5 ms·

> If you plug a laptop into a closet at MIT to download some scientific papers you forfeit your life. In case anybody here doesn't know, that's a reference to

> If you plug a laptop into a closet at MIT to download some scientific papers you forfeit your life. In case anybody here doesn't know, that's a reference to Aaron Swartz, an activist (and Reddit co-founder) that was risking 35 years in prison and a $1 million fine just for downloading a lot of academic papers from JSTOR. He eventually took his life because of the pressure. May his soul rest in peace.

ThaDood 2y ago
Thanks for sharing this. Reading his story is kind of insane honestly. He created the CC licenses which I did not know. What an icon, truly.
- CuriousSkeptic 2y ago
  On that note, Lawrence Lessigs talks on copyright from that period are worth a watch https://youtu.be/9xbRE_H5hoU https://youtu.be/9xbRE_H5hoU
gruez 2y ago
Except he was offered 6 months in a plea bargain, which he declined because he wanted a trial. Whether 6 months was reasonable punishment for "plug a laptop into a closet at MIT to download some scientific papers" is another matter, but "you forfeit your life" or "35 years in prison and a $1 million fine " is massively misleading.
- breakitmakeit 2y ago
  [dead]
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 2y ago
  Swartz wasn't the kind of person to accept a plea bargain from an overzealous prosecutor who was indicting him on 13 felony charges with a possible sentence up to 35 years along with a $1 million fine. I assume he wanted a trial because he wanted to continue his fight for open access. And maybe he thought he might lose, but wouldn't lose on all counts, and would make the prosecution look unreasonable in the public eye. Was that decision rational from a self-interest point of view? Maybe not. And then you might ask, if he wanted a trial, why did he kill himself? Obviously no one knows what was going through his head when he did it. He left no note. But the prospect of being locked in a cell until he was an old man probably had something to do with it. You can certainly argue it was his own fault for not pleading down, but even if that's your view, that doesn't absolve the prosecutor. Ortiz has a lot of blame in this too, and the fact she still hasn't acknowledged it over a decade later speaks volumes to the kind of person she is.
  - ianhawes 2y ago
    His criminality is one matter, but the full weight of the Federal Government on him was an entirely separate matter. A federal prosecutor's job is to jail you regardless of whether it is for downloading a file from a server or for trafficking in humans, and they will come at you with the same vigor regardless of the crime. And nothing has changed about that.
    - mtlmtlmtlmtl 2y ago
      Treating a human trafficker and someone who downloaded some files from a server the same is not in the job description of a prosecutor. What an absurd statement. It's very much the job of a prosecutor to make judgements about the severity of the crime and how to respond. And in this case, the prosecutor showed incredibly poor judgement. There wasn't even a particular reason why the case should go federal in the first place. The state prosecutor saw things very differently.
      - chasd00 2y ago
        The job of a prosecutor is to get a guilty verdict, the judge decides the sentence. At least that's how i understand it.
        internetter 2y ago
        The prosecutor can tack on stupid charges, e.g. Luigi Mangione getting a terrorism charge, and pursue punishments
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - barnabyjones 2y ago
      Isn't that what this whole thread is about? They're surely not going to come after Meta with the same vigor.
    - asacrowflies 2y ago
- wavemode 2y ago
  I agree there's more nuance here than was initially stated, but I also think there's more nuance than simply "he was offered 6 months". Even if he was offered 6 days, the ways in which someone's life and livelihood changes by having ever been convicted of a crime and gone to prison, is dramatic. This is especially true in white collar work and/or knowledge work. Schwartz was a research fellow at Harvard. Really think he would've been able to continue?
- AndyKelley 2y ago
  Wild to see the concept of the plea bargain being defended. It's a blatant retraction of the due process clause from the bill of rights, and here you are defending it.
bobbob1921 2y ago
Thanks, I thought it was a sarcastic reference to torrents. So this cleared that up

ThaDood 2y ago

Thanks for sharing this. Reading his story is kind of insane honestly. He created the CC licenses which I did not know. What an icon, truly.

CuriousSkeptic 2y ago
On that note, Lawrence Lessigs talks on copyright from that period are worth a watch https://youtu.be/9xbRE_H5hoU https://youtu.be/9xbRE_H5hoU

gruez 2y ago

Except he was offered 6 months in a plea bargain, which he declined because he wanted a trial. Whether 6 months was reasonable punishment for "plug a laptop into a closet at MIT to download some scientific papers" is another matter, but "you forfeit your life" or "35 years in prison and a $1 million fine " is massively misleading.

breakitmakeit 2y ago
[dead]
mtlmtlmtlmtl 2y ago
Swartz wasn't the kind of person to accept a plea bargain from an overzealous prosecutor who was indicting him on 13 felony charges with a possible sentence up to 35 years along with a $1 million fine. I assume he wanted a trial because he wanted to continue his fight for open access. And maybe he thought he might lose, but wouldn't lose on all counts, and would make the prosecution look unreasonable in the public eye. Was that decision rational from a self-interest point of view? Maybe not. And then you might ask, if he wanted a trial, why did he kill himself? Obviously no one knows what was going through his head when he did it. He left no note. But the prospect of being locked in a cell until he was an old man probably had something to do with it. You can certainly argue it was his own fault for not pleading down, but even if that's your view, that doesn't absolve the prosecutor. Ortiz has a lot of blame in this too, and the fact she still hasn't acknowledged it over a decade later speaks volumes to the kind of person she is.
- ianhawes 2y ago
  His criminality is one matter, but the full weight of the Federal Government on him was an entirely separate matter. A federal prosecutor's job is to jail you regardless of whether it is for downloading a file from a server or for trafficking in humans, and they will come at you with the same vigor regardless of the crime. And nothing has changed about that.
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 2y ago
    Treating a human trafficker and someone who downloaded some files from a server the same is not in the job description of a prosecutor. What an absurd statement. It's very much the job of a prosecutor to make judgements about the severity of the crime and how to respond. And in this case, the prosecutor showed incredibly poor judgement. There wasn't even a particular reason why the case should go federal in the first place. The state prosecutor saw things very differently.
    - chasd00 2y ago
      The job of a prosecutor is to get a guilty verdict, the judge decides the sentence. At least that's how i understand it.
      - internetter 2y ago
        The prosecutor can tack on stupid charges, e.g. Luigi Mangione getting a terrorism charge, and pursue punishments
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - barnabyjones 2y ago
    Isn't that what this whole thread is about? They're surely not going to come after Meta with the same vigor.
  - asacrowflies 2y ago
wavemode 2y ago
I agree there's more nuance here than was initially stated, but I also think there's more nuance than simply "he was offered 6 months". Even if he was offered 6 days, the ways in which someone's life and livelihood changes by having ever been convicted of a crime and gone to prison, is dramatic. This is especially true in white collar work and/or knowledge work. Schwartz was a research fellow at Harvard. Really think he would've been able to continue?
AndyKelley 2y ago
Wild to see the concept of the plea bargain being defended. It's a blatant retraction of the due process clause from the bill of rights, and here you are defending it.

bobbob1921 2y ago

Thanks, I thought it was a sarcastic reference to torrents. So this cleared that up