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.""

23 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 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?
3. 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!
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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
14. 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
15. 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.
16. 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
17. 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".
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.
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.
Re:Where can I download this? by Jjeff1 · 2014-06-30 00:45 · Score: 4, Informative

The Internet archive https://archive.org/details/TheInternetsOwnBoyTheStoryOfAaronSwartz
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.
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.