10 ms·

Yes! Let's make sure in the memory of Aaron Schwartz and the many others who have faced undue scrutiny under CFAA that we see drastic reform of this draconian

Yes! Let's make sure in the memory of Aaron Schwartz and the many others who have faced undue scrutiny under CFAA that we see drastic reform of this draconian law and how it is applied.

Google234 6y ago
I don’t think Aaron Schwartz is the best example... he DDOSed a site. And I don’t accept that his final reaction to the charges was proportional to what he was facing.
- simonh 6y ago
  It wasn't distributed, wasn't an attempt to disrupt the service, and the affected service didn't see it as a sanctionable issue. Describing it in those terms is implicit support of the outrageous charges against him and implicit approval of the way they were prosecuted.
- waheoo 6y ago
  You're taking an incredibly insensitive and naive stance on that. Sure you dont want to reconsider that just maybe proportionality is one of the first things lost during depressionary states of mind? You also lack the personal understanding of his personal circumstance. I know nothing but any idiot can see whatever the case, this was the thing that broke the camels back. Please stop assuming everyones state of mind and the way it works is the same as yours.
  - vmception 6y ago
    Focus on the mental state and how it doesn't include self-preservation, not the thing that broke the camel's back. Prisons are full of people that faced great injustices and didn't kill themselves.
    - vertex-four 6y ago
      The thing that broke the camel's back was something that should never have happened in the first place. You don't get away without having committed a crime if you "prank" someone by feeding them something they're allergic to, either; mental illness is not different from physical illness.
      - vmception 6y ago
        > You don't get away without having committed a crime if you "prank" someone by feeding them something they're allergic to, either except in this analogy, Swartz was the one accused of committing a crime and wasn't getting away it, and the state actors are immune from criminal charges. not the best analogy?
        vertex-four 6y ago
        The alleged crime should not have been a crime; hence the post we're commenting on. State actors are, indeed, immune from criminal charges by definition, but that does not mean they are not culpable in the broader ethical sense. And even then, I'd argue strongly that given the amount of mental illness in our society, the state has a duty to ensure that their process of deciding whether to commit harm to someone does not commit undue harm in itself.
        vmception 6y ago
        Which has nothing to do with elevating him into martyrdom. Most people just do the time. He committed suicide because his mental state was not compatible with self preservation. Not He committed suicide because of an overzealous district attorney operating under misguided laws. Yes, have the EFF try to dismantle the CFAA, yes, have the ACLU try to correct injustices. And then get judges to drop cases, or reopen cases, or get people's sentences commuted, etc. My actual opinion? I honestly find it insulting to elevate his action, compared to all the people that take the plea deals, or go to trial and lose. Since everyone can so readily explain why he is dead, why is Ross Ulbricht not dead? That obvious answer [to me] is because he didn't kill himself and Swartz did! What about all the people railroaded, the disproportionately black Americans imprisoned and serving long sentences, is there a study to be had on how some segment of America has a surprisingly strong self preservation instinct? If thats something we value, then it really could be an answer to mental health for the people that have surprisingly weak self preservation instincts. Let me know if people want to actually have that discussion yet, because suicide talk is surprisingly not nuanced, seemingly out of fear of seeming insensitive.
- vegardx 6y ago
  Since you've concluded that suicide wasn't a propotional act, as if suicide is ever a rational act, what would be a propotional reaction?
- wadkar 6y ago
  This is the first time in my hn lurking moment that I felt a desire to downvote something. And I don’t even have enough karma for that. So let me be unequivocal when I say this: you are being naive, and downright insensitive to the case in point. I am truly saddened by reading your comment.
- himinlomax 6y ago
  Are you talking about JSTOR? Of all the possible takes on the issue, calling it a DDOS is really the most retarded one. It wasn't distributed and it wasn't intended as a denial of service. I'm not even aware that it caused any availability issue, but even if that was the case that was not why that got him into trouble.
- vertex-four 6y ago
  Governments, when using threat of violence against people, at least have a responsibility to ensure that they are not committing undue harm, and certainly not before a conviction - we can argue all day about exactly how much harm is ok, but given the amount of untreated mental illness in our society they have a responsibility to ensure that what they are doing isn't overly harmful to people suffering from such.
- vmception 6y ago
  I too notice that most people just do the time instead of kill themselves. It is extremely incongruent to ascribe people's lack of self-preservation priority on the thing they reacted to, and not the mental health distortion itself. I will agree with you publicly to add to the signal that it should be a greater nuanced discussion. People dismiss this observation as "insensitive", when it really is a multifaceted discussion to be had, specifically about mental health, instead of reacting to every single random trigger possible, while ignoring the common denominator.
TAForObvReasons 6y ago
Aaron Swartz http://www.aaronsw.com/ http://www.aaronsw.com/ EDIT: why was this downvoted? Is there a different Aaron "Schwartz" or did the parent misspell Swartz?
- eganist 6y ago
  No, you got it right. Schwartz is a misspelling.
- mvanveen 6y ago
  Thanks for the correction! Apologies for my gross oversight.
d33 6y ago
And if someone wants an account of the entire case, here's a must-watch documentary, especially if you belong to the hacker culture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vz06QO3UkQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vz06QO3UkQ
vmception 6y ago
and most people just do the time
scotuswroteus 6y ago
Sorry, how does an amicus brief do anything approaching that whatsoever? Seems more immediately like a useful way to get people to hit the red donate button.

Yes! Let's make sure in the memory of Aaron Schwartz and the many others who have faced undue scrutiny under CFAA that we see drastic reform of this draconian law and how it is applied.

Google234 6y ago

I don’t think Aaron Schwartz is the best example... he DDOSed a site. And I don’t accept that his final reaction to the charges was proportional to what he was facing.

simonh 6y ago
It wasn't distributed, wasn't an attempt to disrupt the service, and the affected service didn't see it as a sanctionable issue. Describing it in those terms is implicit support of the outrageous charges against him and implicit approval of the way they were prosecuted.
waheoo 6y ago
You're taking an incredibly insensitive and naive stance on that. Sure you dont want to reconsider that just maybe proportionality is one of the first things lost during depressionary states of mind? You also lack the personal understanding of his personal circumstance. I know nothing but any idiot can see whatever the case, this was the thing that broke the camels back. Please stop assuming everyones state of mind and the way it works is the same as yours.
- vmception 6y ago
  Focus on the mental state and how it doesn't include self-preservation, not the thing that broke the camel's back. Prisons are full of people that faced great injustices and didn't kill themselves.
  - vertex-four 6y ago
    The thing that broke the camel's back was something that should never have happened in the first place. You don't get away without having committed a crime if you "prank" someone by feeding them something they're allergic to, either; mental illness is not different from physical illness.
    - vmception 6y ago
      > You don't get away without having committed a crime if you "prank" someone by feeding them something they're allergic to, either except in this analogy, Swartz was the one accused of committing a crime and wasn't getting away it, and the state actors are immune from criminal charges. not the best analogy?
      - vertex-four 6y ago
        The alleged crime should not have been a crime; hence the post we're commenting on. State actors are, indeed, immune from criminal charges by definition, but that does not mean they are not culpable in the broader ethical sense. And even then, I'd argue strongly that given the amount of mental illness in our society, the state has a duty to ensure that their process of deciding whether to commit harm to someone does not commit undue harm in itself.
        vmception 6y ago
        Which has nothing to do with elevating him into martyrdom. Most people just do the time. He committed suicide because his mental state was not compatible with self preservation. Not He committed suicide because of an overzealous district attorney operating under misguided laws. Yes, have the EFF try to dismantle the CFAA, yes, have the ACLU try to correct injustices. And then get judges to drop cases, or reopen cases, or get people's sentences commuted, etc. My actual opinion? I honestly find it insulting to elevate his action, compared to all the people that take the plea deals, or go to trial and lose. Since everyone can so readily explain why he is dead, why is Ross Ulbricht not dead? That obvious answer [to me] is because he didn't kill himself and Swartz did! What about all the people railroaded, the disproportionately black Americans imprisoned and serving long sentences, is there a study to be had on how some segment of America has a surprisingly strong self preservation instinct? If thats something we value, then it really could be an answer to mental health for the people that have surprisingly weak self preservation instincts. Let me know if people want to actually have that discussion yet, because suicide talk is surprisingly not nuanced, seemingly out of fear of seeming insensitive.
vegardx 6y ago
Since you've concluded that suicide wasn't a propotional act, as if suicide is ever a rational act, what would be a propotional reaction?
wadkar 6y ago
This is the first time in my hn lurking moment that I felt a desire to downvote something. And I don’t even have enough karma for that. So let me be unequivocal when I say this: you are being naive, and downright insensitive to the case in point. I am truly saddened by reading your comment.
himinlomax 6y ago
Are you talking about JSTOR? Of all the possible takes on the issue, calling it a DDOS is really the most retarded one. It wasn't distributed and it wasn't intended as a denial of service. I'm not even aware that it caused any availability issue, but even if that was the case that was not why that got him into trouble.
vertex-four 6y ago
Governments, when using threat of violence against people, at least have a responsibility to ensure that they are not committing undue harm, and certainly not before a conviction - we can argue all day about exactly how much harm is ok, but given the amount of untreated mental illness in our society they have a responsibility to ensure that what they are doing isn't overly harmful to people suffering from such.
vmception 6y ago
I too notice that most people just do the time instead of kill themselves. It is extremely incongruent to ascribe people's lack of self-preservation priority on the thing they reacted to, and not the mental health distortion itself. I will agree with you publicly to add to the signal that it should be a greater nuanced discussion. People dismiss this observation as "insensitive", when it really is a multifaceted discussion to be had, specifically about mental health, instead of reacting to every single random trigger possible, while ignoring the common denominator.

TAForObvReasons 6y ago

Aaron Swartz http://www.aaronsw.com/ http://www.aaronsw.com/ EDIT: why was this downvoted? Is there a different Aaron "Schwartz" or did the parent misspell Swartz?

eganist 6y ago
No, you got it right. Schwartz is a misspelling.
mvanveen 6y ago
Thanks for the correction! Apologies for my gross oversight.

d33 6y ago

And if someone wants an account of the entire case, here's a must-watch documentary, especially if you belong to the hacker culture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vz06QO3UkQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vz06QO3UkQ

vmception 6y ago

and most people just do the time

scotuswroteus 6y ago

Sorry, how does an amicus brief do anything approaching that whatsoever? Seems more immediately like a useful way to get people to hit the red donate button.