3 ms·

Many people have dealt with the law, with copyright infringement, even with gross amounts of it, and had the book thrown at them, and survived the experience.

Many people have dealt with the law, with copyright infringement, even with gross amounts of it, and had the book thrown at them, and survived the experience. Swartz was ill. It is a tragedy he did not survive the experience, and indeed, trial is very stressful. But he was no more hounded than any defendant who comes under federal scrutiny and has to defend themselves in a court of law via the trial system. Kevin Mitnick spent a year in prison (first incarceration) and survived it. Swartz was offered six months and committed suicide. I don't know how much we should change of the system to protect the Aaron Swartzs of the world; that's the mother of all Chesterton's Fences.

shiroiuma 1y ago
Maybe someone should throw you in prison for a year on some BS made-up charges to see how well you survive it. We can use it as a data point for your argument.
marcus_holmes 1y ago
Many people get (for example) pneumonia and recover. Some people get pneumonia and die. The people who died of pneumonia died because of pneumonia. The fact that other people survived it doesn't mean that they didn't die of it. Saying that we should not work on cures for pneumonia because it's a Chesterton Fence is obviously, blatantly, illogical. Saying that we should change the system so that government officials working for moneyed interests can't hound someone to death is similarly illogical.
- shadowgovt 1y ago
  Pneumonia doesn't have any societal benefit. The process by which we decide if the law was broken and punishment necessary has obvious benefit. If you mean we should seek a cure for dangerous suicidal depression, I agree. But you surely are not suggesting that, for example, has Swartz been accused of embezzlement that the state drop out finish the charges purely because he's a suicide risk; how would that be just to the people who were stolen from? And it's a point of semantics, but no; we generally don't say people who died by suicide died by the things going on in their life when they ended it. Everybody has stressors. The suicidal also have mental illness. Mr. Swartz had self-documented his past suicidal ideation.
  - marcus_holmes 1y ago
    We evolved with pneumonia for some reason. It could easily be a Chesterton Fence. We don't treat this as one because we don't want people to die of it. I agree that a system of laws has benefit to society. However the system we've worked out for making such laws is clearly being warped and twisted to serve one small section of society at the expense of everyone else. A clear case being the comment that started this conversation - Swartz was hounded to death for doing the exact same thing that AI companies are doing and they're facing zero punishment. AI executives are not being dragged from their offices by burly policemen and thrown into cells, yet they have done the exact same thing that Swartz did to merit that behaviour. It's not unreasonable to question the societal benefit of this system. And we totally should say that people died of depression, or financial stress, or legal persecution, or whatever. Most people have suicidal ideation at some point in their lives, that's not unusual. Being hassled to the point where you go through with it is definitely violence. Classing this as "mental illness" and therefore a personality defect is a form of victim blaming.
    - shadowgovt 1y ago
      > We evolved with pneumonia for some reason. It could easily be a Chesterton Fence. It's not, and I don't think you're seriously arguing this point so I'm going to ignore it. It is, I think, a reasonable observation that had Swartz formed an LLC to pursue advanced analysis of academic papers for, I don't know, trends in the language used in research and slurped bunch of JSTOR for that purpose, the trial would have taken longer and involved more lawyers. That's probably an observation that should give us pause. Or not, because nobody argued that's what he did or that was his intent, including him. So I also think the premise of comparison to the current circumstances is flawed; I don't think the CFAA can be applied in a context where people have access rights and go through Google's front door to scan videos for the purpose of training a machine learning algorithm. It might be a TOS violation. It's not hiding a server in a closet with unauthorized physical access, which is what Swartz was accused of. Intent matters, and, sadly, we never got to the trial where intent could have been proven out. > Being hassled to the point where you go through with it is definitely violence. The government does have the monopoly on violence. But I think what happened to Swartz is a far cry from that, as he never got to sentencing, much less trial. There was some light compulsion (requirement to appear in court), of course. But everyone who's ever wanted to contest a parking ticket has to experience that. Sadly, this train of thought goes into a station of "Swartz should have been under professional care if his condition was this much a danger to him," and I don't know how the government should change its behavior if he wasn't. Prosecutors are not prognosticators of the mental health of defendants, and I've never read anywhere that Swartz wanted to be committed for mental illness. Our system is much harder for defendants grappling with mental illness; I'll acknowledge and argue for change regarding that. I don't know that such change would conclude with "Swartz should never have been accused of committing a crime that a lot of evidence suggests he committed," however.

shiroiuma 1y ago

Maybe someone should throw you in prison for a year on some BS made-up charges to see how well you survive it. We can use it as a data point for your argument.

marcus_holmes 1y ago

Many people get (for example) pneumonia and recover. Some people get pneumonia and die. The people who died of pneumonia died because of pneumonia. The fact that other people survived it doesn't mean that they didn't die of it. Saying that we should not work on cures for pneumonia because it's a Chesterton Fence is obviously, blatantly, illogical. Saying that we should change the system so that government officials working for moneyed interests can't hound someone to death is similarly illogical.

shadowgovt 1y ago
Pneumonia doesn't have any societal benefit. The process by which we decide if the law was broken and punishment necessary has obvious benefit. If you mean we should seek a cure for dangerous suicidal depression, I agree. But you surely are not suggesting that, for example, has Swartz been accused of embezzlement that the state drop out finish the charges purely because he's a suicide risk; how would that be just to the people who were stolen from? And it's a point of semantics, but no; we generally don't say people who died by suicide died by the things going on in their life when they ended it. Everybody has stressors. The suicidal also have mental illness. Mr. Swartz had self-documented his past suicidal ideation.
- marcus_holmes 1y ago
  We evolved with pneumonia for some reason. It could easily be a Chesterton Fence. We don't treat this as one because we don't want people to die of it. I agree that a system of laws has benefit to society. However the system we've worked out for making such laws is clearly being warped and twisted to serve one small section of society at the expense of everyone else. A clear case being the comment that started this conversation - Swartz was hounded to death for doing the exact same thing that AI companies are doing and they're facing zero punishment. AI executives are not being dragged from their offices by burly policemen and thrown into cells, yet they have done the exact same thing that Swartz did to merit that behaviour. It's not unreasonable to question the societal benefit of this system. And we totally should say that people died of depression, or financial stress, or legal persecution, or whatever. Most people have suicidal ideation at some point in their lives, that's not unusual. Being hassled to the point where you go through with it is definitely violence. Classing this as "mental illness" and therefore a personality defect is a form of victim blaming.
  - shadowgovt 1y ago
    > We evolved with pneumonia for some reason. It could easily be a Chesterton Fence. It's not, and I don't think you're seriously arguing this point so I'm going to ignore it. It is, I think, a reasonable observation that had Swartz formed an LLC to pursue advanced analysis of academic papers for, I don't know, trends in the language used in research and slurped bunch of JSTOR for that purpose, the trial would have taken longer and involved more lawyers. That's probably an observation that should give us pause. Or not, because nobody argued that's what he did or that was his intent, including him. So I also think the premise of comparison to the current circumstances is flawed; I don't think the CFAA can be applied in a context where people have access rights and go through Google's front door to scan videos for the purpose of training a machine learning algorithm. It might be a TOS violation. It's not hiding a server in a closet with unauthorized physical access, which is what Swartz was accused of. Intent matters, and, sadly, we never got to the trial where intent could have been proven out. > Being hassled to the point where you go through with it is definitely violence. The government does have the monopoly on violence. But I think what happened to Swartz is a far cry from that, as he never got to sentencing, much less trial. There was some light compulsion (requirement to appear in court), of course. But everyone who's ever wanted to contest a parking ticket has to experience that. Sadly, this train of thought goes into a station of "Swartz should have been under professional care if his condition was this much a danger to him," and I don't know how the government should change its behavior if he wasn't. Prosecutors are not prognosticators of the mental health of defendants, and I've never read anywhere that Swartz wanted to be committed for mental illness. Our system is much harder for defendants grappling with mental illness; I'll acknowledge and argue for change regarding that. I don't know that such change would conclude with "Swartz should never have been accused of committing a crime that a lot of evidence suggests he committed," however.