3 ms·

> The 6-month sentence was a plea deal he declined. Right, so he could have picked the option where he walked free in six months, but instead he picked the opt

> The 6-month sentence was a plea deal he declined. Right, so he could have picked the option where he walked free in six months, but instead he picked the option where he's dead. > Felons have trouble getting jobs > aren't allowed to vote > and cannot own firearms He's not doing any of those now, so I do not see how his would-be restrictions are relevant. The following speculation is just that, and also irrelevant. > Aaron would have had to swear under oath that he committed a crime, something he did not actually believe. Ah yes, the "Sure I secretly entered the networking cabinet of an institution I have no formal relationship with, to install my personal equipment into it without their knowledge (much less consent) in order to exploit their access levels to fulfill personal objectives that would otherwise be impossible to me, then hopped around IP's as the institution I was stealing documents from blocked the IP I was stealing until the entire IP range of the institution whose access I was hijacking was blocked due to my hacking and hence all the researchers doing legitimate work at that institution could not access the resources they paid for, but how could I have known that was unlawful?? I fundamentally cannot accept any blame for my actions." defense. I don't buy it.

jstarfish 3y ago
> Right, so he could have picked the option where he walked free in six months You missed this part: > However, if he plead guilty to a felony, he could have been sentenced to as many as 5 years, despite the government's agreement not to argue for more. Each additional conviction would increase the cap by 5 years, though the guidelines calculation would remain the same. No wonder he didn't want to plead to 13 felonies. There was no guarantee it would only be a six-month sentence. I'm actually in the "personal responsibility" camp myself, but the amount of overcharging they did to him was obscene. He wasn't facing the consequences of his actions-- he was about to get fucked by the Statutory Ape. To put it in perspective...Ghislaine Maxwell got 20 years for being an accomplice to child sex trafficking. This is the same sentence given to lesser spies. Swartz committed trespassing, a bunch of copyright infringement, and caused a DoS? It's not cool, but it's not 2.5x worse than pimping children.
- dumbo-octopus 3y ago
  Again, that's all speculation. Sentences of this sort are almost always served concurrently, not back to back. Just because a sympathetic narrative on the matter wants to paint the picture of it being a hopeless situation does not make it so. If he was willing to admit his trespassing, bunch of copyright infringement, and DoS was wrong he'd in all likelihood walk free within a year. But for whatever reason he was not able to do that, and here we are. Personally, I'm glad we are in the world where trespassing into a property to hijack their network and cause outages of global services is not considered "minor". Obviously the situation as it played out here is an absolute tragedy, but the matter was indeed serious and was handled with an appropriate level of gravity. All the prosecution was looking for was a "my b, that was wrong" to prove their point - and he refused to give it. As they say: if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
therealcamino 3y ago
[flagged]
- dumbo-octopus 3y ago
  The fact that he was unwilling to face the consequences of his actions (or even stand trial on the matter) does not make his death the fault of the government, no matter how tragic the situation was.
  - therealcamino 3y ago
    You're cool as a cucumber! And you enjoy arguing. Here's a hint, though: ultimate rationality is not the end-all, be-all of life.
    - dumbo-octopus 3y ago
      > You felt a need to respond to me calling you "a fucking ghoul"? Wow, you enjoy arguing. You should be more irrational. Nailed it.

jstarfish 3y ago

> Right, so he could have picked the option where he walked free in six months You missed this part: > However, if he plead guilty to a felony, he could have been sentenced to as many as 5 years, despite the government's agreement not to argue for more. Each additional conviction would increase the cap by 5 years, though the guidelines calculation would remain the same. No wonder he didn't want to plead to 13 felonies. There was no guarantee it would only be a six-month sentence. I'm actually in the "personal responsibility" camp myself, but the amount of overcharging they did to him was obscene. He wasn't facing the consequences of his actions-- he was about to get fucked by the Statutory Ape. To put it in perspective...Ghislaine Maxwell got 20 years for being an accomplice to child sex trafficking. This is the same sentence given to lesser spies. Swartz committed trespassing, a bunch of copyright infringement, and caused a DoS? It's not cool, but it's not 2.5x worse than pimping children.

dumbo-octopus 3y ago
Again, that's all speculation. Sentences of this sort are almost always served concurrently, not back to back. Just because a sympathetic narrative on the matter wants to paint the picture of it being a hopeless situation does not make it so. If he was willing to admit his trespassing, bunch of copyright infringement, and DoS was wrong he'd in all likelihood walk free within a year. But for whatever reason he was not able to do that, and here we are. Personally, I'm glad we are in the world where trespassing into a property to hijack their network and cause outages of global services is not considered "minor". Obviously the situation as it played out here is an absolute tragedy, but the matter was indeed serious and was handled with an appropriate level of gravity. All the prosecution was looking for was a "my b, that was wrong" to prove their point - and he refused to give it. As they say: if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

therealcamino 3y ago

[flagged]

dumbo-octopus 3y ago
The fact that he was unwilling to face the consequences of his actions (or even stand trial on the matter) does not make his death the fault of the government, no matter how tragic the situation was.
- therealcamino 3y ago
  You're cool as a cucumber! And you enjoy arguing. Here's a hint, though: ultimate rationality is not the end-all, be-all of life.
  - dumbo-octopus 3y ago
    > You felt a need to respond to me calling you "a fucking ghoul"? Wow, you enjoy arguing. You should be more irrational. Nailed it.