Slashdot Mirror
DOJ, MIT, JSTOR Seek Anonymity In Swartz Case
theodp writes "Responding to an earlier request by the estate of Aaron Swartz to disclose the names of those involved in the events leading to Aaron's suicide, counsel for MIT snippily told the Court, "The Swartz Estate was not a party to the criminal case, and therefore it is unclear how it has standing, or any legally cognizable interest, to petition for the modification of the Protective Order concerning others' documents." In motions filed on slow-news-day Good Friday (MIT's on spring break), the DOJ, MIT, and JSTOR all insisted on anonymity for those involved in the Swartz case, arguing that redacting of names was a must, citing threats posed by Anonymous and LulzSec, a badly-photoshopped postcard sent to Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Heymann and another sent to his Harvard Prof father, cake frosting, a gun hoax, and e-mail sent to MIT. From the DOJ filing: 'I also informed him [Swartz estate lawyer] that whatever additional public benefit might exist by disclosing certain names was, in this case, outweighed by the risk to those individuals of becoming targets of threats, harassment and abuse.' From the MIT filing: 'The publication of MIT's documents in unredacted form could lead to further, more targeted, and more dangerous threats and attacks...The death of Mr. Swartz has created a very volatile atmosphere.' From the JSTOR filing: 'The supercharged nature of the public debate about this case, including hacking incidents, gun hoaxes and threatening messages, gives JSTOR and its employees legitimate concern for their safety and privacy.'"
Only we are allowed to name names and ruin lives.
Good-bye
No? Then, not guilty. Anyone that offs themselves is solely responsibly for that act. Nobody else should be held culpable of feel responsible.
Seems okay here.
Expect some consequences.
If they're innocent they have nothing to fear, right?
Lets have every name, every detail, all of it. Beaurocrats like to hide behind their organisations, which enables every manner of abuse. Haul these insects out into the light, overturn the rocks. A man is dead, there must be accountability. They need to learn that they are personally responsible for their own decisions.
We have a right to know who decided to do that. It's our money being shot out of their legal gun.
Dox Party!
"...become targets of threats, harassment and abuse..."
God God, is somebody dragging them into police stations, questioning them for hours, threatening them with 30 years in jail?
Because those actions would be threats, harassment, and abuse indeed.
I say, put their names out there for all to see, and let Anonymous make a bonfire out of their pathetic lives.
It'll serve as a warning to others who believe it's right to unfairly destroy other peoples lives.
"Destroy peoples' lives; and have your life destroyed in turn." It would be a powerful message in poetic justice.
Leaves the whole world blind.
FUCK.
Them.
If there are so many people who are so hate-filled towards them, you'd think those assholes would take that as a hint.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
The moment you give government anonymity, it turns around and gives you tyranny, because it is no longer accountable.
Fucking cowards
Their last update (outside a useless editorial) was last October, and this is the very type of issue they should be pursuing.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You hounded him to death now it's time to pay for the crime
Sure, why don't we just abandon our laws and due process and solve every problem by lynch mobs.
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
John 3:19
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
I am not religious, but i do remember something from the bible: Who pulls a knife, from a knife dies.
No pun intended.
I say, put their names out there for all to see, and let Anonymous make a bonfire out of their pathetic lives.
The very fact that this kind of idiotic thinking is out there justifies the request for anonymity.
I'm usually against lynch mobs in theory although something tells me that in practice we already have them. There legalized lynch mobs. If we legalize the lynch mob it would probably cut down own taxes provided we also cut funding to the DOJ and other law enforcement entities. I'm all for that. We shouldn't be paying the actors of the lynch mob.
You think our laws and due process are anything more than sanctioned lynch mobs? How cute.
When it comes down to it the government consists of nothing big cowards. They're like bullies, they prey on the weak but are quick to run and hide when faced with a threat against them. The government abuses their military might to prey on those who do nothing wrong, in defense of corporate interests and their ability to benefit without any merit, but when things get tough they are quick to run and hide. They don't want the citizens to have any anonymity but they want to anonymously go after the weak.
Sure, why don't we just abandon our laws and due process and solve every problem by lynch mobs.
There are some, who believe this has already happened, except it's autocratic instead of democratic mob doing the lynchings.
Anyway, your "let's solve everything by lynch mobs" is kinda bad argument. "If being obese is so bad, then let's starve everyone to death!"
And to be clear about it, I don't approve any kind of lynch mobs. People should be held accountable, tried and acquitted or punished, by due process. If this does not work in some country, mere lynch mob isn't going to solve anything.
Obseesives and the Expulsion of IPF is wiped off and distribution make to its laid-back
When our laws only serve the rich and are used to beat down everyone else, a lynch mob is a preferable option.
Let's see, if you are a bank that intentionally helps terrorists circumvent our laws, a bank that committed massive fraud, or a telecom company that illegally spied on millions of people, you will get immunity. If you are a hacker that wants to see free access to a journal, you will get hit with a hammer.
There is no Rule of Law anymore. It is simply the powerful using and making the law to hurt the weak. When the revolution comes, the people who committed these abuses are going to be put against the wall.
It was a "very volatile atmosphere" before Shwartz killed himself. These people were destroying a life in order to justify their egos, further their careers, avoid suffering through cognitive dissonance, and avoid treating a person as anything other than a thing. Everyone here should come forward and face the music, not to mention lose their jobs. False secrecy like this will only bait the hacktivists.
Here's to losing my Karma Bonus again....
Lynch mobs are about as much "due process" as plea-bargains are. "Hey, let's threaten you with 35 years in jail, so you'll be willing to forfeit your right to a trial and go to jail without one!"
And we already know who did that. Anonymity would only protect the victims of Swartz from getting caught in the crossfire.
Aaron Schwartz paid a very heavy penalty for what he did. His deeds were illegal in an abstract way: public money paid for the information, and he tried to keep it in the public. For this he was arrested, interrogated at length, threatened, and offered 30 years in prison. Quite a long time for publishing information, and not even information that is a threat to the state: no national security violations or missile codes here. He took his life under this intense pressure. He was *never* convicted in a court of law. Nothing was ever proved. Now those doing the harrassment, enticing those threats, threatening his civil liberties are desperate to not have their civil liberties threatened. They are desperate to not be 'named and shamed'. Why not? Sunlight is always the best disinfectant. If they are not ashamed of their actions, certainly they should be willing to step out into the light of day and stand by them. If their conduct was honorable and upstanding, then they should feel absolutely no shame at all in what they did. On the other hand, if they are weasily little cowards, backstabing rat bastards hiding in the shadows, then they would want to hide in dark places like slimy little worms, afraid to have their deeds exposed to public scrutiny. Fess up! Stand and be counted. Be accountable for your actions! Quit being the slimy worm!
Mobs are uncontrollable. Once they start to rage, you won't be able to constrain them to a select few cases.
They deserve threats, harassment, and abuse. God knows de facto power structures and corruption will prevent any of the individuals involved from being brought to adequate justice within the bounds of the law. If people could trust that the right thing will be done, they wouldn't feel so compelled to do it themselves.
Cowards!
Every last MIT student should stop and protest the school. It should shut down until the people who helped to create the situation are called onto the carpet. It is my understanding that MIT wanted to stop things but were unable to stop things. But they did make a rash choice of calling in the authorities. They could have handled it differently. Some people have grown completely insensitive to the prospect of ruining the lives of others with police involvement. I blame entertainment/media saturation for turning the entire population into people as in touch with the depth of reality as "The Cable Guy."
Life is longer than 30 minutes with commercial breaks. Ruining a life is a life ruined. But with our reduced attention span, our consciences have been reduced as well.
Therefor, all of their names must be part of the public record when they go on trial for the conspiracy to murder Mr. Swartz - as that is what it was - a conspiracy that ended in the murder (harassed and bullied until suicide is the only option left to the victim per definition of anti-online bullying laws)...
So let the murder trials begin...
I for one will bring my own bullets for the firing squad duty which I hereby volunteer for.
Sorry I meant to write USA sucks. Things will get better when you move to China for your new manufacturing jobs.
A brilliant light extinguished itself when faced with the very credible possibility of several decades in prison.
In order to avoid repeating this kind of tragedy, it would be beneficial for society to know all of the details of the case, understand the thinking of the individuals involved, and examine their actions, so we can fully understand why the tragedy occurred, and work to avoid it in the future.
It's very simple really. Our society should be encouraging its Aaron Swartzes, not hounding them to death. This benefits all of us.
Vigilante justice act as a very rough, messy, and far from ideal solution and should be avoided when possible. However while it is a bad solution it is a solution to a lack of accountability that in very extreme cases may be a lesser evil. Preventing this is the whole point of having a justice system, equal accountability ensures that revenge feels redundant and disproportionate. If people feel they aren't remotely being served by it then it loses legitimacy. If it loses legitimacy bad blood builds up to critical levels and things get messy.
So really, what the fuck do they think will happen when they put themselves above justice, bypassing the mechanism that defuses retribution? It is no surprise then that people get mad enough to go below justice to get to them in kind. A justice system isn't just to protect the victims....
Fuck You, you cowardly pack of assholes.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
The English system of universal justice, based on the Roman model, explicitly banned anonymity. If even one person is able to hide their face legally, every powerful person will ensure this 'right' applies to them.
Across the last few decades, dim bulbs have been 'persuaded' by mainstream media propaganda campaigns, to accept that increasing numbers of participants in the legal system need their identity to be a secret...
- victims of sex crimes
- informers
- 'undercover' members of the police and intelligence agencies
It gets worse- where the ability to hide the faces doesn't go far enough, the UK and USA will happily hold 'closed' and/or 'secret' trials where the State gets to release only the info it desires to the public gaze.
JSTOR is a massive criminal conspiracy to hold hostage an extraordinary amount of Human knowledge, the vast majority of which has been created with public money. JSTOR managers, and the university officials they 'bribe' to extract JSTOR payments from every student, are made extraordinarily rich by the whole criminal conspiracy, and do everything they can to protect 'their' revenue stream.
No criminal ever willingly walks away from a profitable criminal enterprise. Obama runs a regime infinitely more corrupt than even those seen under the worst Republican presidents. Those making money from being members of this 'mafia' will fight to your death to keep their lifestyles intact.
MIT is at the heart of the government machine. Its managers would happily see the death of a thousand new Aaron Swartzs if it kept them and their political allies rich and powerful. The only way to punish these monsters is by bringing their empire crashing down around their ears. Demand that all academic papers are published openly- free to access and free for any to archive.
someone will probably wikileaks the list/info then you may get your wish
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a reference to Godwin's Law approaches 1
Worked in the past. It also stopped scrubby companies from existing because if they done shit to people, they were lynched.
I say bring it back. The patent and justice system sure doesn't work.
You should be careful to use the sarcasm emoticon, especially if you live in the UK, you could get four years in prison for that invitation.
I've followed #opangel with interest to see how the physical protests in support of Aaron turned out. Best as I can tell turnout has been pathetic at each one and increasingly pathetic with time. The most recent one I don't think anyone showed up.
that's the point. The bureaucracy is out of control.
Lynch mobs are made up by insufferable retards like you, who are all up in rage over a "35" number you saw on the internet somewhere, but who can't take 5 fucking minutes to learn the bare basics of how the legal system works.
There was never the remotest of chances that Swartz would have gotten 35 years, and everyone involved knew that, because as opposed to the internet mob, they were not idiots wallowing in their ignorance.
I'll choose a proper court system where people can defend themselves over internet justice, where you're lucky if people get your name right, let alone any facts of the case.
Mob rule is generaly a bad idea, but this is an example of what hiding behind the system leads to. There needs to be a better way than an individual does a good job/ the system made a mistake. Accountability is missing from the government (and big business as well).
Wouldn't it be nice if the Feds supported due process? I mean, isn't that they're primary purpose as defenders of the Constitution? The Feds are the biggest threat to due process of any organization on the planet.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
And Will Be Hunted.
Not every problem, but perhaps the issues of the "justice" system being broken in many cases.
This is slashdot, the solution to EVERY problem must involve a mob.
Worked for the French.
Why are we better?
You're using that term, "victims", but it doesn't mean whatever it it is you think it means.
I say, put their names out there for all to see, and let Anonymous make a bonfire out of their pathetic lives.
I'd say that the fact that these particular individuals are being protected from answering for their actions by these corrupt private and public entities puts all of the individuals in those organizations, private and public, from top to bottom, into the target pool by their own choice in protecting these individuals. The others in those organizations not directly involved are also guilty of passively accepting such injustices by staying silent and continuing to work in and with those corrupt organizations.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
You're arguing for a lack of accountability because someone on the internet wrote something stupid? The government must love you.
The criminal case is over because of the suicide.
In theory that leaves no one with a legitimate interest (standing?) to ask for the identities to be made public.
Perhaps the estate has a legitimate interest in
1) clearing his name
2) holding some folks responsible
3) but definitely not ruining the lives of those not primarily responsibe
Seems like MIT's defense was hiding behind #3 to protect #2.
Perhaps a more specific request to open only a part of the names would be harder to deflect.
The real bad actor in this saga is JSTOR;
This needs to be repeated until JSTOR is removed from existence.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
Even if he had disseminated the documents, it still would not have been wrong. Disseminating Public Domain documents is everyone's right no matter how they were obtained.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
JSTOR didn't do it. They asked DoJ to stop.
That is the lie JSTOR wants everyone to believe. While they claimed to be dropping the case, they were pushing MIT to prosecute -- repeatedly. They must have learned from Adobe's treatment of Sklyarov. Like all corporations, they want to keep their reprehensible activities out of the spotlight. This is why they are pushing for anonymity. They can hide and claim it really was not their fault. In fact, they are the principal puppet master for this whole show. And in the end, they will be seen as having no guilt. This is both the worst possible and most probable outcome.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
If that is so, invariably, and a count of no foul against the harrassers, then surely if the people are known who were involved in this are named and they are harrassed and they or their family kill themselves in depression, then this suicide is no foul either, so there is no need to keep the names secret: no crime will be committed.
It seems to me that this is the same sort of "justice" the Department of Injustice was meting out. It seems as if the old proverb "what goes around comes around" is particularly applicable in this case. What is unjust about the abusers being abused?
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
It was all these unethical scientists who didn't share 2 papers with 2 people. If these sub-humans didn't have such terrible low social standards non of this would have happened. It requires millions of socially dysfunctional scientists to create the current situation. By design they have me read scape goat stories in stead of science. There is suppose to be some excuse for this? There is no loss of income because current prices are set to prevent me from buying anything. Have to imagine it, imagine millions of people with ethics that are so low that lulsec becomes their moral authority. These people at JSTOR are just one tiny example. They are hardly representative of the anti-information paradigm.
What we need to do is get one of these other monstrosities of automation to manhandle the little scientists... I see a future where scientists have legal obligation to make their claims evident to the general public. Claiming things without providing evidence should put you behind bars for a good amount of time. Any theoretical science should be considered fraud. You take resources but produce nothing. If obvious results are missing from the publication then we should assume you sold them to 3rd parties. We already have the wonderful framework criminalizing creationism. I see no reason why this wouldn't work for other nonsense. If the highest paying job is teaching at the university the whole branch is a fraud. I should care you want to gaze at the stars? Do I need mars rovers? I don't have disease X. In a world where private jets are more important than peoples lives I see no reason to pay for research into X.
You wanted science to be all about the money, we can make this for you.
What a bunch of shit
'The supercharged nature of the public debate about this case, including hacking incidents, gun hoaxes and threatening messages, gives JSTOR and its employees legitimate concern for their safety and privacy.'" What about the concern of our safety and privacy you hypocritical bastards? Theres no justice in the DOJ anymore, if there ever was...shameful.
Not at all. It is the practical basis for the right to face your accuser. There are more ways to bring about a just and gentle society than abdicating all social responsibility to government authority. We excersise those responsibilities every day in our lives when we engage in the dispensation of approval and disapproval over social behavior. The light of day must shine on those in authority. Authority that can't bear the light of day is authority that is false and must be removed. To ask that every action toward government authority must be through the government is an obvious path to failure and it reeks of irresponsibility and cowardice. Less frustration experienced in trying to get what should be open information will result in more sober and concise criticism and backlash. While certain forms of backlash may be despicable there are entirely legitimate and legal forms of reprisal. We have checks and balances. The people who have acted poorly are vulnerable to legitimate and legal political pressure. The attempt to hide highlights this vulnerability. I say make the names known and give anyone who supports or would support the abusers rejection and contempt.
Where to begin.
The link talks about Aaron selling his website (meaning the IPR of the code and domain of Reddit.com) to Conde Naste, and so that means Aaron's a hypocrite. Also, a letter to the editor of the New Yorker says that he (the letter writer) was a journalist, depending on copyright for his salary.
Let me break it down: We (taxpayers, students/parents) pay people (professors) for the express purpose of thinking and writing (i.e., professing). That's the source of their salary, not from publishing in journals, which don't pay anything anyway. So Aaron's copying of journal articles did not mean that professor's lost their salary, that's so stupid.
Secondly, society did not pay Aaron and the gang to develop Reddit. They did so privately, and hence are entitled to private gain. Again contrast with professors. They are paid by the public, and don't deserve anything extra for publication (which is what they're paid to do anyway).
So, no, Aaron is decidedly not a hypocrite.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog