The Internet's Own Boy

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by timothy on Monday June 30, 2014 @12:02AM from the add-your-review-below dept.

theodp (442580) writes "The Internet's Own Boy, the documentary about the life and death of Aaron Swartz, was appropriately released on the net as well as in theaters this weekend, and is getting good reviews from critics and audiences. Which is kind of remarkable, since the Achilles' heel of this documentary, as critic Matt Pais notes in his review, is that "everyone on the other side of this story, from the government officials who advocated for Swartz's prosecution to Swartz's former Reddit colleagues to folks at MIT, declined participation in the film." Still, writer/director Brian Knappenberger manages to deliver a compelling story, combining interesting footage with interviews from Swartz's parents, brothers, girlfriends, and others from his Internet projects/activism who go through the stages of joy, grief, anger, and hope that one sees from loved ones at a wake. "This remains an important David vs. Goliath story," concludes Pais, "of a remarkable brain years ahead of his age with the courage and will to fight Congress-and a system built to impede, rather than encourage, progress and common sense. The Internet's Own Boy will upset you. As it should." And Quinn Norton, who inadvertently gave the film its title ("He was the Internet's own boy," Quinn said after Swartz's death, "and the old world killed him."), offers some words of advice for documentary viewers: "Your ass will be in a seat watching a movie. When it is done, get up, and do something.""

97 of 194 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

His choices... by damn_registrars · 2014-06-30 00:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

First, I agree that the data should have been free. I even agree that the investigation into him seemed to be heavy handed.

However, Schwartz made an odd and poor choice in getting to the data. He could have downloaded the data from his own desk in his own office. Instead he went to the library and entered a wiring closet that was clearly not supposed to be open to the public. If he wanted to further his cause, this was a poor choice.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
1. Re:His choices... by Threni · 2014-06-30 00:26 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  He made bad choices, and then reacted extremely badly to the rather predictable consequences. I'm not sure he's much of a poster boy for anything much. It's sad, but I'm not sure what exactly we're supposed to be celebrating here.
2. Re:His choices... by NotDrWho · 2014-06-30 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  I'm getting a little tired of the lionization of this guy too. I have to wonder if he would be as celebrated in the media if he weren't so young, charismatic, and good-looking. Hackers get busted all the time for doing much less innocuous stuff, and there are plenty of important cases out there with much more import on tech and privacy issues. But it always seems to be the good-looking young guys whose faces end up splashed all over the media as the hacker heroes.
  
  --
  SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
3. Re:His choices... by OzPeter · 2014-06-30 00:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Because he killed himself because of broken IP laws. You just don't get it, do you? If the laws weren't in place he'd be alive today. It's the **AA that is keeping people like Aaron repressed for their profits.
  While I do feel sorry for what happened to him .. He didn't kill himself because of broken IP laws .. he killed himself because of a mental state that seemed to preclude any option other than suicide. If he had utilized freely and easily obtainable mental health resources(*) he probably would still be alive today.
  * Assuming that such things are actually available.
  
  --
  I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
4. Re:His choices... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-30 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  Goes to state of mind, does it not? I don't think for a second he felt that he was looking at getting in too much trouble legally, by what he was doing. Slap on the wrist, pay some fines, maybe probation. Certainly not years, or as the DA threatened, decades behind bars. And that's the crux of it. Where is the balance between reasonable prosecution, acceptable law, and justice? Wherever it is, it certainly wasn't anywhere near this case.
  I think in the end, that's something his actions will ultimately spotlight: legal coercion by DA's/ADA's and Prosecutors is unethical, and should be illegal. As much as we chime that this is about freedom of 'information' , documents of pubically funded research, that's just the shell of the real problem at heart.
5. Re:His choices... by richlv · 2014-06-30 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  i have no idea what he looked like (and him being male, i don't care). i followed the story, though - and it seems to me that the ones "getting tired" are those who benefit from the current copy-lack-of-rights state
  
  --
  Rich
6. Re:His choices... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2014-06-30 00:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I even agree that the investigation into him seemed to be heavy handed.
  Carmen Ortiz wanted to make a big name for herself with some wealthy media donors in her bid to be elected Governor of Massachusetts.
  Things went a little wrong for her, and someone paid with his life for her political ambitions.
  She's was waiting for all this to be forgotten, until she can campaign again.
  This documentary will make her wait a few more years.
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
7. Re:His choices... by Antique+Geekmeister · 2014-06-30 01:01 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Much of the data is free and available elsewhere. All the public domain content, in fact is freely accessible.
  What JSTOR especially provides, and part of what Aaron was reaping wholesale, was its organization and links, basically the indexing and cross-indexing. _That_ is what makes JSTOR so useful, and what people pay JSTOR for: the breadth and searchability of the data. JSTOR is already a non-profit agency, whose fees are quite reasonable for the service they provide. And Aaron kept _breaking_ parts of JSTOR by downloading too much too fast, and overwhelming the servers.
  Activism, or hacktivism, is one thing. Breaking critical research tools for millions of customers worldwide is abuse, and clearly criminal in several ways. I'm afraid that Aaron earned prosecution. The extent of the prosecution seems severe, but as best I can tell, the prosecutors were quite willing to "deal" for a a very low sentence, as long as the deal included a felony conviction. I'm afraid that that haggling over the charges and the sentence is _normal_ for prosecutors.
8. Re:His choices... by Charliemopps · 2014-06-30 01:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  First, I agree that the data should have been free. I even agree that the investigation into him seemed to be heavy handed.
  However, Schwartz made an odd and poor choice in getting to the data. He could have downloaded the data from his own desk in his own office. Instead he went to the library and entered a wiring closet that was clearly not supposed to be open to the public. If he wanted to further his cause, this was a poor choice.
  Most atrocities start with a seemingly simple mistake made by the victim. That doesn't justify ruining a mans life over what was essentially a pretty tame prank. I did worse than that... far worse... while I was in college and all I got was banned from the lab for a week. Of course, when I did it, downloading a file wasn't a federal crime yet.
9. Re:His choices... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-30 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  Swartz was a tragic, confused (sexually?) figure. If the IP laws were different, maybe he would've found a different cause and done the same thing. As it was, the laws he was protesting don't exactly stir memories of the Montgomery (AL) Bus Boycott. People who have the advantage of a college education (or are on track to get one) might have to fork over $100/yr for a subscription when they shouldn't have to, or else they might have to schlep over to the stacks of a bricks-and-mortar university library like MIT's.... tyranny!
10. Re:His choices... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-30 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  First, I agree that the data should have been free. I even agree that the investigation into him seemed to be heavy handed.
  However, Schwartz made an odd and poor choice in getting to the data. He could have downloaded the data from his own desk in his own office. Instead he went to the library and entered a wiring closet that was clearly not supposed to be open to the public.
  
  ...at a different institution. He had free access to that database at his desk, but he went to a different school to do his secretly-scrape-the-entire-scholarly-database project.
  He quite obviously knew that what he was doing was wrong.
11. Re:His choices... by inhuman_4 · 2014-06-30 01:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  For sure he made some poor choices.
  
  But that doesn't excuse the government response. The justice department had no reason to act in such a heavy handed manner. They quite clearly wanted to make an example of him and were willing to bend the law to do so.
  
  But the bigger issue here isn't Swartz, it's the fact that this kind of treatment has become common place. Putting a "hacker" in solitary confinement didn't make any sense when they did it to Kevin Mitnik, and it didn't make any sense with Swartz. It's an abuse of power, the tragedy is it took a suicide for people to notice.
12. Re:His choices... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-30 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  I don't benefit from IP laws, but I'm tired of hearing about him. There are 38,196 suicides each year in the USA as of 2012, why should this kid stand out(helping with RSS is paltry)? If we're going to get all touchy feely and sad about his suicide - what about those other 38,195 people? Where are their movies? Who is throwing a fit that they aren't with us?
13. Re:His choices... by CodeArtisan · 2014-06-30 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  He made bad choices, and then reacted extremely badly to the rather predictable consequences. I'm not sure he's much of a poster boy for anything much. It's sad, but I'm not sure what exactly we're supposed to be celebrating here.
  Sadly. I agree. He was certainly smart enough to be aware of the consequences of getting caught and of the precedent the Feds have set in similar cases regarding punishment.
14. Re:His choices... by dcollins117 · 2014-06-30 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  He could have downloaded the data from his own desk in his own office. Instead he went to the library and entered a wiring closet that was clearly not supposed to be open to the public.
  If you were going to download a lot of data, would you choose a node with many hops to the server or just a few? I would pick the one closest to the server.
15. Re:His choices... by tawt · 2014-06-30 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  How did you manage to get so many things wrong in one sentence?
16. Re:His choices... by Archangel+Michael · 2014-06-30 01:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Information doesn't want anything. People want to be free.
  Aaron made a series of bad choices, and we shouldn't be glamorizing them and turning him into a hero.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
17. Re:His choices... by wisnoskij · 2014-06-30 01:52 · Score: 2
  
  His life was never ruined by the prosecutors. His life was ruined by his poor decision to kill himself.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
18. Re:His choices... by richlv · 2014-06-30 02:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  were they all prosecuted by one of the most powerful states in the world for a tiny, tiny crime ?
  
  --
  Rich
19. Re:His choices... by BitZtream · 2014-06-30 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  ... right, because the hops ON HIS LAN were so congested that the wiring closet was faster than the port at his desk because the cable was 3 meters instead of 50 meters long.
  That is about the weakest argument I've ever seen in defending his bullshit.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
20. Re:His choices... by wisnoskij · 2014-06-30 02:12 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  non-profit is nothing but an advertising term anymore.
  If you run a for-profit corporation. Your corporation makes money which it spends to expand and invest and to pay salaries, and you might go home with a million dollar salary.
  If you run a non-profit. Your agency makes money which it spends to expand and invest and to pay salaries, and you might go home with a million dollar salary.
  
  Which does not mean that JSTOR is bad itself.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
21. Re:His choices... by SuricouRaven · 2014-06-30 02:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  " I'm afraid that that haggling over the charges and the sentence is _normal_ for prosecutors."
  Which is part of the problem. Prosecutors are under a lot of pressure to get a guilty plea, and often resort to intimidation to secure it. Thus the standard deal: Confess and we promise five years, or fight in court and we'll do our best to lock you up for fifty.
22. Re:His choices... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-30 02:33 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's not for-profit logic. Copyright exists for a legitimate reason, to provide some incentive for people to create things and to distribute them, both of which have real costs in time and effort. That's why it's been around for centuries. The fact that copyright law has been perversely lengthened to ridiculous extremes is a big problem that must be fixed, but it doesn't negate the value of having copyright for much shorter terms. Works need to expire to the public domain, otherwise the people who rely on copyright don't have the same incentive to make new stuff, and the public doesn't get anything for granting a temporary copyright monopoly in the first place. Creators just sit on old stuff and milk it forever.
  On top of that, JSTOR isn't even a for-profit operation, which means it is a pretty poor example to choose for a principled stand against current copyright law. A principled way to do it would have been to scan in out-of-copyright journals yourself, or maybe ones that would have been out-of-copyright if the terms hadn't been extended ridiculously (e.g., from the 1930s and 1940s), and then put them up on the web for free. Dare the publishers to sue you. It would take a lot of work to set it up. Guess what? It would also cost money. Web space doesn't come for free, especially if high traffic.
  Instead Swartz chose the shortcut of downloading JSTOR's scanned-in archive en masse, despite the fact it violated the license terms for access. JSTOR didn't go all RIAA on him, they just wanted the mass downloads to stop, and MIT was obliged by their license to try to make it stop, efforts that Swartz kept circumventing, culminating in him installing a laptop in a non-public networking closet to do so.
  Good principle, bad implementation. None of which justifies the tragedy of how the prosecution was carried out or the tragedy of him committing suicide, but that doesn't absolve him from his own bad choices.
23. Re:His choices... by CastrTroy · 2014-06-30 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  Just want to chime in as another vote here. I think it's a very vocal minority that make Aaron Schwartz into the poster boy he is. It helps his case that he was well known personally by a lot of prominent bloggers. I think many of the supporters are too closely connected to him to look at the situation in an objective manner. I don't really blame them. I'd probably be doing something similar if one of my friends had something similar happen to them.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
24. Re:His choices... by butalearner · 2014-06-30 02:37 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Activism, or hacktivism, is one thing. Breaking critical research tools for millions of customers worldwide is abuse, and clearly criminal in several ways. I'm afraid that Aaron earned prosecution. The extent of the prosecution seems severe, but as best I can tell, the prosecutors were quite willing to "deal" for a a very low sentence, as long as the deal included a felony conviction. I'm afraid that that haggling over the charges and the sentence is _normal_ for prosecutors.
  One thing I learned from Wikipedia that I hadn't heard anywhere else is that, a few years earlier, Swartz first downloaded the Library of Congress's "complete bibliographic data set" (whatever that is), then a bit later downloaded millions of public domain court documents from a paywalled system called PACER. The Library of Congress normally charged fees to access the former, and the latter charged users 8 cents per page back then (now it is 10 cents per page up to $3 per document). Despite gaining the attention of the FBI, he didn't get so much as a slap on the wrist for either one.
  So we have a couple aspects potentially contributing to what happened. First, Swartz probably felt reassured by his past experiences that, even if caught, he wouldn't get in trouble. Second, he didn't make any friends in the government by pulling his first two stunts, so when federal prosecutors realized they could get him, they went overboard. This is just conjecture, of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.
25. Re:His choices... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-30 02:49 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The feds threat was six months, not 10+ years.
  On September 12, 2012, federal prosecutors filed a superseding indictment adding nine more felony counts, which increased Swartz's maximum criminal exposure to 50 years of imprisonment and $1 million in fines.[12][84][85] During plea negotiations with Swartz's attorneys, the prosecutors offered to recommend a sentence of six months in a low-security prison, if Swartz would plead guilty to 13 federal crimes. Swartz and his lead attorney rejected that deal, opting instead for a trial in which prosecutors would have been forced to justify their pursuit of Swartz
26. Re:His choices... by fustakrakich · 2014-06-30 03:14 · Score: 2
  
  Copyright exists for a legitimate reason, to provide some incentive for people to create things and to distribute them, both of which have real costs in time and effort.
  A mere pretext to protect established industries from new technologies that reduce the time and effort to create things. Today's developments are nothing new. It has always been the intent of these laws to restrict access to a means of production to an exclusive club, starting with the old writers guilds that initially created this mess when faced with the printing press. It was cronyism right from the get-go. These laws are corrupt by design, not defect.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
27. Re:His choices... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-30 03:45 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It was his own life, and his choice to live or die. Just because his situation sucked doesn't mean the government killed him. I'm not responding to you here, but I am tired of people acting like he was an innocent victim. He made his bed and didn't want to sleep in it. Fine, his choice. That doesn't mean the result was anything but his own decision.
  There are people who've been locked up for decades to crimes they didn't commit who don't commit suicide. There are also many people who did commit crimes who also commit suicide. We don't parade them around as victims.
28. Re:His choices... by sribe · 2014-06-30 03:58 · Score: 2
  
  Stop blaming others for his inability to cope with the consequences of his actions.
  OK, how about blaming them for such overzealous prosecution of such minor crimes, that it had cost him over $1,000,000 before the trial began. Can we blame them for that? (And fuck only knows how much of the taxpayers' money those clowns spent on their side...)
29. Re:His choices... by sribe · 2014-06-30 04:00 · Score: 2
  
  It's an abuse of power, the tragedy is it took a suicide for people to notice.
  Something I only learned yesterday, Heymann (Ortiz's boss) had done it before a couple of years prior to Swartz--hounded a 16 year-old with heavy-handed charges until the kid put a bullet through his brain.
30. Re:His choices... by kevmeister · 2014-06-30 04:20 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Information doesn't want anything. People want to be free.
  While the famous quote is personifying information by implying will, I believe that the statement is effectively true. Nature has no free will, so it is not really true that "Something there is does not like a wall ", but entropy clearly demands that they fall and it looks to me like entropy wants information to be free, as well. It takes a great deal of effort to keep information captive, but almost no effort to release it.
  People, on the other hand, purportedly want to be free. It takes serious effort to remain free. And, looking at support by the general public for "Big Brother" government (as long as it keeps us safe), it is not clear that most people even want to be free. :Or, perhaps they (or I) fail to understand what freedom really is.
  
  --
  Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
31. Re:His choices... by wisnoskij · 2014-06-30 04:22 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Nothing was done to him that has not been done and worse to people caught with a few joints in their pockets. Almost 1% of americans go to prison, the vast majority for minor non-violent crimes. They are not only threatened with decades in the can, but actually do not have anyone willing to stand behind them and fight it, and did not stand 1/100th the chance that he did.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
32. Re:His choices... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-30 04:42 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  So, abolish copyright, and you won't complain when people copy every creative work you've ever made and get money delivering it to other people while you get nothing from it? It must be nice to be independently wealthy.
  I'm for a *short* copyright period. Really short. A decade or so, but it's negotiable. Not zero. A short term of copyright has nothing to do with powerful industries and long-entrenched cartels, it has to do with an individual putting food on the table. I suppose it would be sufficient for a musical performer to perform their work and get compensated for that skill, but it would be nice if a musician could also record their own work and sell copies for a little while, or a programmer (for example) could have the *choice* to either distribute their work freely or have some exclusive rights for a little while, or have the ability to limit the terms under which the code is used (e.g., the GNU GPL *depends* on the existence of copyright. If copyright didn't exist, none of those terms could be stipulated unless you had a signed contract with every user). Copyright empowers the little guy as much as the big companies, if it is properly constructed.
  In case it's not clear, I don't consider the current laws properly constructed. They're obscenely distorted and weight things far to heavily for the creator rather than the user/public. But I still don't think that justifies abolishing copyright completely. It deserves fixing.
33. Re:His choices... by gfxguy · 2014-06-30 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  Agree... seems like a substantial portion of society doesn't want to be free if it means having the illusion of security (financial and/or physical).
  
  --
  Stupid sexy Flanders.
34. Re:His choices... by Gr8Apes · 2014-06-30 04:50 · Score: 2
  
  Note that copyright has nothing to do with established industries. When copyright was placed into the Constitution, it was frequently common for authors to self-publish. Copyright protected these authors from unscrupulous printers who might print out a few extra (thousand) copies to sell on the side, or from some individual in another part of the country from grabbing your work and selling it elsewhere. Note that this was mostly on the individual level, since companies that were involved in publishing were few and quite small.
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
35. Re:His choices... by butchersong · 2014-06-30 05:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That is one of the reasons I hate DAs and prosecutors in general. They will pursue charges they know are completely unreasonable compared to the offense for no other reason than scare the hell out of someone making them face their lives being ruined if they attempt to state a case for their innocence in court. They bully people into plea deals every day. This should be illegal. If they are not prosecuting the crime in good faith they have no business representing the publich in such a powerful role.
36. Re:His choices... by Mr.+Slippery · 2014-06-30 05:37 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The feds threat was six months, not 10+ years.
  Bullshit. Threatening "50 years if you make us go to trial, but if you confess we'll recommend six months but the court can still give you 50 years" is still threatening 50 years. The threat of heavy sentences to get people to waive the right to a trail is an egregious violation of due process and the the guarantee against cruel and unusual punishments.
  
  --
  Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
  You cannot wash away blood with blood
37. Re:His choices... by twistedcubic · 2014-06-30 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  What JSTOR especially provides, and part of what Aaron was reaping wholesale, was its organization and links, basically the indexing and cross-indexing. _That_ is what makes JSTOR so useful, and what people pay JSTOR for: the breadth and searchability of the data.
  
  This is not true. All of this existed before JSTOR. For example, the big databases for mathematics back in the day were SilverPlatter and then MathSciNet. JSTOR is just a small evolutionary step above these, which publishers starting using for convenience. It was never some amazing revolutionary tool. Essentially everything on JSTOR shows up in a Google search anyway.
38. Re:His choices... by fustakrakich · 2014-06-30 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  It deserves fixing.
  My sig is more succinct on the matter. Exclusivity is not a good thing.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
39. Re:His choices... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-30 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  My brother has some serious mental health issues, they are not free nor easy to obtain at reduced costs. Think of how long doctor visits are, that's how long we waited for each of his appointments, and it's a very slow process.
  Think of it like trying to treat any other prolonged illness. Free options take up more of your time, have a whole slew of problems tacked in, etc. It's free or extremely cheap, but with trade offs like I mentioned.
  The point Threni made still stands though, why was his treatment so rough that even someone close to this breaking point took that way out?
40. Re:His choices... by spitzak · 2014-06-30 07:03 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The meme "information wants to be free" is supposed to be read like "water wants to flow downhill". That statement does not mean water has a mind and actively thinks about flowing downhill. It also does not mean dams to stop the downhill movement are immoral or wrong. What it is saying is "a dam is expensive and will not magically appear without active input by a concerned party".
41. Re:His choices... by dnavid · 2014-06-30 08:56 · Score: 2
  
  The feds threat was six months, not 10+ years.
  Bullshit. Threatening "50 years if you make us go to trial, but if you confess we'll recommend six months but the court can still give you 50 years" is still threatening 50 years. The threat of heavy sentences to get people to waive the right to a trail is an egregious violation of due process and the the guarantee against cruel and unusual punishments.
  If you want to take away the ability for the government to pursue the maximum possible penalty, you should also recommend taking away their discretion to pursue the minimum possible penalty as well. I keep hearing that threatening to pursue the maximum *legal* sentence unless a plea bargain is negotiated is a violation of due process. I don't think anyone who says this actually understands what "due process" even is.
  In my opinion, Aaron Swartz's suicide clearly suggests someone that in spite of public appearances to the contrary with a fragile mental state. Portraying the government as having driven him to suicide doesn't seem reasonable to me, particularly in light of the fact that all evidence suggests Swartz deliberately placed himself in legal jeopardy as a deliberate act of protest. Someone who deliberately does so without first considering the legal ramifications implies stupidity, and Swartz was a highly intelligent person. I therefore have to conclude that he knew the risks intellectually, but was completely unprepared to deal with them psychologically. That's tragic. But that doesn't make him a martyr.
42. Re:His choices... by jeIlomizer · 2014-06-30 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  "sins"? What are you, some sort of religious moron?
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
43. Re:His choices... by wannabe · 2014-06-30 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Settle down Chairman Mao. After you have spent considerable time, energy, and real money creating something - you definitely will be happy for the protections that copyright offers.
  
  --
  "Draw them in with the prospect of gain, take them by confusion." Sun Tzu
44. Re:His choices... by Creepy · 2014-06-30 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  Series of bad choices? The main one is making the public domain articles in JSTOR available on the Internet instead of having to pay a dime a page for a copy (yes, PUBLIC DOMAIN). It was the government calling that a Terms of Service violation and thus "wire fraud" which is a felony under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (a horribly loose law that lifts wording directly from the Espionage Act of 1917, which itself is possibly the worst piece of legislation on the books). According to the CFAA, using the internet is a felony punishable by 30 years in prison if you basically visit any for profit website and use an alias. In other words, visiting /. is a felony unless you're using your real name.
  The CFAA was meant for one main purpose - to protect ATM transactions. It was never meant for networked computers like the internet and should not be used as such. This is a blatant abuse of power by the US government, as is the espionage charge against Snowden (sorry, but you can't commit espionage by giving information to your own people - that is really fucked up - it is purely theft).
45. Re:His choices... by Antique+Geekmeister · 2014-06-30 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  You're quite correct. I've certainly worked with, and given my time for, non-profits who earned the label.
46. Re:His choices... by guises · 2014-06-30 21:19 · Score: 1
  
  If you want to take away the ability for the government to pursue the maximum possible penalty, you should also recommend taking away their discretion to pursue the minimum possible penalty as well.
  Absolutely. There's no reason why the prosecutor should have any say in sentencing, that's for the judge. And to take that a step further - not only should the prosecutor be unable to pursue the minimum possible penalty, there should be no minimum sentencing in the first place. This is just interference by another route, and worse because the judge can't overrule it even when it's clearly unjust (warning: PDF).
47. Re:His choices... by mog007 · 2014-07-01 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  There was a big industry behind copyright when the constitution was being drafted. It wasn't authors, or artists. It was map makers.
  Map makers spent a lot of money ensuring that their maps were accurate, and they wanted to ensure that people wouldn't be able to seize their maps and build on them before they made back their initial investments.
  
  --
  Learn something new.
48. Re:His choices... by fuzzy2k · 2014-07-01 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure what exactly we're supposed to be celebrating here.
  Celebrate that you are alive. But then, I don't see where anyone else is suggestion celebration is called for. Aaron Swartz took his own life, which is a bit more than sad if you knew him. Maybe if your only knowledge of him is posthumous knowledge of his work on Reddit and w/e else, perhaps just a bit of sadness is an appropriate response, but I kind of doubt it. He was threatened with remarkable consequences by, among others, an organization that was apparently not able to keep it's infrastructure secure by operating door locks properly. Why the various organizations involved haven't been sued successfully for many many many dollars for their parts in this train of events is beyond me, and speaks well, actually to the maturity of his next of kin. So, in summary, celebrate that you are American, if you are, and blow something up. Perhaps if it bangs loud enough it will help you to ignore your conscience telling you to get off your ass and do something. Which is all you really want, right?
  
  --
  --- Say something clever. Pretend it was me. Thanks.
49. Re:His choices... by i.kazmi · 2014-07-01 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  The same people who say that Aaron Swartz made a series of bad choices culminating in the worst possible choice also seem to claim that Edward Snowden should have chosen death (and martyrdom) over seeking asylum in Russia (completely ignoring the fact that the revocation of his passport made any travel plans he had tricky at best, leaving him with little choice but to maybe adopt the lifestyle the character portrayed by Tom Hanks had in 'The Terminal' if he chose not to seek asylum in Russia). Talk about double standards...
50. Re:His choices... by RockDoctor · 2014-07-01 23:36 · Score: 1
  
  freely and easily obtainable mental health resources(*) he probably would still be alive today.
  * Assuming that such things are actually available.
  He was an American living in America. He'd only have had access to such resources through his (or someone else's) wallet.
  Knowing only that he was an American, there's only about a 0.6 probability that he had access to health services.
  Which is disgusting.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
51. Re:His choices... by Gr8Apes · 2014-07-02 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  And take a look at how many of those were "big" by today's standards. None.
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
52. Re:His choices... by doccus · 2014-07-04 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  Books just want to be red..sad, that, because most I've ever seen have been brown, yellow, orange..
Re:Cowards way out by tawt · 2014-06-30 00:24 · Score: 2

A bit like you posting this as AC
Why didn't Swartz ask for more help? by MtViewGuy · 2014-06-30 00:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

The thing that always bothered me about Swartz is why didn't rich benefactors in the tech industry help him not only with his legal issues, but also with his known issues with clinical depression. A strong, vigorous defense team provided by the EFF and getting Swartz psychiatric help could have saved his life.
1. Re:Why didn't Swartz ask for more help? by wisnoskij · 2014-06-30 01:08 · Score: 2
  
  Because it was none of their business?
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
2. Re:Why didn't Swartz ask for more help? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-30 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  EFF had already noted, and supported, Aaron's more legitimate political interests, and welcomed his participation in their political activity. I'd be quite curious if their legal staff had reached out to Aaron with help or suggestions already: they certainly agreed with many of his goals.
  I used to know Mike Godwin, the EFF's first lawyer who helped win the Steve Jackson case against the Secret Service. I can just picture Mike trying to explain the difference between the la-la land in Aaron's head, and what the law *really* says, and how judges *really* act. Shame he's moved onto things, I'd have paid good money to watch that. Of course, I knew him way back on alt.sex.abuse, along with the EFF's first employee, Rita Rouvalis, nicknamed "Czarina Rita" on the newsgroup. I always wondered about those two.....
3. Re:Why didn't Swartz ask for more help? by serviscope_minor · 2014-06-30 01:38 · Score: 2
  
  The thing that always bothered me about Swartz is why didn't rich benefactors
  Really? When the prosecutor was tring to shoot for 30 years and crap like wire fraud, that was what bothered you?
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
4. Re:Why didn't Swartz ask for more help? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-30 06:54 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  A couple of points:
  1. I went through the process of someone to get legal help for a software case issue when a huge corp was going after them. While I love the EFF, they generally take a case when they think a precedent could be set in favor of their (and generally my) agenda. If Microsoft sues you to make an example, and the law seems pretty clear, the EFF won't help you. As for other stepping in to help with legal fees, based on past articles (haven't seen the doc) apparently part of the issue he was having was he was under gag orders severe enough preventing him from even asking friends for help. Think about that for a moment.
  2. People with clinical depression generally can't ask for help for three general reasons:
  (A) Their mindset: I kind of hate this term, but it's a case where normal people have to "check their priveledge" because while what you are saying makes perfect sense if you have a non-depressed mindset. They can be the smartest person you have ever met, but when suffering from depression, how you are feeling is normal to you, a direct result of how you are seeing the world. That you could feel better than you are, even while circumstances or situations are the same, isn't something that makes sense. eg, imagine you are terminally ill with cancer, no prognosis beyond a few months of excruciating pain laying in a bed, so you decide to end it on your terms. It makes perfect and absolute sense to you as the only reasonable option, and to many outsiders. They stop deriving enjoyment from everything: food, music, people, work -- everything.
  (B) Lack of energy: Things seem pointless, and the amount of energy to muster basic things seems beyond them, from showering to brushiing their teeth to making a call about how bad things are.
  (C) Stigma: This has been slowly changing, but unless you are around people in psych programs every day, the stigma is still there and it is very, very real. Even if the social stigma wasn't, the personal one still is, as no one likes to think there is something wrong with their brain, let alone likes telling people about it.
  Also, the hell with beta. I'm going to miss this site.
A Call to Arms by rmdingler · 2014-06-30 00:37 · Score: 2, Funny

Your ass will be in a seat watching a movie. When it's done, get up and do something.
Yeah.
Make a documentary or something.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Where can I download this? by bruce_the_loon · 2014-06-30 00:39 · Score: 1

After all, Aaron would have wanted the data to be free.

--
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
1. Re:Where can I download this? by Jjeff1 · 2014-06-30 00:45 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The Internet archive https://archive.org/details/TheInternetsOwnBoyTheStoryOfAaronSwartz
2. Re:Where can I download this? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-30 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  spoiler: darth vadar is his father.
Re:He also didn't think of those that loved him by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-30 00:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

APK, when I see comments like this from people regarding suicides, it tells me immediately that the person making these comments has never felt suicidal. Never been so utterly and completely depressed that death seems the better option at the time. You simply cannot understand this if you have never experienced the feeling.
The tragedy is that many who do don't make it through the experience. I am glad that I didn't go through with it at that point in my life when it seemed the best option... Although, to be honest, it was really only further self-doubt that delayed taking the final plunge long enough for things to start to turn around.
It is a tragedy that Aaron Shwartz didn't make it through for things to start getting better, but there is certainly blame to be shared in his case... We ALL, as a society as a whole, failed Aaron imo.
What's so remarkable? by wonkey_monkey · 2014-06-30 00:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Which is kind of remarkable, since the Achilles' heel of this documentary, as critic Matt Pais notes in his review, is that "everyone on the other side of this story, from the government officials who advocated for Swartz's prosecution to Swartz's former Reddit colleagues to folks at MIT, declined participation in the film."
It seems to be entirely unremarkable that a story told from only one perspective - presumably the one that shows the main "character" in a positive light - should get good reviews.
Tell it from both sides and you risk leaving the audience with unsatisfyingly ambiguous feelings about the whole affair; it's almost as if life isn't black and white!
No-one likes that in a movie.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
1. Re:What's so remarkable? by James-NSC · 2014-06-30 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  Tell it from both sides and you risk leaving the audience with unsatisfyingly ambiguous feelings about the whole affair; it's almost as if life isn't black and white!
  No-one likes that in a movie.
  Quite the contrary, had Gibson included the Roman perspective in "Passion" I would have enjoyed that movie a whole lot more.
  
  Roman Citizen: You taking the chariot out tonight?
  Roman Soldier: Yea, me any my cohort are going to do some drive by crucifixions...
2. Re:What's so remarkable? by wonkey_monkey · 2014-06-30 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Couldn't you have shoe-horned that in somewhere a little more relevant? Or did you not even read my post?
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
What's so remarkable? by AHuxley · 2014-06-30 01:02 · Score: 1

The remarkable legal part was that the Aaron Swartz "documents" where sealed under a protective order.
DOJ, MIT, JSTOR Seek Anonymity In Swartz Case:
Recall http://yro-beta.slashdot.org/s...

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Internet bullies by TapeCutter · 2014-06-30 01:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

.. he killed himself because of a mental state that seemed to preclude any option other than suicide.

He was bullied into suicide by believable threats of a 50yr prison sentence from authority, just as surely as that 13yr girl was bullied into suicide by a grown woman on facebook a few years ago. The authorities did everything they could to hang that woman even using facebook terms of services against her, and so they should, it is after all their job. But where are the rabid prosecutors that are taking Swartz's tormentors to task? Why have the authorities not pulled out every trick in the book to hang those official bullies with the same fervor and determination they did when pursuing an uneducated, immature soccer mom?

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
1. Re:Internet bullies by twdorris · 2014-06-30 01:33 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  First, that 13 year old girl was bullied on My Space, not Facebook. Prosecutors tried to go after her, but ultimately she was acquitted of the main felony charge anyway. So maybe nobody is going after the "bullies" in this case because they know better. If they can't even get a 3-year sentence to stick on an "uneducated, immature soccer mom", what chance do they have against high ranking officials that will be even harder to pin down anyway? Seems like a good call to me.
2. Re:Internet bullies by BitZtream · 2014-06-30 02:06 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  He was bullied into suicide by believable threats of a 50yr prison sentence from authority
  ... You really believe that? You need mental help as well. There are FAR worse things than the threat of jail time, even 50 years. He had mental issues. There is no other reason to commit suicide. He also was a criminal with criminal intent in every action he took.
  He's not a hero, he's a sad mental case. What he did was wrong. Period. End of story. The fact that he killed himself because he couldn't deal with the consequences of his actions doesn't magically make him a hero nor does it make what he did right.
  He was never going to live a long and healthy live if he killed himself over this situation. I've been on the receiving end of the threat of long term incarceration in AN AMERICAN PRISON. There are far scarier things in the world. You need some perspective.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
3. Re:Internet bullies by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-30 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  Regardless of his motives, him killing himself has absolutely nothing to do with IP law. He was mentally unfit for this life. There are plenty of people facing prosecution for doing what they believe to be right. I am tired of hearing about how his death was anything but selfish. The kid was unstable and that is unfortunate, because he gave a lot to the community. We can appreciate his life and accomplishments without fantasizing that the government murdered him for his righteous acts.
4. Re:Internet bullies by frank_adrian314159 · 2014-06-30 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  So you liked not prosecuting bank executives because "high ranking officials... will be even harder to pin down"? That was the line of reasoning used in the AG's office for not doing that. You want to give the powerful a pass because it's inefficient to prosecute them? But the rest of us? We're fair game? What a dick.
  
  --
  That is all.
5. Re:Internet bullies by ememisya · 2014-07-01 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  If they can't even get a 3-year sentence to stick on an "uneducated, immature soccer mom", what chance do they have against high ranking officials that will be even harder to pin down anyway?
  You nailed the issue on the head. The only solution to this is to guard your data and not allow government intrusion into people's lives. It may be legal to bully people to suicide or make them mad enough to break the law but the real issue is the ability of the government or any other corporate force to have easy access to one's Facebook, or cellphone data. This is why guarding your data is extremely important, to ward off against these kind of abuses. I think Aaron might have still been alive if the prosecutor didn't have access to Godly surveillence powers and an apparently infinite budget. (They took his Rock Band controller, seriously?) But believe me there is no money in doing the right thing, so the solution seems to be obvious, get rich (an option which is totally easy and available for everyone), or join a team of hackers... err surveillence experts. Either with 'em or against them, can't be left alone anymore. Also if you think this is just the U.S. you'd be wrong. All these X Eyes countries are following within the footsteps of turning the world into a large satellite dish, all in the benefit of a handful of individuals and illusion of safety. It's theatre, and you're in it.
Citation required. by TapeCutter · 2014-06-30 01:20 · Score: 1, Insightful

If there are such "important cases" happening as you have claimed, it should be easy to provide an example of one of these "unsung heroes" facing a 50yr sentence, right?

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
1. Re:Citation required. by NotDrWho · 2014-06-30 01:37 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The EFF has a whole list of cases, most of which are way more important for the rest of us than the Schwartz case would have been.
  
  --
  SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Re:Cowards way out by tawt · 2014-06-30 01:23 · Score: 1

Maybe he (she?) doesn't have an account.
But he (she?) definitely doesn't know anything about depression if that's truly what (s)he thinks.
Re:He also didn't think of those that loved him by Slackus · 2014-06-30 01:24 · Score: 1

APK, when I see comments like this from people regarding suicides, it tells me immediately that the person making these comments has never felt suicidal. Never been so utterly and completely depressed that death seems the better option at the time. You simply cannot understand this if you have never experienced the feeling.
The tragedy is that many who do don't make it through the experience. I am glad that I didn't go through with it at that point in my life when it seemed the best option... Although, to be honest, it was really only further self-doubt that delayed taking the final plunge long enough for things to start to turn around.
It is a tragedy that Aaron Shwartz didn't make it through for things to start getting better, but there is certainly blame to be shared in his case... We ALL, as a society as a whole, failed Aaron imo.
Parent, +1. You can spot someone that has no experience or knowledge of clinical depression a mile away.
And people ask me... by Opportunist · 2014-06-30 01:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

And people ask me why I say we're not in any way more free than any other dictatorship. "But we have free speech!" Yeah. But as soon as someone would listen, rest assured that we'll find a way to hang you.
Or get you to hang yourself, for all we care.
"But we can have guns!" So? The laws are rigged to ensure the government has the bigger ones AND the media power to ensure you're smeared as the bad guy enough that everyone supports that artillery strike against your cute little fortress.
You're free to do as you're told.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
1. Re:And people ask me... by BitZtream · 2014-06-30 02:12 · Score: 2
  
  And people ask me why I say we're not in any way more free than any other dictatorship.
  You should answer with 'because I'm an ignorant idiot who has no idea what its like to live in an actual dictatorship'.
  Seriously, you have no fucking clue how great you have it.
  That doesn't mean we shouldn't raise holy hell when the government does something wrong, but to compare the USA to a dictatorship just makes it clear you're just utterly ignorant of the real world.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
2. Re:And people ask me... by SuricouRaven · 2014-06-30 02:58 · Score: 2
  
  "The law can't punish you for what you say"
  As if what you say makes any difference.
3. Re:And people ask me... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-06-30 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  That doesn't mean we shouldn't raise holy hell when the government does something wrong, but to compare the USA to a dictatorship just makes it clear you're just utterly ignorant of the real world.
  Almost everywhere, if you obey the rules, you will be just fine. The worst places to be on Earth, if you will not obey every single law, are Seychelles and USA. There are very few states that I can imagine doing what USA did to this boy.
  Also, the "real world" is not CNN. United States doesn't even make top ten on well being or life expectancy.
  Just because you are content with getting to consume more than everyone else on the planet doesn't mean you are not living under an oppressive regime.
  "If there is an unjust law, work on changing it instead of disobeying." If this sentence makes sense to you, you are indoctrinated by a dictatorship.
4. Re:And people ask me... by Opportunist · 2014-06-30 06:53 · Score: 2
  
  There is actually rather little difference. As long as you don't pose a threat to the state you may pretty much do the same in either, and as soon as you become a nuisance in either state they'll find a way to get rid of you.
  The US are a bit more subtle than, say, China so it's easier to bullshit people who can't read between the lines, but in the end, what remains is that as soon as you are deemed a threat, some way will be found to get rid of you.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Cowards way out by ameen.ross · 2014-06-30 01:29 · Score: 2

Hes

the cowards way out
Judging by their spelling, I'm absolutely positive they have a Slashdot account.

--
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
Re:Not very remarkable by Opportunist · 2014-06-30 01:30 · Score: 1

Well, NOT answering will pretty much ensure that you'll get the short end of the stick, along with a "and we tried to get them to tell their side but they didn't want to, so obviously they can't refute it".
If you're asked for a comment and you know (or at least suspect) that the interviewer will be unfavorably disposed towards you, ask for WRITTEN questions and that you may answer with a WRITTEN statement. That way you will not only get caught off guard by a question and have to find an answer within seconds while a camera is pointed at you and every second hesitation is already painted as "he's going to invent a lie now", you can even retroactively still say "no comment" without looking bad on cam if you simply can't come up with any kind of sensible answer that doesn't make you look like you're eating kittens for breakfast.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Isn't it easy for you to call others "coward"? by wisnoskij · 2014-06-30 01:53 · Score: 1

He has stood up for what he believes in, that people who commit suicide are cowards.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
wifi is slow [Re:His choices...] by Geoffrey.landis · 2014-06-30 02:04 · Score: 1

He could have downloaded the data from his own desk in his own office. Instead he went to the library and entered a wiring closet that was clearly not supposed to be open to the public.
If you were going to download a lot of data, would you choose a node with many hops to the server or just a few? I would pick the one closest to the server.
Nice rationalization, but his first few attempts at scraping the database was by downloading via the MIT wifi network, so it's clear that speed of access wasn't his main objective here. It was only after he was repeatedly blocked from doing that by wireless access (being blocked should have been a clue to him) that he snuck into the closet.

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
1. Re:wifi is slow [Re:His choices...] by dcollins117 · 2014-06-30 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  It was only after he was repeatedly blocked from doing that by wireless access (being blocked should have been a clue to him) that he snuck into the closet.
  OOoooh. Did he sneak in on his belly like a cobra or on tippy-toes like the spy-vs-spy cartoon? Seems like that would just draw undo attention. Or maybe he just walked in, and you are making shit up.
Snuck [Re:wifi is slow [Re:His choices...]] by Geoffrey.landis · 2014-06-30 02:46 · Score: 1

He could have downloaded the data from his own desk in his own office. Instead he went to the library and entered a wiring closet that was clearly not supposed to be open to the public.
If you were going to download a lot of data, would you choose a node with many hops to the server or just a few? I would pick the one closest to the server.
Nice rationalization, but his first few attempts at scraping the database was by downloading via the MIT wifi network, so it's clear that speed of access wasn't his main objective here. It was only after he was repeatedly blocked from doing that by wireless access (being blocked should have been a clue to him) that he snuck into the closet.
OOoooh. Did he sneak in on his belly like a cobra or on tippy-toes like the spy-vs-spy cartoon? Seems like that would just draw undo attention. Or maybe he just walked in, and you are making shit up.
Uh, since you don't seem to know anything about the case, why are you commenting?
Here are the first couple of links from a google search
The Washington Post: Jan 12, 2013 - "When MIT cut off access to its wireless network, Swartz snuck into an MIT network closet and plugged his laptop directly into the campus ..."
What Aaron Swartz did at MIT - Daily Kos
Jan 13, 2013 - Between November and December 2010, Aaron Swartz accessed this room ...... The closet he snuck his laptop in turned out..."
Why We Should Remember Aaron Swartz - Businessweek Jan 13, 2013 - "It also has people like Aaron Swartz, whose work makes empires ... He snuck into a closet at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and used ..."
Swartz Caught in a Closet (Update) | Simple Justice Jul 20, 2011 - "Aaron Swartz, a 24-year-old programmer and online political activist, has ... on copies of JSTORs content without having to sneak into a closet, ..."
And the video is online: https://www.google.com/search?...

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
1. Re:Snuck [Re:wifi is slow [Re:His choices...]] by dcollins117 · 2014-06-30 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  For the record, that video shows him walking casually into the room, not "sneaking" into it. You might see something nefarious going on, but I don't.
2. Re:Snuck [Re:wifi is slow [Re:His choices...]] by Geoffrey.landis · 2014-06-30 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  For the record, that video shows him walking casually into the room, not "sneaking" into it. You might see something nefarious going on, but I don't.
  I suggest that you e-mail the 784,000 web pages that say Aaron Swartz snuck into the closet, and inform them they're using the English language wrong:
  https://www.google.com/search?...
  "sneaking" indicates that he made deliberate attempts not to be caught doing the action. It does not imply that he wore a trenchcoat and a stocking cap.
  
  --
  http://www.geoffreylandis.com
3. Re:Snuck [Re:wifi is slow [Re:His choices...]] by Mr.+Slippery · 2014-06-30 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  I suggest that you e-mail the 784,000 web pages that say Aaron Swartz snuck into the closet, and inform them they're using the English language wrong:
  They're not using the English language wrong, they're reporting the facts wrong. Just as the mainstream media did for decades in the War on (Some) Drugs, just as they did in the run-up to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the media is lying and/or negligently passing on the government's story.
  
  --
  Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
  You cannot wash away blood with blood
4. Re:Snuck [Re:wifi is slow [Re:His choices...]] by Geoffrey.landis · 2014-06-30 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Are you seriously arguing that if a criminal is caught on a surveillance camera, that must mean that they weren't doing anything wrong?
  If he wasn't doing anything wrong, he could have done the download from his desk, not sneaking into a different institution on the other side of the city.
  
  --
  http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Swartz timeline by sparkydevil · 2014-06-30 03:20 · Score: 2

I made this news timeline of Swartz a while back. If you see anything missing drop me a note.
Re:He was threatened with six months in low-securi by MightyMartian · 2014-06-30 03:56 · Score: 1

Prison would have only been part of the punishment. It's likely that his parole conditions would have pretty much destroyed his career.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
wrong by AndyKron · 2014-06-30 06:53 · Score: 1

They all declined participation because they all know they're FUCKING WRONG
Re:He was threatened with six months in low-securi by wisnoskij · 2014-06-30 07:23 · Score: 1

He had already destroyed his career, parole conditions or not.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.