcefully removed from your car, detained, arrested, pepper sprayed, beat, tazed, additional charges, impounded and even killed if the officer that ticketed you doesn't like your view enough and has a long history of doing those things and getting away with it. That's the point here.

  65. Re:I Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a hobby of mine.

  66. Guilty of: thought crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sentence: death

  67. Swartz gave up and let the bastards win. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I was prosecuted in the same vindictive, politically motivated
    way as Swartz was.

    I was sentenced and I went to prison and did my time and now I am free,
    or at least as free as you can be in the increasingly fascist United States.

    The process of plea bargaining ALWAYS involves the prosecution making
    threats which could result in an absurdly long amount of prison time. This is
    done in order to coerce the defendant into "copping a plea". Any decent defense
    attorney knows this, and for that matter anyone with a brain who hasn't even
    been to law school knows this too.

    Swartz was smart but obviously troubled. Just because you are in trouble doesn't mean
    you fucking give up and commit suicide. So a major part of the culpability for Swartz dying
    rests with Swartz himself. Of course the majority of the kind of gutless cunts who hang out
    on Slashdot lack the courage to admit this is true and so they want to blame it all on the government,
    which is certainly a force for evil but cannot be honestly said to be 100% responsible for the unfortunate
    outcome in this particular situation.

    This is probably the most truly insightful post on this page, but of course you Slashfags won't
    mod it up because you like to entertain persecution fantasies.

    --

    1. Re:Swartz gave up and let the bastards win. by tekrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, you know... Jesus carried his own cross to his crucifixion, so you can't blame his death entirely on the Romans. He was mostly to blame for his own death. If he had just shut up when he was told to, he could have lived a long and happy life.

      --
      If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    2. Re:Swartz gave up and let the bastards win. by shentino · · Score: 2

      Indeed.

      Jesus carrying his own cross is nothing more than a symbolic gesture when the authorities were prepared to drag him to his doom by force kicking and screaming.

      Similiarly, if Aaron hadn't offed himself the feds would still be after him like a pack of rabid wolves.

      The only reason the feds didn't get a piece of him is because the grim reaper got it first.

    3. Re:Swartz gave up and let the bastards win. by fazey · · Score: 1

      If you were someone who was prone to depression you might understand better. You thought what you were doing was no more than a slap on the wrist... probation at most... Then all of a sudden you are getting threats of YEARS in prison. Your lawyer tells you there is a plea of only 6 months in prison... But your record would be destroyed. You will have trouble finding an apartment, a job, no gun ownership, you can never vote, etc... being a felon gives you a certain stigma, and prevents you from doing a lot of shit in life. So, it is probably going to cause you to have a bit of a mind fuck. Especially if you are politically active! If you are already prone to depression, you guessed it, depression sets in, you lose your shit and the probability of suicidal thoughts increase dramatically.

      Even if they were just trying to scare him into accepting the plea, so they could win the case, these tactics need to fucking stop. When you deal with someone who isn't your average piece of shit(murderer,rapist,etc), or in this case, somewhat fragile... the case needs to be handled with more care. Ultimately, the goal shouldn't be to scare someone to get the win, it should be "justice". But clearly it isn't and that's what the entire premise of this is about. The unfortunate thing is, his death is probably the only thing that caused this to get the publicity it did.

      Personally, I couldn't ever off myself. I would go live in the middle of nowhere so I couldn't be found before I did that. But in his mind, this was the way out. He took it. More balls than I would have had.

  68. Re:It was not political. by will_die · · Score: 2

    What he took was not public domain documents. Some parts of the JSTOR database are public domain documents and are accessible to the public.

  69. Re:I Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're a real idiot, you know that?

    You either have no ability to feel empathy for your fellow man, or you're just a bitter old bastard who's too stupid to understand that the racial slurs he's throwing at the brown people are insulting. Either way, you're an idiot.

    I grew up with depression, and I suffer with it every day of my life. It is a disease, its a mental issue. There were people like you once, who threw people like me into mental institutions because you couldn't understand. You didn't want to understand, to deal with it. It was easier to just say "you're weak!" and lock them up.

    People who find themsevles in these sort of situations are not fully responsible for their own actions. They view what they're doing as the right thing to do, no matter how wrong that actually is, because the pain they're feeling is distorting their world view. If someone held a red hot iron against your arm for a few hours, you'd suddenly find yourself wishing you were dead, you'd want the pain to stop, you'd be screaming for mercy. It's no different here, only the pain is not physical, and it takes way longer than a few hours to reach that point.

    Every waking moment spent dreading, being afrade, being a burden, knowing at you and you alone are at fault for all of it. You dont eat because you think you're fat and horrible. You eat too much because you use it as an escape from the pain you feel. You cant stand living anymore because everywhere you look you seem to make life worse, not just for you, but for those you love and care about. You rob someone because you lose the path needed, nobody gives you want you need and you dont know how to earn it yourself, you're desperate, and you need what they have, even if you dont.

    You dont have an empathy deficiency disorder, you're just a fucking jerk.

  70. Re:It was not political. by greg1104 · · Score: 1

    Basically, they used a law that was never designed for a networked computing based world and applied it to a network computing based world

    What the hell? Don't those losers know you're supposed to patent this sort of shit first?

  71. No, that really is a good analogy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YOU just don't have a come-back for it, hence you're yelling "FAIL".

  72. Not convinced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't believe any of it.

    I don't believe he was foolish to believe it wasn't political. Nobody is an activist to that level without being 'awake'.

    I don't believe he commited suicide. His case didin't even go to trial yet. A judge may have saw right through it and put an end to it right then and there, and I don't believe he was stupid enough to do that.

    If your an activist in any way, you need to make sure you tell your friends and family, that you would never go crazy and shoot a bunch of people, or molest kids, or kill yourself, or anything else you can think of. That way if something does happen, there will be no doubt of who is responsible, or at least of who is not.

  73. Re:It was not political. by stenvar · · Score: 3, Informative

    He was primarily charged with violations of the CFAA, loosely speaking, breaking into MIT's network and causing trouble.

    He didn't have any TOS to violate because he wasn't even a legitimate user on the network he was accessing.

  74. Yah, not surprising by Gonzodoggy · · Score: 2

    After all, Hollywood spent a lot of money on Barack and they don't want to see their investment wasted.

  75. Re:I Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not all acts of suicide are due to "suicidal depression". Some are made as strong political statements. No matter what his motives, that is how I choose to see Aaron's suicide -- a final stab at an unjust system.

  76. Re:It was not political. by stenvar · · Score: 2

    Your description is perhaps valid for his use of the wireless network. But on the wired network, he didn't lose legitimate access by violating the TOS, he never had legitimate access in the first place.

  77. Well it is surprising by golden+age+villain · · Score: 1

    It is surprising that they admit it after he killed himself. They could just have denied it. Nobody who cares would have been fooled but it was "plausibly" deniable.

  78. Fire with fire -- Schwarz was an idealogue... by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

    ...so you deal with him as an idealogue. I happen to agree with Schwaz's ideology when it comes to open and free access to information, especially information that was accumulated via tax-funded research. My tax dollars are also funding those prosecutors, though -- I want to make sure that if they are going after an ideologue (even one that I happen to agree with) they aren't hampered in the process, because there are other ideologues out there that I would like to see swing if they (like Schwarz did) trip up and violate a law. The defense's job is to get their client off the hook, and is given great leeway in doing so. But the prosecution's job is to keep him on the hook, and should have the same amount of leeway to build their case.

  79. Welcome to the USSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It used to be the case that politicians would have been more aggressive in hiding this. It would have been a bit too much like the Soviet Union for comfort. Thhese days, nobody is surprised, and nobody cares. Welcome to the USSA.

  80. Re:I Don't Get It by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Corporations have done much worse than this, and yet the system that foments this still stands as strong as ever. You would think that after the American civil war, people would say this is no way to run a circus. But here we are, killing people for money.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  81. Re:I Don't Get It by SternisheFan · · Score: 1
    Life isn't that bad, it's all in your perspective, you gotta look for the good in life, keep up a good attitude. It's not easy, lot of bad in the world gets reported, because bad news sells papers. You need to develop a better outlook on life son. If you only look for thae bad, that is all you will see, get me? I hope you will have a better day now. :-)

    Ajd, to rebut those negative lyrics, I gift to you and all here, Monty Python. Sounds to me like you need this...

    ______

    Whenever life gets you down, Mrs. Brown

    And things seem hard or tough

    And people are stupid, obnoxious or daft

    And you feel that you've had quite eno-o-o-o-o-ough...

    Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving

    And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour

    That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned

    A sun that is the source of all our power

    The sun, and you and me, and all the stars that we can see

    Are moving at a million miles a day

    In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour

    Of the galaxy we call the Milky Way

    Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars

    It's a hundred thousand light-years side to side

    It bulges in the middle sixteen thousand light-years thick

    But out by us it's just three thousand light-years wide

    We're thirty thousand light-years from Galactic Central Point

    We go 'round every two hundred million years

    And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions

    In this amazing and expanding universe

    The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding

    In all of the directions it can whiz

    As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know

    Twelve million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is

    How amazingly unlikely is your birth

    And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space

    'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvD4N70V5mE

  82. Lionize the criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not a crime, he did it "with a computer" so he's a hero. A hero, I say!

    LIONIZE ALL COMPUTER CRIMINALS!

    1. Re:Lionize the criminals by moeinvt · · Score: 2

      The specific crime is not the point. The point is that Swartz was singled out for specifically harsh treatment because the federal government didn't like him for reasons other than the crime.

      A fair and just government would apply the rule of law in a uniform manner and not engage in politically-motivated prosecution. Too bad we don't have such a government in the USA.

  83. Re:I Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Worth noting that current for profit prisons are arguably worse then gulags. On one hand, you have better conditions (i.e. no risk of freezing to death during winters), on the other hand many prisoners helped each other in gulags because they were all in it together.

    You could argue that, but you would be wrong.

    Especially if your argument for the better life in the Gulag is that prisoners occasionally helped each other as the Gulag also had a whole class of prisoners (= the "thieves", that is, the career criminals) who had a de-facto authority to terrorize the others (= the politicals and petty criminals) at will. And they willed a lot. Really lot.

    The state of the prison system in the USA is horrible but it's still more than a few steps above the Gulag.

  84. Re:I Don't Get It by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

    Ugh. I disagree with the AC troll you're responding to but I find your post just as distasteful. I sincerely doubt that Schwartz's suicide has much to do with medical depression. Undoubtedly the situation would have made him depressed -- facing life in prison would make anyone depressed -- but I'm inclined to believe that he committed suicide because he 1) thought he would lose 2) decided that a life in a cell wasn't worth living. That's not a disease, that's a conscious decision that's actually pretty logical. I usually have little sympathy for suicides -- if a person takes their own life because their girlfriend dumped them or because people make fun of them, I'm glad that idiot is no longer on the planet -- but in Schwartz's case I may have done the same thing if I were in his shoes.

    One of the biggest problems with medical terminology is this word, "disease." If a person is infected with a harmful virus, bacteria, or parasite then they're diseased. If their cells reproduce uncontrollably they're diseased. If they're born with a genetic predisposition that makes life difficult, they're diseased. Worst of all, if they think sad thoughts they're diseased. Basically, anything that's a non-injury that disrupts homeostasis is a disease.

    I'm not going to argue that depression and other mental abnormalities aren't diseases. I just have a semantic problem with the word 'disease' itself. It's far too broad and the problem with those who make a living from treating mental health problems is that they try to equate having sad thoughts with something like AIDS. It's not as serious.

    For most people, to cure their 'disease' of depression, all they have to do is change their diet. Seriously, most people who suffer from depression just consume too many saturated fats and not enough vitamins. It slows down their heart and deprives their body of the nutrients it needs to function at an optimal level of homeostasis. In turn, they don't feel like doing anything, which makes them sad. There's no reason to feel sorry for these people, they just need to stop eating fast food every day. They do not need medication.

    People who are depressed because their life is terrible -- say, because they're persecuted by a prosecutor who's trying to make an example of them -- have every reason to be sad. If they didn't feel depressed under these circumstances, then I would seriously question whether they suffered from a much more severe mental abnormality than depression. They do not need to be medicated (though I'm sure the prosecutor would love that, seeing as how it would make their victim more complacent).

    So sure, mental diseases are actual diseases, but that doesn't make them comparable to viruses and the like. Disease is an umbrella term and when people throw out the whole, "mental diseases need to be taken seriously as diseases" crap, they're really just advertising for quack shrinks. Even among mental diseases, there is no comparing depression to something like schizophrenia. People actually can control depression, they can't control schizophrenia. Most people are just too naive or stupid to realize why they feel depressed -- they don't examine their diet, they don't have gratifying hobbies, they are spiritually void.

    The typical person thinks of disease as something they need a doctor's help to cure. So when people like you push this whole, 'take mental diseases super serious' crap, you should probably include the caveat that depression isn't something one needs to seek professional help over. The worst thing someone can do for depression is take anti-depressants. Like pain-killers, they make one stop feeling the problem, they do nothing to fix the problem. Transcendental meditation, coupled with a healthy diet and productive hobbies, is the cure for depression. But no pill-peddling shrink will tell you that.

    --
    "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  85. Re:I Don't Get It by flayzernax · · Score: 1

    Maybe having him alive was worse then having a martyr.

  86. Good ol' Peacekeepers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always let Lal live until the end of the game, simply out of respect for one of the most brilliant pieces of fictional quotation ever devised by man.

  87. Apprently 60,459,974 Americans have disagreed... by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

    by voting for a Stalinist candidate in November 6th, 2012. Enjoy your North Korean style democracy.

  88. Re:I Don't Get It by dywolf · · Score: 0

    You get a dealt a hand.
    Good hand, shitty hand, it doesn't matter.
    You get dealt a hand.
    You had no control over it.
    You didn't ask for it.
    But you do have a choice of what to do with it now that you got it.
    Fold, raise, call, bluff, whatever.
    The choice is yours to make.

    I got dealt some shitty hands before. One was worse than all the rest.
    I cried, felt sorry for myself, wallowed in self-pity.
    I tried to ignore it til it went away.

    But it wouldn't go away.
    How could it when it's a part of me now?

    The only thing that made it go away was me finally getting, dusting myself off, and moving forward.
    Accepting it, dealing with it, moving past it.

    I finally realized that you basically get two choices, and variants thereof:
    You can wallow in self pity. Essentially the choice of letting your fear overpower you.
    Or you can go down swinging. The choice of fighting, no matter how hard it gets, even knowing you very likely will lose.

    You have no control over the hand you are dealt.
    But you have complete control over how you play that hand.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  89. No they didnt. by geekoid · · Score: 2

    But hey, lets just take an out of context quote written in one of the worse online 'papers'(Huffpoo) and simply believe it becasue it agrees with a unproven cognitive bias.
    It's a political view blog. Not journalism. Its' a non paid for blog.

    stupid stupid stupid.

    This shit pollutes the actual story.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  90. Re:I Don't Get It by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Actually, the linked article is crap. The DOJs actions and reason are well documented and available.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  91. Re:I Don't Get It by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    It's not easy, lot of bad in the world gets reported, because bad news sells papers.

    A lot of stuff goes really great in the world. The bad news are just the minor exceptions reported. :)

  92. Re:I Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You dont have an empathy deficiency disorder, you're just a fucking jerk."

    What if OP has anti-social personality disorder? Would his contempt for whiny cry-babies somehow be less legitimate than your contempt for insensitive pricks?

    I think self-immolation was the right way to go. Suicide is a party trick you only get to do once, so you really ought to make it count. Only difference between Dorner and a Tunisian fruit vendor was who lit the match.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/technology/2013/02/check-out-terrifying-robo-rat-created-make-other-rats-depressed

    DoJ is an extremely refined robo-rat intended to keep poor & brown people in their place.

    Only a broke motherfucker is too cheap to pay for a library card amirite? Just deserts for spending all his money on lawyers IMHO. They'll know better and just plead "no contest" next time. Can't have proles clogging up the court system with their attention whoring and crying about their innocence. Straight to the gulags with all of them and let the copyright gods sort them out! That's what I say.

  93. Re:I Don't Get It by SternisheFan · · Score: 0

    Mod Up! +5 (Very True)

  94. Re:I Don't Get It by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    The idea that someone suffering severe depression can simply just "stand up for themselves" in adversity is incredibly insensitive.

    People saying that are stupid, not insensitive. You might as well tell someone with diabetes or AIDS to just "stand up and shake it off."

    That's because depression is not a same kind of beast. Depression, while it can be of physical causes too, is also a state of mind. You certainly have more voluntary control over it than over diabetes or AIDS.

  95. MIT by geekoid · · Score: 0

    Lets see:
    He broke into an area.
    Installed an unauthorized computer.
    Installed a script without permission,
    committed computer fraud.

    All of which he admitted and plead not guilty.

    Setting aside the downloaded content issue, everything he did to get it was illegal.
    Then thye offered him a deal where he spent NO TIME in prison, but MIT wouldn't sign off.

    But people focus on 'he was just downloading articles.

    even though he admitted he did those thing, all of which are illegal, he refused to take a plea deal of 6 months in jail. During which time he would get suicide watch and counseling. Had he taken the deal about the crimes he admitted do doing, he would be alive.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  96. Re:I Don't Get It by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    Being diagnosed with mental disorders, or yelling at people in cancer wards? ... or both?

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  97. Re:I Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hate to say it, buddy, but smiling and singing a plucky song pretty much is the only cure for depression. You have to forcibly change your own patterns of thought to get out of the spiral, and all of the psychotherapy in the world is little more than pretentious hand holding by a psychologist that's talking down to you the whole time.

  98. It's MIT you should be angry with, not the DOJ by geekoid · · Score: 2

    Marty Weinberg, who took the case over from Good, said he nearly negotiated a plea bargain in which Swartz would not serve any time. “JSTOR signed off on it,” he said, “but MIT would not.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit/bj8oThPDwzgxBSHQt3tyKI/story.html?s_campaign=sm_tw

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:It's MIT you should be angry with, not the DOJ by LuYu · · Score: 4, Interesting

      An article I read said that MIT reacted to JSTOR complaints. It seems from what I have read that JSTOR wanted MIT to be the bad cop while they repeatedly made public statements about how they were willing to let him off. It appears that their PR people may have learned from the Adobe - Sklyarov incident.

      In that case, Adobe initiated the case and actively pushed it until the public outcry hit. Then they quickly backed off and claimed they asked for his release. It is impossible to say what really goes on behind closed doors, but the fact that the DOJ refused to drop the case is telling. I have always believed that they backpedaled publicly but kept pushing for prosecution behind closed doors. That way, everything would be perfect: They would get to punish Sklyarov and also hoodwink the public into thinking they were good or at least not so bad.

      JSTOR was probably afraid of weathering the ire of the internet but still wanted him punished as an example. Pushing MIT to be the bad cop would accomplish this goal perfectly. MIT could take the heat, and JSTOR would get its crucifiction. Perfect.

      --
      All data is speech. All speech is Free.
    2. Re:It's MIT you should be angry with, not the DOJ by geekoid · · Score: 1

      ah, so it doesn't fit with your predisposed bias, so you bring up another case, a belief, and a conspiracy to back it.
      Got it.

      YOU clearly haen't read any actual facts about the case, clearly don't know the MIT came out of the gate playing hard ball, and that AS committed several crimes; which he admitted to.

      Nothing in this case indicates that MIT dis a lacky to JSTOR.
      You people want So badly to believe the government caused his death you just continue to make shit up to support you bias.

      Stop it, you aren't helping anyone.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  99. Re:I Don't Get It by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    Strong grip, huh? Blood dripping from his hands after strangling someone? Maybe you meant that Cheney the Torturer ripped the kid's head off?

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  100. Re:I Don't Get It by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You have no control over the hand you are dealt.
    But you have complete control over how you play that hand.

    Spoken like someone who doesn't understand and hasn't even really thought about mental illness.

    Hint: The thing you think gives you "complete control" is the thing affected by the disease.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  101. Re:I Don't Get It by dywolf · · Score: 1

    addendum to myself:

    the actual thing that finally got me on my feet was the song The Ride, from Chris Ledoux. always a bit of an underground country singer, i'd been listening to him for a few years. his songs were what got me interested in teh genre; having grown up in nevada they appealed to me.

    The Ride ultimately is about death. the thing that will get us all eventually. its in the closing lines:
      "Well, I know some day, farther down the road
      I'll come to the edge of the great unknown
      There'll stand a black horse riderless
      And I wonder if I'm ready for this

    So I'll saddle him up and he'll switch his tail
      And I'll tip my hat and bid farewell
      And lift my song into the air
      That I learned at that dusty fair

    (refrain) Sit tall in the saddle, hold your head up high
    Keep your eyes fixed where the trail meets the sky
    And live like you ain't afraid to die
    And don't be scared, just enjoy your ride
    Now, don't be scared, just enjoy your ride"

    You see, when he wrote that he was facing a monster far bigger, far more powerful and unstoppable than most of us ever will.
    He had a liver cancer. Treated before, but it had come back.
    He was dying.

    And instead of doing what most of us would do, he was going down swinging. Or singing, as it were.
    And that there is what got me to get back on my feet. Maybe it'll help someone else like it did me.

    Most of our monsters are treatable, and not nearly so big and scary.
    But first you gotta make that decision for yourself. No one else can make it for you and force you up.
    And though I'll help anyone who wants/needs it, if you decide the other way, I'll abide by that too.
    Though I really wish you wouldn't go that route.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  102. The take-away.... by kawabago · · Score: 0

    Mickey Mouse murdered Aaron Swartz.

  103. Re:I Don't Get It by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

    I sound like a caustic uncaring bastard for daring to post this? I must have some sort of empathy deficiency disorder.

    In keeping with your viewpoint, I would say that no, you do not have an empathy deficiency disorder. You could just be a heartless prick.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  104. Re:It was not political. by fatphil · · Score: 1

    What "contract"? For example, what consideration was involved in this "contract"?

    --
    Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
  105. Like I needed further proof the gov't is my enemy by BubbaDave · · Score: 1

    How many times does the government that supposedly represents us need to openly declare war on us, the citizens, before we respond?

  106. Sign the petitions to have Ortiz and Heymann fired by nickserv · · Score: 1

    I hope everyone is signing the White House petitions to fire these 2 prosecutors for overreach in this case.

    Petition for Carmen Ortiz: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-district-attorney-carmen-ortiz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck

    Petition for Steve Heymann: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fire-assistant-us-attorney-steve-heymann/RJKSY2nb

    I know, I don't have a lot of faith in this petition system but, I'm hopeful that enough people will keep making noise on this one that some action will actually be taken. With this latest development that politics at least played a role in Aaron's persecution they should be jailed for bullying but we all know prosecutors don't go to jail so at least they should be fired and disgraced. Imagine if people don't make enough noise, nothing is done, and in 5 or 10 years these jerks are sitting on the bench as Federal Judges!

    --
    Less *is* more.
  107. Re:I Don't Get It by dead_cthulhu · · Score: 1

    Plucky songs may not be useful for "wishing it away", but sometime the right music, the right words, really small things, can make getting through one day possible. Having serious mood and anxiety disorders myself, I must say that on the really bad days feel like serious adversity. And that's just what my fucked-up brain chemistry is doing. I shudder to think about how Swartz must have felt towards the end there, if even the functionality for daily living can be a struggle.

  108. Re:It was not political. by alexo · · Score: 1

    IANAL but AFAIK, a TOS is not a contract.

  109. Re:It was not political. by alexo · · Score: 1

    That shouldn't happen in the US, it just shouldn't. There shouldn't even be the shadow of a possibility that it could possibly have happened.

    The fact that there is no law criminalizing this behaviour shows that it is by design.

  110. Re:I Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had a fuck-buddy with depression once and it was really impossible for me to understand her perspective.

    Her perspective: "I'm not good enough to be his girlfriend, so I'll just have sex with him until he's tricked into thinking I'm worth his time." i.e. You had a girlfriend who thought so little of herself that she thought being used was the height of her romantic capabilities. Depression does that.

  111. Re:I Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are only two ways to reconcile "idealism and 'good government bullshit'" with a "fight against the man."
    One, is that you believe the good government got horribly corrupted recently, and you can fix things (which would be evidenced by latching on to some current or recent politician and talking with them first).
    The other is that you seek to do evil.

    I'm not claiming that Mr. Swartz was motivated to do evil, I'm claiming that your defense of him is wrong and inconsistent with reality.

  112. Re:I Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who would get it busted down to only the crimes he did commit.

    That should be the job of the prosecutor. Political prosecutions are so last century, and should be made illegal in the US as well..

  113. Re:I Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > On one hand, you have better conditions (i.e. no risk of freezing to death during winters)

    I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you haven't talked to anyone who has been incarcerated in a privately owned prisoner transfer company facility, have you?

    50 degrees inside the facility, and it took them three hours of constantly pounding on their cell door and yelling before they would be brought BLANKETS.

    Right here in the good ol' US of A.

  114. Re:I Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I so hope you get a serious depression, dumb (probably a 12year-old) A/C knowitall.

    Perhaps you'll talk differently then.

  115. Re:Apprently 60,459,974 Americans have disagreed.. by Lehk228 · · Score: 2

    Funny, I have not seen any forced famines in the bible belt or conservatards and libertardians rounded up and sent to FEMA camps. I have not seen political rivals of Obama accidentally falling and landing head first on a bullet. You are full of shit and have no clue what Stalinism really is.

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  116. Team Obama is the vilest collection of monsters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You act surprised that Obama's goons would target and exterminate an individual for daring to advocate against restricting access to academic papers. Well, the owners of Slashdot are a VERY willing part of Team Obama, and happily blocked the citizens of Iran from accessing the open-source web-sites run by the same owners.

    The recent Oscars showed the same technical people worked on the sickening US State department funded propaganda features "Argo" and "Zero Dark Thirty". The director of "Argo", Affleck, actually stated in his acceptance speech for "Best Film" that the purpose of "Argo" was to massively increase the possibility of US military holocaust against Iran.

    Aaron Swartz was impossibly naive. He believed that the most depraved and violent nation on Earth, the USA, only uses its massive power to crush foreign Humans, not 'citizens'. Of course, he was taken out at the dawn of Obama's death drones seeing widespread deployment across the skies of the USA.

    The top of America's ruling elite are war-mongering psychopaths who control the greatest military force in Human history, and are growing that force daily in readiness for WW3. Beneath them are all types and forms of corrupt parasite (including those that persecuted Swartz to death). The State defines itself, and its agents as "above the Law". The State defines you as 'slave', to be disposed of immediately if you find an effective way to challenge the state.

    Only today, that disgusting uniformed brute in Philly that was caught on camera slugging a random woman in the head was found 'Not Guilty' in court, on the basis that "no amount of physical evidence over-rules the testimony of an officer in uniform". In other words, whatever the State says in justification of its actions becomes the definition of 'acceptable' justification in the usual Kafkaesque way.

    1. Re:Team Obama is the vilest collection of monsters by BubbaDave · · Score: 1

      Fucking anonymous pussy,.

  117. Re:It was not political. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That doesn't make it less wrong.

  118. Twenty Six Years Old Is Still a Kid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep in mind that you're talking about a kid here ...

    Um, he was twenty six years old when he committed suicide. What is up with people moderating up trash on Slashdot these days?

    1. Re:Twenty Six Years Old Is Still a Kid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is up with people moderating up trash on Slashdot these days?

      "These days?" You new around here, kiddo?

  119. Never might be too strong a word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aaron was content to attribute to ignorance what was may have truly been malicious. Maybe sometimes it is malice.

  120. They made the same mistake as the Empire... by CityZen · · Score: 1

    > "That Ortiz and Heymann knew exactly what they were doing: Shutting up, and hopefully locking up, an extremely effective activist whose political views, including those on copyright, threatened the Powers That Be."

    Darth Vader: Your powers are weak, old man.
    Obi-Wan: You can't win, Darth. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

  121. Re:Apprently 60,459,974 Americans have disagreed.. by moeinvt · · Score: 1

    Obama has firmly established the legal framework for tyranny. Universal surveillance (SCOTUS just approved this), arbitrary and indefinite detention and arbitrary assassination without charge or trial. If he has his way, the people will be disarmed as well.

    The fact that he has not YET exercised this power on a large scale is completely irrelevant. Maybe it will be Obama, maybe it will be some other president you don't like. The government believes they have the power and they intend to use those powers.

  122. Why Always Suicide? by LuYu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why does the discussion always center around suicide and Aaron's courage or lack of it? It is now obvious that the Department of Injustice was actually out to get him. It is also now clear that they targeted him for his views and not his actions. Given these facts, how can we -- netizens, citizens of the USA, citizens of the world, humans... take your pick -- allow entities like JSTOR and PACER to continue to exist? And why are we not looking for the people who orchestrated this fiasco (as opposed to the lowly public servants who coldly executed their wishes in obvious contravention of their oaths of office and their duties to the Constitution and people of the US and the world)?

    Where are the executives of JSTOR who clandestinely pulled strings to bring on this relentless and unmerited legal assault? Why was the mysterious JSTOR "contact" who complained repeatedly to MIT officials and asked them to take action not identified? Directly or indirectly, JSTOR is responsible for this tragic death. When are they going to apologize or try to make things right? When is the information Aaron sought going to be available to us all? When are we going to ban JSTOR and PACER's theft from the public? When are JSTOR and PACER going to return their ill gotten gains to the people whose documents they stole?

    For those who will make the argument: Copying is not theft. Keeping people from accessing things they rightfully own or should have access to is. A car is stolen when the owner cannot use it anymore, not when the same model is produced again by the factory. The owners of these documents are all the members of the public. Denying access to anyone for any reason is theft.

    --
    All data is speech. All speech is Free.
    1. Re:Why Always Suicide? by SilverJets · · Score: 1

      When are we going to ban JSTOR and PACER's theft from the public? When are JSTOR and PACER going to return their ill gotten gains to the people whose documents they stole?

      For those who will make the argument: Copying is not theft. Keeping people from accessing things they rightfully own or should have access to is. A car is stolen when the owner cannot use it anymore, not when the same model is produced again by the factory. The owners of these documents are all the members of the public. Denying access to anyone for any reason is theft.

      You obviously have no idea what JSTOR is or how it works. JSTOR is not withholding anything from the public. The articles JSTOR has are available through other methods. You want access to those papers? Well, then go use the other methods, including digging through print journals for them. Nothing JSTOR does is preventing you from doing so.

    2. Re:Why Always Suicide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You want access to those papers? Well, then go use the other methods, including digging through print journals for them.

      Haven't you got a horse to be feeding?

      CAPTCHA: stable. I lol'd.

  123. Same Wine by ks*nut · · Score: 1

    And the "Powers That Be" don't seem to change with a change in the political party that controls the legislative and/or executive branches of government. Now that SCOTUS has lost much of its principle of judicial oversight, checks and balances no longer really exist.

  124. Re:It was not political. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Calling for it to be criminalized is an emotional overreaction and a very bad idea because then prosecutors would have to worry about being constantly charged with crimes every time someone disagreed with a set of charges they decided to levy. They would spend as much time in court defending themselves as they would trying to prosecute actual criminals. It would cripple the legal system.

    Yes, sometimes prosecutorial discretion gets abused, but when they do abuse that power we don't jail them. Instead we bring them before state bar ethics committees which can permanently or temporarily revoke their license to practice law; or, in some jurisdictions, prosecutors have to stand for election so we vote them out. Take away the abusers' ability to abuse; don't cripple the people who perform their jobs honestly and don't abuse their authority.

  125. Re:I Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would be depressed myself if I was you, and I probably would eventually off myself if only to stop being a burden to those I care about.

    Your lack of empathy is why being around you is a burden and why you're blind to how they're wishing you would.

  126. Intent to break the law is not breaking the law by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Intent to break the law is not breaking the law
    .
    You {don't / can't / ought not} prosecute "intention to break additional laws". The only activities than ought to be prosecuted ought to be actual breaking of laws. Mens rea is just a part of it. Intention without action is not breaking the law.

    1. Re:Intent to break the law is not breaking the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Explain conspiracy charges, then... if they're not prosecution for (among other things) intending to break laws, I don't know what is.

    2. Re:Intent to break the law is not breaking the law by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Sure, let me explain conspiracy charges to you. Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more parties (i.e. just publishing a manifesto doesn't count) to commit a crime (note that violating civil, regulatory or common law is insufficient by itself) at some point in the future. In almost all jurisdictions (and all of the sane ones), some overt act towards carrying out that crime must have been committed.

      So yes, "conspiracy" is considerably more than just someone intending to break a law.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    3. Re:Intent to break the law is not breaking the law by sesshomaru · · Score: 1

      Wait, didn't you see Minority Report... ...oops, I just remembered the ending of that movie, never mind.

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    4. Re:Intent to break the law is not breaking the law by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      In the UK we have laws covering "going equipped", which essentially means that you have tools required to commit a crime (e.g. burglary) and no reasonable explanation for why you are carrying them. A builder driving his van with a hammer, a wrecking bar, some bricks and heavy duty gloves is obviously carrying tools for his line of work. A 17 year old with his three friends in a clapped out Astra carrying the same equipment, though, is a different matter.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    5. Re:Intent to break the law is not breaking the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might have to explain that the Vauxhall (GM) Astra is a fairly cheap and extremely popular hatchback car.

      I don't know what its US equivalent is, though. Its engine is smaller than 5 litres, so I don't think they have one...

    6. Re:Intent to break the law is not breaking the law by bkaul01 · · Score: 1

      No, and they didn't prosecute him for conspiracy, etc. They said that one factor in their deciding to prosecute him for the laws he did break because of his clear, stated intention to break additional laws. The prosecution was for things he actually did that were illegal. The DOJ's decision to prosecute rather than ignore those infractions was based in part on his stated intentions of future actions.

    7. Re:Intent to break the law is not breaking the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Breaking the law was downloading. That was the action.

      This document is what proves it was malicious intent (he did it knowing it was illegal) and not accidental, which is why they went forward with prosecution and not just a slap on the wrist.

      Seriously, I know this is a charged issue but reading comprehension is important here,

  127. Aaron Swartz needed killing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aaron Swartz used "civil disobedience" to protest against copyright law. Unfortunately for him, "civil disobedience" is only used by those who believe they are above the law - by the powerful against the powerless. It rapidly became apparent that he was not one of the powerful, or rather, had been part of the privileged and powerful, but was no longer. And this is probably why he committed suicide.

  128. Re:I Don't Get It by Evtim · · Score: 1

    Alas, you are so right. Some documents came to light after the fall of the wall in my motherland and I was stupid enough to read them. Lost my sleep for quite a while..

  129. Re:I Don't Get It by Langalf · · Score: 1

    Hmm, how about we drop back to an older and more generic use of the words "ill" and "well"? Before the advent of modern medicine, and the understanding of disease organisms, genetic disorders and mental disorders, a person was ill or well. That encompassed all of these conditions, plus a general sense of self. I'm not saying we should toss all the modern medicine, but this terminology would certainly cover your concerns.

  130. Let us be factual. by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1
    Anyone who reads the comment section of Ars techinca knows that I have critical of Ortiz and Heymann since day one. They used a nuke to scare away a raccoon.

    Though people want to prove they did what they did for political reasons, the DoJ statements are not proof they had political motivations. For their charges to stick in court, hey for their charges to even survive summary judgement, they must show that he intended to distribute the JSTOR articles. The manifesto was going to be their proof. This is not proof that they did what they did for political reasons, it's just proof that they intended to use what he said against him.

  131. Where did accuracy go? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

    The DOJ has told Congressional investigators that Aaron’s prosecution was motivated by his political views on copyright.

    A Justice Department representative told congressional staffers during a recent briefing on the computer fraud prosecution of Internet activist Aaron Swartz that Swartz’s “Guerilla Open Access Manifesto” played a role in the prosecution, sources told The Huffington Post.

    Since when is "[a] Department representative" the same as the DOJ? Since when does a manifesto playing a role make it political? Perhaps the role the manifesto played was "Wow, someone is following this manifesto and if we don't do something about it we may have a big problem on our hands. We don't want Swartz to go to every hacker conference and say 'I got away with it and so can you'". To me, that is the manifesto playing a role with good reason.

    Another point is that this "information" went through many hands. I doubt any of it was written down and verbal communication is known to be inaccurate. According to the article the DOJ representative told congressional staffers and that information got to "sources" who may not have even been in the meeting then to the Huffington post and finally to the article author. Hasn't anyone ever played the telephone game? In this case there is at least 5 information transfers and interpretations. Any information that has been passed that many times is suspect at best.

  132. Re:I Don't Get It by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

    Actually, I'd like to go the other direction and be more specific rather than more broad. Another word I dislike is 'germ.' If a bacteria causes me to be ill, then it's a germ. But what about a bacteria that causes one person to be ill and not another? Or a virus that some are immune to? Whether a micro-organism is a germ or not is relative to what is hosting it -- but a micro-organism cannot be said to be a germ in and of itself.

    --
    "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  133. Re:I Don't Get It by samkass · · Score: 1

    I think the confusion here is the difference between the colloquial use of "depressed" as in "I feel bad" and the clinical use of "depression" meaning "an imbalance of the endocrine system that manifests in pain, discomfort, mental confusion, feelings of severe sadness/lack of self worth, and helplessness." (My own definition I'm paraphrasing from my understanding.) If you get dumped and feel bad about it, you might say "I'm depressed" but you don't have the disease "depression". The endocrine imbalance can indeed be caused by bad nutrition, but it can also be caused by long-term stress hormone reactions, genetics, and other as-yet-unknown triggers.

    We're not just talking about feelings here. Those are a symptom, not the disease itself.

    --
    E pluribus unum
  134. Money quote : by Weezul · · Score: 1

    According to the DOJâ(TM)s testimony, if you express political views that the government doesnâ(TM)t like, at any point in your life, that political speech act can and will be used to justify making âoean exampleâ out of you once the government thinks it can pin you with a crime.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  135. Re:I Don't Get It by niftydude · · Score: 1

    I think the confusion here is the difference between the colloquial use of "depressed" as in "I feel bad" and the clinical use of "depression" meaning "an imbalance of the endocrine system that manifests in pain, discomfort, mental confusion, feelings of severe sadness/lack of self worth, and helplessness."

    I agree - I think that this is the confusion some people are having in this thread. I'll go further and say that the survival instinct is pretty much the strongest instinct all humans have, and if you have clinical depression overwhelming the brain such that it is capable of acts of suicide, or even lesser acts of self-harm, then we are no longer talking feelings, and are definitely dealing with mental illness.

    --
    You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
  136. All prosecutions are political by swb · · Score: 2

    I think all prosecutions are political, in several dimensions.

    They're political because criminal law is political -- it is the outcome of a political process, legislative lawmaking.

    They're political because prosecutors are political; in many (most?) places in the US the county attorney is a directly elected position, and the person who wins that job has an inherently political mindset and at minimum a public constituency, and in practice, a much larger private constituency -- police, judges, politicians, etc. Even in situations where the position isn't directly elected, it's arguably more political because the positions are appointed by politicians and are often at an elevated political level (eg, assistant US attorney).

    And then there's the power political component -- prosecutorial power, is, like many forms a power more or less depending on how you exercise it. So there's an element of wanting to use prosecutorial power in a way that enhances it rather than detracts from it, and that generally means winning, so you pick easier targets.

  137. Re:I Don't Get It by wierd_w · · Score: 1

    Like many people, he is unable or unwilling to contemplate all the implications of determinism, in regard to human behavior and decision making. Like many, he appears to hold a silly view that humans aren't more than very sophisticated computers.

    Clearly, "free will" is magical, unquantifiable, and defies the laws of physics at work inside the brain!

    Cause, like, just being a wetware robot with haywire software just isn't fashionable.

  138. Re:I Don't Get It by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2

    People bringing up charges against you FAR IN EXCESS of the crime committed mean he was more like "pushed" into depression.

    The charges were increased because he had a LEGAL viewpoint that cause the people passing laws to CHANGE THEIR MINDS. So he did EXACTLY what they intended, and those new Internet anti- bullying laws should be used.

    They got wast they wanted, he's shut up. They know nothing will happen because they do this for a living.

  139. Not everyone (even on Slashdot) knows Aaron Swartz by meustrus · · Score: 2

    I really wish somebody would just link to an original story. This may be Slashdot, where everyone is supposed to know about everything going on with copyright, but I can't be the only one who doesn't know off-hand what the story is with Aaron Swartz. I'm even at least 50% sure I am aware of this story, but the name alone doesn't bring the whole thing back. In the future, please, just a little reminder at least.

    --
    I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
  140. Re:Apprently 60,459,974 Americans have disagreed.. by geekoid · · Score: 1

    No he didn't, you moron.
    "arbitrary and indefinite detention"

    wrong.

    "arbitrary assassination without charge or trial."
    also wrong.

    "If he has his way, the people will be disarmed as well."
    he as never said or indicated anything of the sort.

    You are an unthinking alarmist piece of shit.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  141. Re:It was not political. by geekoid · · Score: 0

    Yes he did,.

    He broke in, hooked up a computer without permission, installed a malicious script without permission. That is all illegal.

    He most certainly did break the law, and he admitted it.

    Anti copyright groups jumped on the copyright angle and used it for their cause. They should be ashamed of themselves.
    The copyright aspect was a tiny bit the the DoJ barely gave 2 shits about.

    In the end, the DoJ worked a deal where he would spend no time in jail, down from 6 months.

    MIT killed the deal.

    You're understand of the CFAA is laughable, at best.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  142. A possibly more damning admission by almechist · · Score: 1

    I think most people here are missing an interesting angle. Granted, the headline and summary are misleading, and the quoted article does seem to make way too much out of what was actually said by the prosecution, so not surprising that the discussion so far has focused mainly on those issues. But to my mind the most interesting thing in the original HuffPo article is the last paragraph. Check it out:

    Some congressional staffers left the briefing with the impression that prosecutors believed they needed to convict Swartz of a felony that would put him in jail for a short sentence in order to justify bringing the charges in the first place, according to two aides with knowledge of the briefing.

    I don't know, this seems like a rather damning admission by the prosecution if true, because it shows they knew damn well they were on shaky ground, and that they were playing to public perception rather than truly seeking justice. It is also IMO much more likely to be true than the "prosecuted for his political beliefs" angle, which seems debatable at best.

    :

  143. Re: I Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have an idea. How about you do your own research instead?
    Saying "citation needed" without exerting effort doesn't win the debate.
    You expressed an opinion without being willing to provide sources to support that opinion. Yet you expect someone else to do what you were unwilling to do. That's bullshit

  144. Re:I Don't Get It by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

    That just shows how dead they wanted this guy.

  145. Re:I Don't Get It by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    People bringing up charges against you FAR IN EXCESS of the crime committed mean he was more like "pushed" into depression.

    It's known that his money had just run out, and he was also legally prevented from raising money for his defence. His parents were on the verge of having to mortgage their house. We don't know exactly what was going through his mind, but it was mostly likely a large number of things, most of them not good.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  146. Re:I Don't Get It by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    I hope someone pays dearly for this and I hope the public gets wind of this and revolts against these people that are purchase by corporations.

    That's good, but it doesn't go far enough. The best case scenario is wholesale reform of the system. Items that should be on your hitlist include:

    Elected prosecutors
    Grand juries
    Plea bargaining
    Elected judges
    For-profit prisons
    Capital punishment

    The last three are part of the overall problem, though are not specifically relevant in Aaron's case AFAIK.

    All of these are archaic and barbaric, and only serve to pervert and corrupt the criminal justice system. Almost all of the rest of the world has done away with them. You need to eliminate both the incentives and the opportunity for prosecutorial overreach, bullying, and oppression. Everyone will be better off.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  147. Re:I Don't Get It by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    It's important to remember that there are two ways to make the world a better place:

    1. Reduce the suck.
    2. Increase the awesome.

    Suck gets reported more than awesome in the MSM.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  148. Re:I Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    unless you are a very experienced with meditation you likely have very little control over your own brain chemistry. Even someone who knows how to alter their brainwaves would need the desire to do so, which depression removes.

    You have no more control over depression than you do over Diabetes, they are both caused by chemical imbalances in your body. I don't know if you are aware of this, but your brain is a lot more complex than your pancreas. Maybe you should just will yourself to make more insulin!

    Hate to be the one to tell you, but free will is a myth, your decisions are made long before you rationalize them, and you can't just choose to change your mood. You may refocus your attention when you feel sad, but that is a trained response, like a dog chasing a toy. Someone without that training just won't have that reaction, and they cannot "choose" to make their brains do something, anymore than you can choose to be depressed for months and commit suicide.

  149. Re:I Don't Get It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, he's a jerk. Ignorant and everything.
    I live with depression and control it w/o meds. Some good counselling taught me some skills and using them as time went by I have minimized the effects to the point that I'm not so sure it's a disease so much as a self imposed mindset. I think it has the hallmarks of a disease, but most diseases don't just dissipate over time. I never took meds, I saw what they did to my mother, my second wife and many friends. I felt I would rather be suicidal than a drone. Thankfully, I found a pro bono psychologist ( note; I don't do psychiatrists) who taught me responsibility for my emotions, my thoughts, my actions and not only could I cope, but I could soar to my potential. My only limits are self imposed. I still get a bout of down every now and then, but, I can catch it and turn it around.
    This doesn't happen overnight, It's taken years of self discipline and the rewards are so entirely worth it.
    I hope you find a way to manage yourself as well.
    Don't let the jerks bother you. They are hurting and being a jerk is a way of expressing your hurt/fear. When I am down , I am sometimes a jerk, but it is like an indicator to me and gives me a chance to change it. Sometimes I channel my jerk energy into forums like /. to blow off a little steam, usually to other jerks, but I find it is better to use for an indicator than an outlet.

  150. Re:It was not political. by alexo · · Score: 1

    And this attitude is exactly the incentive that they need to go on abusing.

  151. Re:I Don't Get It by Genda · · Score: 1

    I doubt it, no booze or shotguns were involved...

  152. Re:I Don't Get It by Genda · · Score: 1

    Face facts. He tilted at windmills because he put his dignity ahead of his well being. The people that took umbrage at his behavior wanted him dispensed with. Dead is just fine, it meets the bottom line. 30 years in prison would have been fine too. This was a political assassination plain and simple. The people who've made it their jobs to deny you any civil rights chalk up another in the win column.

  153. Re:I Don't Get It by Genda · · Score: 1

    Of course for profit prisons have become America's new answer to global slave labor, we're now competitive with the worst confined labor environments in the world, by just throwing people into jail for decades at a time for pot, then using them as slave labor for large corporations... talk about a sweat heart deal, could you ask for better!

  154. Re:I Don't Get It by dywolf · · Score: 1

    yes, this is TOTALLY flamebait.
    another mod system abuser

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  155. Re:I Don't Get It by dywolf · · Score: 1

    in typical typical slashdotter fashion, you didnt even read it before replying did you? anytime someones says anything other than "people with mental illness are completely helpless" he is called "insensitive", told "he doesnt get it", "doesnt understand".

    And the ultimate irony is that typically these things are said by people themselves have never been there. and dont understand.

    So if you had actually read the entire thing you would see that i'm saying that I HAVE been there. I DO KNOW what it is like to be at the bottom of that pit.

    So dont tell me I dont understand and have never thought about it. I'm probably better aquainted with it than most of the people talking about it in this thread.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  156. Re:I Don't Get It by dywolf · · Score: 1

    same goes for you.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  157. Quote by NewYork · · Score: 1

    "If you wish to keep slaves, you must have all kinds of guards. The cheapest way to have guards is to have the slaves pay taxes to finance their own guards. To fool the slaves, you tell them that they are not slaves and that they have Freedom. You tell them they need Law and Order to protect them against bad slaves. Then you tell them to elect a Government. Give them Freedom to vote and they will vote for their own guards and pay their salary. They will then believe they are Free persons. Then give them money to earn, count and spend and they will be too busy to notice the slavery they are in."
    -Alexander Warbucks

  158. Albert Einstein by NewYork · · Score: 1

    "Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it." -- Albert Einstein

  159. Re:I Don't Get It by wierd_w · · Score: 1

    You say that like its a bad thing, or that I would find it offensive.

    If something is true, no matter what you think about it matters. I don't worry or obscess over it anymore than I worry about or obscess over my gender, eye color, or skin color.

    Being a biochemical computer with a self-modifying architecture isn't something I feel negatively about. A rose by any other name, as the saying goes. Much like said rose, accepting it as what it really is, and discarding the mystique associated with it, leaves you a more rational agent. The same goes with accepting what science says about how we are put together.

  160. Re:I Don't Get It by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

    My point is that it's not really a disease -- it's feeling like crap because one lives an unhealthy lifestyle. There's a reason that people who eat healthy foods and exercise regularly don't commonly suffer from depression. The endocrine imbalance may cause the feeling like crap, but living an unhealthy lifestyle causes the endocrine imbalance.

    It's not like a genetic disease where one is born with it, or a virus that one contracts just by breathing -- it's something that people do to themselves by gouging on fast food and then spending all their free time watching television. If one lives like crap one feels like crap.

    It's sort of like when people call obesity a disease (which people do). Sure, the person may have a low metabolism, but that doesn't mean their lifestyle isn't solely to blame. Except in extremely rare cases, no one has to be fat.

    --
    "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
  161. Re:I Don't Get It by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    in typical typical slashdotter fashion, you didnt even read it before replying did you?

    Of course I read it. And all I saw was you saying that you "got dealt some shitty hands"; nothing about mental illness.

    And I assumed that this "shitty hand" was something else, because if it was mental illness you were talking about and you actually understood mental illness, you wouldn't have said something so fucking stupid.

    nytime someones says anything other than "people with mental illness are completely helpless"

    But you didn't say just anything other than that. You said they had complete control and can just pick themselves up and dust themselves off and move on. Which is a fucking stupid way to say "they aren't completely helpless" because that's not the same thing.

    So dont tell me I dont understand and have never thought about it.

    What you said demonstrates that you don't, so tough shit, I'm telling you that you don't. You understand your own journey, which I don't know or care about. As a generalization, as a statement intended to demonstrate understanding of mental illness and others who suffer from it, "you have complete control of how you play that hand" is stupid and wrong.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  162. Re:Apprently 60,459,974 Americans have disagreed.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice try.

    "arbitrary and indefinite detention"

    every one in Guantanamo bay.

    "arbitrary assassination without charge or trial."
    Anwar al-Awlaki (US Citizen)
    Osama bin Laden (Funded by CIA)

    "If he has his way, the people will be disarmed as well."

    Gun control baby!