Slashdot Mirror


Calls to Action on the Fifth Anniversary of the Death of Aaron Swartz (eff.org)

On the fifth anniversary of the death of Aaron Swartz, EFF activist Elliot Harmon posted a remembrance: When you look around the digital rights community, it's easy to find Aaron's fingerprints all over it. He and his organization Demand Progress worked closely with EFF to stop SOPA. Long before that, he played key roles in the development of RSS, RDF, and Creative Commons. He railed hard against the idea of government-funded scientific research being unavailable to the public, and his passion continues to motivate the open access community. Aaron inspired Lawrence Lessig to fight corruption in politics, eventually fueling Lessig's White House run... It's tempting to become pessimistic in the face of countless threats to free speech and privacy. But the story of the SOPA protests demonstrates that we can win in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds.
He shares a link to a video of Aaron's most inspiring talk, "How We Stopped SOPA," writing that "Aaron warned that SOPA wouldn't be the last time Hollywood attempted to use copyright law as an excuse to censor the Internet... 'The enemies of the freedom to connect have not disappeared... We won this fight because everyone made themselves the hero of their own story. Everyone took it as their job to save this crucial freedom. They threw themselves into it. They did whatever they could think of to do.'"

On the anniversary of Aaron's death, his brother Ben Swartz, an engineer at Twitch, wrote about his own efforts to effect change in ways that would've made Aaron proud, while Aaron's mother urged calls to Congress to continue pushing for reform to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

And there were countless other remembrances on Twitter, including one fro Cory Doctorow, who tweeted a link to Lawrence Lessig's analysis of the prosecution. And Lessig himself marked the anniversary with several posts on Twitter. "None should rest," reads one, "for still, there is no peace."

151 comments

  1. Meanwhile On Reddit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's not a single mention of Aaron Swartz at all.

    1. Re:Meanwhile On Reddit by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 0

      He was a coward and a thief. He's burning if hell right now if you believe in that sorta thing.

      And you're alone and shivering under a bridge in midwinter, reviled by all. Which one is the loser here?

    2. Re: Meanwhile On Reddit by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      He was a righteous man, and a hero to many. Whereas you are but a stain on the floor of a public restroom.

    3. Re: Meanwhile On Reddit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      REMEMBER THE MURDER OF IAN MURDOCH, creator of Debian Linux and leading member of the Free Software community, killed Christmas 2015 by the notoriously corrupt San Francisco police department.

    4. Re: Meanwhile On Reddit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol. Many who? A bunch of deluded smelly nerds who thinks their computahs are going to "change the world"? Wake up and smell your pants, losers: the internet is now corporate property and there is nothing - NOTHING - you can ever do about it. You have been defeated before you could even fire the first shot - which is just as well because if you had, you would have been destroyed - and failure smells like the pile of shit that rests now on your heads. You are covered in feces. Your mouth is full of feces. Your world is an ocean of feces. Get used to it.

    5. Re: Meanwhile On Reddit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Restroom floor, meet your shit stain.

  2. Once you control information... by MindPrison · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...you control the people.

    Information wants to be free = people want to be free, this is what we fight for. Those who are in control, wants to have MORE control. You're always guilty unless proven innocent in the eyes of those who have everything to hide fro you. A thief thinks everyone steals.

    Once information is free - those in power realize they must abide by those who hired them to do the job of government in the first place - we the people did, we are their entire purpose, not the other way around. Freedom of information means that no one is safe if they do wrong, because it becomes hard to hide from the general population, and that's the way it should me.

    Freedom = to be free, free from tyranny and control.

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
    1. Re: Once you control information... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hilarious how the people who most strongly support Swartz for releasing information obtained through very questionable methods are the exact same people who scream endlessly about how wrong it was that Democratic Party emails were obtained and released publicly. For all of their self-righteous yelling about how 'information wants to be free', they really can't stand it when information portrays them and their idols in a very negative way!

    2. Re:Once you control information... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Rupert Murdoch might be a greedy, power hungry scumbag who receives transfusions from infant orphans to prolong his life...
      Nah there's no "but".

    3. Re: Once you control information... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't like what Aaron did with that telecom room. That was sneaky and underhanded. However, universities using public tax money for research, then locking it away from tax payers behind paywalls is JUST as underhanded and sneaky. It is theft.

    4. Re:Once you control information... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Fox News is shit.

      While on topic of stating the obvious: Water is wet.

      >> Citing Gawker as a source.

      I was with you up until this point. You would be taken more seriously by providing a citation from a reputable source instead of one that is known for posting celebrity sex tapes.

    5. Re: Once you control information... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I supported Aaron Schwartz's objective to free taxpayer funded research and making it open source. The public should have full access to research when their money is taken for it. I also do not support what the Democratic party was doing pertaining to the Clintons and all their mess. I think of the Clinton Foundation as one big fraud slush fund pretending to be a charity.

      Diginess

    6. Re:Once you control information... by DogDude · · Score: 0

      Your word salad doesn't make any sense, unfortunately.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    7. Re:Once you control information... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet that celebrity sex did actually happen, and the publishers of valid accredited news sometimes also publish other things that don't meet the standard - tabloid journalism however sordid is still journalism if they have sources and don't lie. Are you saying Hulk didn't fuck on tape, because he did. Publishing it is questionable, but also questionable would be holding it back when a public figure is provably lying about something that's in legal arbitration.

      Besides, we all know the only people who go after Gawker are Thiel faggots. Worthless attack is worthless. The source of the article is unimpeached by you, and you don't even bother to argue the content.
      Instead you think the publisher's name is cause to pretend none of this is true, even though you know it is and can't prove otherwise.

      By the way, there are other sources for this article's topic, go and find them if you like - I found this one succinct and to the point - but you've proven none of it false yet.

      I accept your logical apology on their behalf. Also, I did not say "fox news is shit" quite. I said it's deliberately propaganda since the inception, a fact, not opinion.
      See, that's your claimed quote unattributed in the record - and you're the source. You failed at what you would accuse Gawker of - journalistic credibility.

    8. Re:Once you control information... by quonset · · Score: 1

      Information wants to be free = people want to be free

      Fine. Give us your real name, social security number, your bank information, and your credit card numbers. Someone will be along to free you of your money in a few moments.

    9. Re: Once you control information... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JSTOR is freely available to MIT students and staff. It is freely available to students and staff of other educational institutions. It is freely available to patrons of public libraries. If you have an account with one of those public libraries, JSTOR is freely available to you over the internet. It's hardly locked away.

    10. Re: Once you control information... by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      EFF and other hi tech digital privacy fighters do not realize couple of a ver6 simple things.

      They are not in power, that makes their movement a subject of Lenin's definition of revolutionary situation: it happens when three conditions are met: the ones in power can't rule as before, the ones oppressed can't live as before and, finally, presence of organized disciplined group of accltivists ("The Party")

      None of these even close to reality.

      The reality is that we live in the times when the government has maximum control in history as a result of technological progress and inevitably growing disparity between personal weapons and government force, multiplied by increased technical capabilities of servailance.

      It's a doomed fight.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    11. Re: Once you control information... by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Suicide is honorable.

    12. Re: Once you control information... by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Huh? Information freedom is not a Dimmocrat/Repuglican partisan issue. Go back to Reddit.

    13. Re: Once you control information... by Reverend+Green · · Score: 0

      "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

    14. Re: Once you control information... by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Yet the United States is flirting with complete economic collapse, and China has very serious internal security, unity, and stability issues.

    15. Re: Once you control information... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The information Aaron collected was legally public record, but was kept away and they charged large fees for anybody to access it.

  3. Re:2018 and swartz by sabri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    year of the lunix desktop?

    Year of suicide prevention. Aaron Schwartz unfortunately committed suicide. People who commit suicide mostly do so in order to end their own suffering. The reality however is that this does not lower the total amount of suffering in the world. Instead, their family and friends will inherent their suffering, thus any suicide will only increase the total amount of suffering in the world. Ergo: the act of suicide is probably the most egoistic act in the world: to end ones own perceived suffering resulting in an increased amount of suffering in others.

    Suicide awareness is more important. The national suicide prevention hotline can be found at 1-800-273-8255.

    --
    I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
  4. Remember this lack of due process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When you think rape tribunals on college campuses are a good idea. Or accusing people of sex assault without trial ruins their careers.

    Schwartz would have understood that. Knew what extreme ideology looked like.

    1. Re:Remember this lack of due process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any accusation can be made by anyone, and anyone can sue over such an accusation if provably untrue and no evidence exists to confirm it. You may not understand this, that's too bad.

      If you're like Trump and credibly accused by dozens of people some of whom have corroborating evidence, and you just call them all liars and threaten to sue - but don't sue?

      Then you deserve judgment in the court of public opinion as a likely rapist punkass.

    2. Re:Remember this lack of due process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was charged with committing six felonies. He was arrested and arraigned. He was indicted by a grand jury. He received ample and high powered legal representation throughout. He met with prosecutors multiple times to discuss lenient plea agreements and rejected them all to have his day in court. Arguably, Schwartz was afforded more due process than the majority of people in this country get. Only an idiot would claim otherwise.

    3. Re: Remember this lack of due process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But information wants to be free!

    4. Re:Remember this lack of due process by pots · · Score: 3, Informative

      The parent should have said, "accusing people of sex assault ruins their careers without trial." The point behind Aaron's story is that he was ruined financially before he ever got to court, and the most lenient of the plea bargains that you mention required him to plead guilty to thirteen felonies and spend six months in jail. This is a terribly harsh penalty for a minor offense, which he refused to accept.

      His refusal additionally makes sense in light of the fact that this was purposeful civil disobedience - all about making a point in the first place. Really, accepting any plea bargain would undermine that point, though his lawyer does say that they offered to accept a less severe bargain.

      Again, the fact that all of this happened before trial is what the parent was talking about. "Due process" is perhaps a little nebulous, so you could say that he received some measure of that, but he never got his day in court and was never convicted.

    5. Re:Remember this lack of due process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >The point behind Aaron's story is that he was ruined financially before he ever got to court, and the most lenient of the plea bargains that you mention required him to plead guilty to thirteen felonies and spend six months in jail.

      The original indictment only specified 4 charges (1 count each for wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, recklessly damaging a protected computer) and the US Attorney's office initially offered a 3 month stint in jail with a period of supervised release afterwards. And for someone who was financially ruined, its curious how Swartz was able to afford 3 different law firms to represent him between time of his first grand jury indictment and his death.

      >His refusal additionally makes sense in light of the fact that this was purposeful civil disobedience - all about making a point in the first place.

      Engaging in "purposeful civil disobedience" by way of committing criminal acts does not shield you from the legal consequences of those acts.

      >Really, accepting any plea bargain would undermine that point, though his lawyer does say that they offered to accept a less severe bargain.

      Actually, the reason Swartz rejected the plea deals is that federal prosecutor would not agree to one where there was no jail time. It had nothing to do with his lofty principles.

      >He never got his day in court.

      Uh, he could have avoided court altogether by accepting responsibility for his criminal actions and taking the plea deal. It was only after it became apparent to him that the public pressure on the USAO that he and his lawyers were counting on was not going to deter the prosecution, and that he didn't have a chance in hell of winning in court. It was because his own hubris that he thought the law didn't apply to him because his actions were guided by civil disobedience.He was wrong and he couldn't live with that.

    6. Re: Remember this lack of due process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silverspoon bootlicker detected!

    7. Re:Remember this lack of due process by Lucidus · · Score: 1

      Some of us idiots think that this whole current process, whereby prosecutors (who are answerable to no-one) control outcomes through plea deals, is a terrible perversion of justice because it completely short circuits due process.

    8. Re:Remember this lack of due process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the federal prosecutor chose not to offer a plea deal to Swartz and went to trial, Swartz could have faced up to 35 years in prison if he lost, IIRC. Given that not one, but two grand juries found enough evidence against Swartz to indict him with 13 federal felony charges, I'd say that a plea deal of 3-6 months jail time and supervised release was very lenient and would have been a just outcome.

    9. Re: Remember this lack of due process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one represents the "silver spoon" class more than Schwartz himself. Maybe if you suck his dick enough on forums one of his techbro homies will give you a job in the valley. The bootlicker is you.

    10. Re:Remember this lack of due process by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      He was charged with committing six felonies. He was arrested and arraigned. He was indicted by a grand jury. He received ample and high powered legal representation throughout. He met with prosecutors multiple times to discuss lenient plea agreements and rejected them all to have his day in court. Arguably, Schwartz was afforded more due process than the majority of people in this country get. Only an idiot would claim otherwise.

      Only an authoritarian dipshit would pretend pea deals are fair deals. If the prosecutor is willing to accept 6 months in prison then WTF was she threatening him with 35 years in prison. Our jackbooted SCOTUS has signed off on the tactic of the state threatening decades in prison to force plea deals of months or years, but that doesn't make it any less obscene. Remember: this leads to totally innocent people pleading guilty to crimes they didn't commit to avoid spending most of their adult lives in prison, dipshit.

      In the summer of 2002, Banks was arrested and charged after classmate Wanetta Gibson falsely accused him of dragging her into a stairway at Polytechnic High School (Poly) and raping her. Faced with a possible 41 years to life sentence, he accepted a plea deal that included five years in prison, five years of probation, and registering as a sex offender. Wanetta Gibson and her mother Wanda Rhodes sued the Long Beach Unified School District, claiming the Poly campus was not a safe environment, and won a $1.5 million settlement.[17][18] According to Banks, his lawyer told him that he stood no chance at trial because he would be tried by an all-white jury who would automatically assume that he was guilty because he was "a big, black teenager."[19]

    11. Re:Remember this lack of due process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If the prosecutor is willing to accept 6 months in prison then WTF was she threatening him with 35 years in prison.

      Because Swartz and his lawyers kept rejecting the plea offers. He was adamant not to serve any time in jail, and the federal prosecutor was not going to agree to that. The law determines the jail time and fines for a particular crime, so a prosecutor has every right to avail himself what the law allows him to do to get a conviction of the guilty and serve justice.

      From you irrelevant Wikipedia cite:

      According to Banks, his lawyer told him that he stood no chance at trial because he would be tried by an all-white jury who would automatically assume that he was guilty because he was "a big, black teenager."

      Sounds like Mr. Banks received some very bad advice from his lawyer and that was what led to him accepting a plea deal even though he was not guilty of the charges against him.

    12. Re:Remember this lack of due process by smi.james.th · · Score: 2

      6 months in prison only looks lenient if you think that 35 years is just. I suspect the touted 35 years is just a symptom of a trend towards potential sentences that are far too harsh to bully Americans into accepting these plea deals and not actually getting a fair trial.

      --
      One thing I know, and that is that I am ignorant...
    13. Re:Remember this lack of due process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      look here cumbucket (since you're calling people dipshit)...

      no one makes someone accept a plea. if they are innocent why take a plea? if they are fearful that they could be convicted, sure, i can see someone considering it. but if they are truly innocent, they should hold firm.

      dipshit.

      and your example would work perfectly with a big white kid being accused of raping a black girl and having a chance of facing an all black jury....

    14. Re:Remember this lack of due process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except, you know, you always have the freedom to tell the prosecutor "no"

      it doesn't short circuit anything.

    15. Re:Remember this lack of due process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What criminal actions? He downloaded a bunch of articles that he had credentials to retrieve!

    16. Re:Remember this lack of due process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even better..
      Prosecutors agree to plea deals where the defendant pleads guilty to a crime the prosecutor, the judge, the police investigators and the defense all know the defendant factually did not commit.

      Think about that.
      You are standing before a judge and must plead guilty to a charge EVERYONE in the room KNOWS that you did not do!

      Someone I knew had a major driving infraction, the plea deal was for a non-moving violation.. ONE THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.
      Happens all the time.
      HOW is that justice?
      IF.. I mean IF the 'system' wants plea deals because it reduces load on the system and they want to reward people who are admitting to the crime they need to be on the original charge and then a reduced sentence for pleading...
      Not 'just pick a lesser crime out of a hat and pin that on him instead'.

    17. Re:Remember this lack of due process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "no one makes someone accept a plea. if they are innocent why take a plea?"

      Why?

      "Kalief Browder was sent to Rikers Island when he was 16 years old, accused of stealing a backpack. Though he never stood trial or was found guilty of any crime, he spent three years at the New York City jail complex, nearly two of them in solitary confinement."
      https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/nyregion/kalief-browder-held-at-rikers-island-for-3-years-without-trial-commits-suicide.html

      WHY?
      Because the prosecutor, who can delay, delay, then reschedule, then be out of town, then ask for an extension...
      Stops by jail and tells you after 5 months waiting 'for his day in court';
      "You will never see your wife again, you will never see your kids. You will not win. I can keep you in here for years without trial. Plea to this and it is all over. A few years in jail and you can walk free. Sign this, OR ELSE I'll charge you with even more things. Things I know you did not do, but who are they going to believe? Some jerk in prison orange, or this upstanding prosecutor in a $4,000 suit? We never did solve that horrible murder rape.. MAYBE you did it? Sign the paper. Sign it now. Last chance."

      THAT is 'Why'.

    18. Re:Remember this lack of due process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a sad case, but it is not the plea deal that is the problem here.Being the victim of a possible false accusation, having inadequate public legal counsel, being on probation for another incident where he was charged with robbery, grand larceny, and assault, and having the misfortune of being processed through one of the most overwhelmed and backlogged court systems in the country. Those are the circumstances which led to his confinement, not the plea deals.

    19. Re:Remember this lack of due process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > if you think that 35 years is just.

      Its what the laws allow for considering the charges. If a defendant doesn't feel it's fair, he can opt to take his chances at trial. Remember, you only have to convince 1 juror that the state failed to prove its case, find you not guilty, and you'll get a mistrial (for which the prosecution may or may not opt to retry the case). Convince the entire jury of that and you'll get an acquittal. In Swartz's case, he knew that the video recordings of him, MIT's network forensic documentation, and his lawyer's failure to exclude his laptop as evidence meant that he was unlikely to be found not guilty. Given that Swartz actually committed the crimes for which he was accused (there's really no question of that, is there?), I think, that, yeah, six months jail in lieu of the possible 35 years or more that the laws allows for is just.

    20. Re:Remember this lack of due process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even better..
      Prosecutors agree to plea deals where the defendant pleads guilty to a crime the prosecutor, the judge, the police investigators and the defense all know the defendant factually did not commit.

      Even better than that..
      Prosecutors agree to plea deals where the defendant pleads guilty to a crime the prosecutor, the judge, the police investigators and the defense all know the defendant factually DID commit, but because of overwhelming court backlogs, overpopulation in the prison systems, grossly underfunded public defender services, and, in general, a justice system that's about to fly apart at the seams, the defendant only gets a sentence of time served and probation. This, even though the crimes committed calls for jail time that potentially could be several years. This, even though the defendant is a habitual criminal and shows no signs of remorse, or even any fear of being arrested and incarcerated because he knows that the system is broken and that the state can't really afford to put a on lengthy trial. This is not so much a problem on the federal level, but it certainly is the norm in some parts of the country on the state, county, and municipal levels.

    21. Re:Remember this lack of due process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who fucking gives a shit what "are the circumstances which led to his confinement"?

      The question was:
      "no one makes someone accept a plea. if they are innocent why take a plea? "

      The ANSWER to "if they are innocent why take a plea? "

      IS:
      ".Being the victim of a possible false accusation, having inadequate public legal counsel"..
      "and having the misfortune of being processed through one of the most overwhelmed and backlogged court systems in the country. "

      So fine, you don't want to blame indifferent or outright malicious prosecutors, but instead an inept, indifferent or outright overwhelmed 'SYSTEM'

      Good for you.
      The answer to WHY an innocent person would take a plea deal is still the same:
      They will not get justice regardless of innocence.
      smh

           

    22. Re:Remember this lack of due process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Who fucking gives a shit what "are the circumstances which led to his confinement"?

      Calm down there, Sally. To answer your question, I'm sure it mattered to Mr. Browder. It was the 2 years of solitary confinement that affected him mentally to the point that when he was finally released, he had great difficulty adjusting back to his normal life and thus finally killed himself.

      >So fine, you don't want to blame indifferent or outright malicious prosecutors

      You haven't provided any evidence that the district attorneys office behaved with indifference or malice.

      >but instead an inept, indifferent or outright overwhelmed 'SYSTEM'
      https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law

      But Browder had entered the legal system through the Bronx criminal courts, which are chronically overwhelmed. Last year, the Times, in an extended exposé, described them as “crippled” and among the most backlogged in the country. One reason is budgetary. There are not nearly enough judges and court staff to handle the workload; in 2010, Browder’s case was one of five thousand six hundred and ninety-five felonies that the Bronx District Attorney’s office prosecuted. The problem is compounded by defense attorneys who drag out cases to improve their odds of winning, judges who permit endless adjournments, prosecutors who are perpetually unprepared. Although the Sixth Amendment guarantees “the right to a speedy and public trial,” in the Bronx the concept of speedy justice barely exists.

      No mention of bad plea deals there, compadre. Maybe you should ask why his defense lawyer didn't make motion to dismiss the charges based on the violation of Mr. Browders sixth amendment right to a speedy trial.

      >The answer to WHY an innocent person

      Aaron Swartz was not an innocent person. It's not disputed that he did the things for which he was accused. Since he hadn't been tried in a court of law, though, the best you could say is that he was presumed "not guilty" of the charges. But he was not innocent. NOPE.

    23. Re:Remember this lack of due process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So both arms were cut off, one was given back to him and he is supposed to be thankful?

      The charges were still far unreasonable,

    24. Re:Remember this lack of due process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't offer plea deals if they have a solid case in the first place. they only do it as a way to get an easy victory and some money.

      NEVER waive ANY of your rights.
      ALWAYS require a quick and speedy trial by a JURY.

      It only takes 1 to hold out.

    25. Re:Remember this lack of due process by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Because Swartz and his lawyers kept rejecting the plea offers. He was adamant not to serve any time in jail, and the federal prosecutor was not going to agree to that. The law determines the jail time and fines for a particular crime, so a prosecutor has every right to avail himself what the law allows him to do to get a conviction of the guilty and serve justice.

      Because the worst Swartz was guilty of was trespassing. A six month sentence plus a felony record that would have saddled him for life was completely asinine and unjustifiable. Next question?

    26. Re:Remember this lack of due process by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Calm down there, Sally.

      Or you could pull you head out of your authoritarian ass. A prosecutor hauls you in for a crime you didn't commit, and says if you don't take the plea deal he's going to send you to prison for decades. You will absolutely lose your job, your house, and custody of your kids. You really going to reject that plea deal, slick?

      Didn't think so.

  5. How WE stopped SOPA??! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Please, you had Google, and other big money do the job. You're like those Taylor Camp hippies living "off the land" in Hawaii. Turns out they were collecting food stamps. You people stopped nothing! Popular movements without huge finance go nowhere. And besides, what have we gained? Sites are still being shut down and owners arrested everywhere. Bittorrent isn't working so well anymore. And Google is a filtering Nazi! Can't even find small clips. No, if you spent your time developing ad hoc real P2P networks, THEN you would be a hero. As it is you died being nothing more than a "merry prankster", a sad "merry prankster"

    And Lessig? No thank you! His tirades against free speech* are positively fascist. Don't want... nope... definitely don't want.

    *(euphemised as "campaign reform, not understanding the irony that if he were to win, the issue would be moot)

    1. Re:How WE stopped SOPA??! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what have YOU accomplished ?

      I thought so.

    2. Re:How WE stopped SOPA??! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was Secretary of State and almost became President of the United States.

      What have YOU accomplished?

    3. Re:How WE stopped SOPA??! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Lessig? No thank you! His tirades against free speech* are positively fascist

      How dare he claim that Money != Speech

    4. Re:How WE stopped SOPA??! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was Secretary of State and almost became President of the United States.

      LOSER!

    5. Re:How WE stopped SOPA??! by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, etc. didn't use money to stop SOPA. They did it by publicizing it with prominent banners and black pages. That publicity and the prospect of being voted out of office is what scared the bejeesus out of the congresscritters trying to push SOPA through. They had to do it that way because they hadn't been doing much lobbying in Washington before then, so the regular political or monetary channels weren't open to them. The only way they could stop SOPA in time was to massively publicize it.

      SOPA was the wake-up call for Internet companies that they needed to start playing the political lobbying game. Prior to SOPA (2011), lobbying and campaign contributions by Internet companies was relatively modest. It began to balloon in 2011 - that's when Internet companies learned that if they ignored politics, someone else (Hollywood) would use politics to control them. You can't just ignore politics. You're either the one doing the controlling, or you're the one being controlled. Sad but true.

    6. Re:How WE stopped SOPA??! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't blame money for your own lack of control. Nobody forces you to vote for bling. Lessig is full of shit. He denies our own freedom of choice.

    7. Re:How WE stopped SOPA??! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make questions addressed at others and then answer yourself? You sound autistic, and despetate.

    8. Re:How WE stopped SOPA??! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you sound like a looser. But I wouldn't expect anything less from a worthless basement dweller.

    9. Re:How WE stopped SOPA??! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't understand. The noise had to come from Google, et al for it to be taken seriously. Google was just doing regular PR for a particular audience of "young people". The game is extremely transparent, but sure, let's take the perceived "winnings" any way we can, right? Nothing gets big without lots of money, doesn't matter whether it's a military or a human/civil rights crusade. Think of the "terrorists" fighting the Brits in North America. They weren't poor rats, were they? No, they were a bunch a rich bastards who didn't want to pay their debts for services rendered, those being protection from the natives, and transportation of supplies and "labor", among other things, like more females to keep the colonies well stocked.

      The "movement" is a sham. Big money poisoned it, like it does everything. Civil rights has become "Social Justice", more bullshit you'll never see. The "New Black Panther Party" is exactly opposite of the original, of community, family, and, self defense from rogue arbitrary authority of a tyrannical majority. Those guys were heroes, they stood up and fought back. This is today's generation!

    10. Re: How WE stopped SOPA??! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol. Projecting much? You can't even spell "loser" right, retarded kid.

  6. Re:White privilege even in death! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop talking about yourself in 3rd person, only Trump and other retarded faggots do that. Focus on being the white male victim of society like all republicans, that's a good cuck. Run along now.

  7. If you talk about Aaron Swartz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    then you may be a terrorist.

  8. Re: White privilege even in death! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ha the republicans are cucks, huh? You seem to have it backwards my friend.

  9. Will he though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The difference between him and you is he'll be remembered after his death

    Even though I very much agree with what he was doing, I didn't remember him at all until this Slashdot article came up. I would argue he just obtained a slightly higher level of obscurity. Lots of us are known to many, and remembered by few. Very, very few will be REMEMBERED remembered in 100 years.

  10. Who was Aaron Swartz? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who was Aaron Swartz? The summary should say who he was. Most of us don't know who he was.

    1. Re:Who was Aaron Swartz? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was one of the co-creators of Reddit and RSS and a fought against the corporate tyranny.

      Aaron stumbled onto to something and went head to head with the deep state and they effectively murdered him.

      He is very VERY important in the fight for freedom. See the following video on him.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2tCHwAkv-Q

  11. JSTOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have been mournfully remembering this day, in my own way.

    I worked at JSTOR.

    I wrote their security system when I was there.

    I remember sending some email to Lawrence Lessig at the time, to talk to... someone.

  12. Bunch of Tools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Five years later and a bunch of tools still look to the law as their nuclear option.

  13. Re: 2018 and swartz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No one really believes he did that giving the continuing pattern of suicide amoung those fighting for privacy causes but good thing you folks at Three Letter stopped by to ambiguate.

  14. It's all propaganda now by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Everyone else may have agendas and fail in their full diligence, but Fox fails INTENTIONALLY since its inception

    If you claim Fox News is propaganda, without saying CNN is propaganda, MSNBC is propaganda, the NYT is propaganda, then how can we respect your hyper-partisan views?

    Here's a hint: It's all propaganda now. Most journalism now is driving you to think a certain way, providing facts that fit a narrative and omitting ones that do not.

    Until you realize that you yourself are just another tool of propaganda by denouncing a single source and implying the others are reliable.

    P.S. Fox News was not any more designed as propaganda than any of the other news sources, it evolved like the rest of them to where we are now. To claim there is any difference between what Fox is doing and what CNN is doing is what I take exception at. You cannot label them differently.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:It's all propaganda now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sorry Kendall, you didn't read the link and didn't refute the fact that Fox News was deliberately conceived as a propaganda outlet from the inception. Facts bother you so much you run from them and play whataboutism to try to change the subject, and your only attack is the same as Trump's : Turn every accusation on the accusee. Unfortunately for you, CNN is far more factual than Fox, that's a studied and proven fact. Deal with it snowflake.

    2. Re:It's all propaganda now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pointing out that fox news is full of shit is hardly partisan, it's a statement of fact

    3. Re:It's all propaganda now by serviscope_minor · · Score: 0

      If you claim Fox News is propaganda, without saying CNN is propaganda, MSNBC is propaganda, the NYT is propaganda, then how can we respect your hyper-partisan views?

      By the way, pointing and yelling about something you are but accusing someone else of it doesn't make you any less so.

      Fox news is utter junk, but not as bad as Breitbart.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:It's all propaganda now by cheesyweasel · · Score: 1

      100% agree. And it's driving a wedge right through society. No rational debates, no respect, all agenda. Bring back the center.

    5. Re: It's all propaganda now by Reverend+Green · · Score: 2

      Breitbart is openly very very political. But the quality of their writing is much higher than Fox News. The latter, like CNN and other bigmedia outlets on both sides of the left/right false divide, seems written for an audience of petulant toddlers.

    6. Re: It's all propaganda now by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      By "center" you mean "authoritarian financialist consensus"?

    7. Re: It's all propaganda now by cheesyweasel · · Score: 1

      No, I think that's a side effect of the lack of civil discourse and engagement in society. People abandon hope and let those bastards take over when they no longer care about working together on common ground solutions. What's a more practical solution? Nothing.

    8. Re: It's all propaganda now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CNN and NBC don't create alternative realities. Fox "News" viewers are delusional conspiracy theorists.

    9. Re: It's all propaganda now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The left pushes the agenda of first world victims and things that they feel empathy for (like their pets, or a cute cow... but definitely not a human in another country). The right pushes the agenda delusional fears. Both push hate for one another. What a world.

    10. Re:It's all propaganda now by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Ask yourself why the political left spent the last ~17 years screeching that anyone who doesn't believe the same stuff as them are "racists, sexists, homophobic, islamophobic" and have now moved onto labeling anyone who doesn't believe what they do, are "nazis"

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    11. Re: It's all propaganda now by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      the quality of writing is a completely secondary concern to their blase treatment of facts and their shockingly poor record on corrections and clarifications.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    12. Re: It's all propaganda now by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      If you want facts, why are you reading the news? There are so many good books available.

    13. Re:It's all propaganda now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a hint: It's all propaganda now. Most journalism now is driving you to think a certain way, providing facts that fit a narrative and omitting ones that do not.

      Sorry to tell you, everyones views are not equal. Right now corporations have overwhelming control of the government, in a rational world the capitalist parties and system would be threatened by an informed public due the overwhelming corruption of government by big business. Big business is trying to undo all the protections for workers and the environment workers won over the centuries and send us back to feudalism. The EPA is being destroyed by the republicans. Retrograde predatory capitalism and out of control big business oligarchs is at the root of this madness.

      That's the only political reality that exists for the non wealthy and who have two brain cells to rub together.

    14. Re: It's all propaganda now by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      If you want facts, why are you reading the news? There are so many good books available.

      Books are not anything like as up to date as the news, books are not published on all aspects of the news and the only books publsihed with errata are technical books.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  15. Nothing but a common thief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He got what was coming to him.

    1. Re:Nothing but a common thief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the Russians put all of western civilization's copyrighted academic works online for free, Putin is worse than Hitler; when Aaron Schwartz engages in the same felonious activity, he is an hero.

    2. Re: Nothing but a common thief by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Wait... "he got what was coming to him"? Are you saying the good people of Boston have errected a heroic statue of Schwartz in front of City Hall? I hadn't heard that, but it's good to know.

    3. Re: Nothing but a common thief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Wait... "he got what was coming to him"? Are you saying the good people of Boston have errected a heroic statue of Schwartz in front of City Hall?

      Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe go fuck yourself.

  16. Re:2018 and swartz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    >to end ones own perceived suffering resulting in an increased amount of suffering in others.

    "perceived?" Are you saying his suffering was not as real as his family's suffering? I am curious as to how you measure suffering, as you assert that the total amount of suffering does not go down. What instruments do you use? How are they calibrated?

  17. They could choose a better idol by damn_registrars · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Swartz's ideals were right but his methods were pure idiocy. He could have downloaded all those papers at his desk and released them and he would not have faced anywhere near as much trouble. Instead he entered a wiring closet at the university library without permission and did his downloads there. Being as his office was already on the school's wired network it is unlikely he would have obtained the papers much slower from his office than from the wiring closet that he unlawfully entered.

    He then made himself into a martyr by taking the coward's way out of the charges that were being brought against him.

    The real lesson we should learn here is to watch out for signs of mental health disorders in those close to us. Afterwards people came forward and expressed concerns they had for him, though there was no record of him having sought treatment in his final months. It's a shame that he took his own life, but we really should take a look at the entirety of what he did to get himself into trouble (rather than cherry-picking it like some want us to) before we celebrate him.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:They could choose a better idol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He thought he was Solid Snake. Thought he was some techno ninja. Instead he was a loser. Nerds can't really pick a better idol because there aren't any, and this cowardly shit-kid with delusions of grandeur represents them quite aptly.

  18. And his murderers are still at large by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They murdered him plain and simple.

    There is no justice till those responsible for his murder are brought to justice.

    1. Re:And his murderers are still at large by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It already happened. He is responsible for his own murder. Did you know his face was all blue, his tongue purple and swollen, hanging out? His bloodshot eyes were bulging out of the sockets. His pants were soiled with urine and feces. Quite a sad show.

  19. Re: 2018 and swartz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Pls shut the fuck up you and shove your puritanical preaching up your asshole. My grandfather committed suicide after a long cancer bout because he just couldn't take it anymore even though the doctors wanted to keep him alive, to pad tgeir wallets another year or two. His wife and children were sad, but happy for him and relieved. He went through hell.

    No one independent of my direct aid, and I mean no one, is entitled to my presence or that I live my life for them. It's my life, not yours.

  20. Schwartz wasn't killed by stupid computer laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was killed by the US's brutal prosecutorial/plea bargaining system.

    That's the reform we should be targeting in his memory.

    1. Re:Schwartz wasn't killed by stupid computer laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was offered a plea to a single felony count with a recommended sentence of three months imprisonment. That was to be followed by a period of supervised release, the conditions of which included a period in a halfway house, a period of home confinement, and restrictions on his use of computers during the period supervision.

      Yep, that's brutal all right given he was looking at minimum 7 year stretch in jail.

    2. Re:Schwartz wasn't killed by stupid computer laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He killed himself over three fucking months in some minimum security camp fed 'prison'? What a fucking PUSSY.

    3. Re: Schwartz wasn't killed by stupid computer laws by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Coerced false confessions FTW! Feed the Gulag!

  21. What matters is now, not then by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It doesn't matter to me what the origins may have been; it matters what things are.

    I find it pretty stupid to judge the starting point of organizations that were founded decades ago against the more recent Fox News, which was formed when outlets were already turning partisan and was just a bit ahead of the curve.

    I'm not dealing in whataboutism; I deal in simple hard truths. And that is that Fox News is no more partisan now than any major news outlet (except possibly the Wall St Journal).

    I also find it telling that you hide behind the AC mask to critique others... obviously that makes your opinion on the subject worth quite a bit less than mine.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  22. Aaron Swartz suicide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry to be contrarian, but I don't believe Alan Turing committed suicide and I have grave doubts about this verdict for Aaron Swartz. Both individuals had strong personalities and felt it was important to fight the establishment.

  23. Re:2018 and swartz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As someone who has had suicide in my family: Good on you for wanting to raise awareness. But please, kindly fuck off.

    God help me for snatching a SJW hat, but you're victim blaming. Yeah, victim, suicide - it's a mental illness. Ego? Ego has fuck all to do with it.

  24. who's Aaron Swartz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and what'd he do and was his death related to what he did?

    OK, I'm lazy. But common, editors, tell us a sentence about the person and the circumstances of his death.

    1. Re: who's Aaron Swartz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh got it. This type of post is a return to the days on slashdot when Microsoft was evil (now Google and Facebook) and when arguments were passionately about freedom of content which others worked to create and wanted to control so that they might make some money selling ( now it's Trump all the time).

      Can someone here educate me on why he put the server in the closet to pull down all those documents ? Why those docs? I'm curious,not trolling.

      It's a shame that he chose that way to express himself, he seemed brilliant, and might have performed that work in a less traceable fashion.

      I wonder what he'd think of Reddit now ?

  25. Sci-Hub - Aaron Swartz won by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sci-Hub has the papers that Swartz was trying to make universally available. RIP Aaron Swartz.

  26. Re: 2018 and swartz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some gifts need warranty service because the quality control was not there. Seems like God is slacking.

  27. Re: 2018 and swartz by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Informative

    Your life is not your own but a gift from God whether you choose to believe that or not.

    How would that make it not mine? When someone gives me a gift for Christmas, or my birthday, that gift is mine. If I want to pitch it into the fireplace, I'm free to do so. Nobody who gives a gift would insist that they still own it.

    If your "god" thinks he still owns the things he gifts, he's a friggin sociopath.

  28. Aaron Swartz is who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares

  29. Re: 2018 and swartz by sabri · · Score: 2

    My grandfather committed suicide after a long cancer

    Which is sad, and should have been unnecessary. Civilized countries offer alternative solutions in the form of euthanasia.

    No one independent of my direct aid, and I mean no one, is entitled to my presence or that I live my life for them. It's my life, not yours.

    And that's not what I'm saying. All I am saying is that instead of one person having a bad time, after a suicide a lot of people have to live with losing someone they love.

    --
    I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
  30. Re: 2018 and swartz by Demena · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are no gods. And if they were they would owe explanations as to why they are such terrible beings.

  31. Re: 2018 and swartz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Aaron Swartz was a crook stealing computer time. He was facing conviction and was too much of a pussy to take it like a man,

  32. Re: 2018 and swartz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So what you're saying is, all real men support coerced false confession and state-sponsored rape?

  33. Re: White privilege even in death! by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

    Does the NGO pay you $0.25 per moronically racist post? Or have they raised it to $0.30 now?

  34. Breaking and Entering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad he decided to do some breaking and entering to install unauthorized hardware on somebody else's network.

  35. Re: 2018 and swartz by aussie_a · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Euthanasia is nothing more than state sponsored suicide. To try to cloak it in anytbing else is to say suicide is ok.

  36. Are we celebratiig state violence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Like Martin luther king day we celebrate their death because as enemies of the state they where then out of the picture

  37. Re: 2018 and swartz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What false confession? He did something illegal and got caught. Instead of admitting he did something wrong and getting a slap on the wrist he killed himself.

  38. Schwartz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His name was Aaron Schwartz.

  39. Re: 2018 and swartz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If he had terminal cancer he did not commit suicide. He just ended his life on his own terms. That's different from offing yourself when you're healthy because you can't take the heat or can't have it your way.

  40. Re:2018 and swartz by ckatko · · Score: 1

    Fun distinction: If this was Reddit, your comment probably would have been removed for being "offensive."

    Like how they removed all the comments for blood donation addresses after the Pulse Nightclub massacre. (Nothing says progressive, like censoring help for dying gay people!)

    https://motherboard.vice.com/e...

  41. Re: 2018 and swartz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your life is not your own but a gift from God whether you choose to believe that or not.

    Could it not have been some other mystical figure.....I'm thinking Santa Claus, he usually brings the gifts!

  42. Re: 2018 and swartz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God is a faggot.

  43. Here's my call to action... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...break the law? Man up and take your punishment and don't be a coward.

  44. Re: 2018 and swartz by chihowa · · Score: 1

    If your "god" thinks he still owns the things he gifts, he's a friggin sociopath.

    Was that your first clue?

    Politicians, corporate executives, and other dangerous sociopaths are looked upon so favorably in our culture because we have a long history of worshipping dangerous sociopaths.

    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  45. Re: 2018 and swartz by Shoten · · Score: 1

    Euthanasia is nothing more than state sponsored suicide. To try to cloak it in anytbing else is to say suicide is ok.

    This is not true at all. Euthanasia, by definition, has nothing to do with state sponsorship.

    Let's take the human factor out of it. When a vet has to euthanize a dog...is the state paying for it? No. How about a horse? No? Dr. Kevorkian's patients...did the state pay for any of those? No? Hm. But they were all cases of euthanasia. Even if a country were to subsidize it (directly or indirectly) that does not change the meaning of the term, any more than a European country having state-sponsored colleges, free of cost, means that "college" includes "state-sponsored" in its definition.

    The word is important because it confers a crucial distinction. Suicide (rightly) carries a stigma of a person in pain that can be escaped via other means. Euthanasia, by it's very definition, relates to death being imminent anyways, and the aversion of pain that is otherwise unavoidable and inescapable. There's a massive difference between a person who is misguided as they end their life when there is another way, and a person who has no other alternative and would prefer to die with dignity than suffer for several months without it and die soon anyways.

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
  46. Re: 2018 and swartz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suicide is ok...unless you're a religious fanatic.

  47. Re: 2018 and swartz by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    Politicians, corporate executives, and other dangerous sociopaths are looked upon so favorably in our culture because we have a long history of worshipping dangerous sociopaths.

    No, that's stupid. You could equally argue that The Beatles and Beethoven are looked upon so favourably because we have a long history of worshipping sociopaths. The only difference being that, in that case, you would at least be accurately describing the perception of the vast majority of mankind, whereas in your example you're painting a silly strawman which may apply to some tiny fraxction of humanity. I know far more people who despise or, at best, mildly tolerate politicians and corporate executives than I do folks who "look favourably upon them".

    There are always exceptions, of course; most of us look favourably on Elon Musk and Abraham Lincoln, for example. But if you're going to suggest that those of us who appreaciate their contributions are "worshipping sociopaths" then you are clearly far more unhinged than any of the people you're railing against.