5 ms·

I'm not willing to donate. Aaron's goal may have been noble, but his actions are indefensible.

by gnu8 14y ago

mibbitier 14y ago
I agree. He was extremely foolish and arrogant at best. I don't think this belongs on HN. Also didn't he make a ton of money selling Reddit?! :/
- TheCowboy 14y ago
  Could either one of you please explain how "his actions were indefensible" or how "he was extremely foolish and arrogant at beast"? Appreciated.
  - mibbitier 14y ago
    Come on. If you download millions of files that obviously aren't supposed to be downloaded en masse, and then release them publicly, you're going to get in trouble. Common sense. He knew what he was doing, and hew knew what he was doing was wrong. Doesn't seem terribly smart to make enemies high up.
    - pmjordan 14y ago
      My understanding is that the civil/copyright matter has been settled, and he's now still facing criminal prosecution for (mis)using MIT's network infrastructure. So it's not actually the downloading itself he's in trouble for at the moment I think, just how he did it. That is, unless there's been some new development, of course.
      - tptacek 14y ago
        He's facing criminal prosecution for abusing JSTOR and MIT's computers. More of the charges go to JSTOR systems than to MIT systems. This is right in the indictment, which is linked from the last 'aaronsw post on HN.
    - luriel 14y ago
      > He knew what he was doing, and hew knew what he was doing was wrong. He might have known (and even the extent of this is not clear) that what he was doing was illegal. But that doesn't mean it is wrong, law and morality are two very different things. Me and many others would argue that what he did was almost a moral imperative, he tried to free human knowledge (mostly paid by tax dollars!) from the artificial monopoly of some corporate leeches. And if you need more arguments for this, just read up on what Thomas Jefferson had to say about it: http://harmful.cat-v.org/economics/intellectual_property/ http://harmful.cat-v.org/economics/intellectual_property/
      - mibbitier 14y ago
        If something is illegal, and you do it, you are at risk of being prosecuted. If you believe something shouldn't be illegal, then campaign to get the law changed! Are people video-camming movies in cinemas "just freeing human knowledge"? Were wikileaks publishing secret sensitive hacked info "just freeing human knowledge"? I don't need any more arguments, because I absolutely disagree. If you believe a law needs to be changed, the way to get it changed is not to start breaking it. We live in a civilised society here. It's this kind of "political activism" I detest.
        Joeboy 14y ago
        > If you believe a law needs to be changed, the way to get it changed is not to start breaking it. Is that because you believe it's not likely to be effective, or because you'd rather see an unjust law than an unruly populace? Edit: ...or some third opinion that I can't think of
        ef4 14y ago
        > If you believe a law needs to be changed, the way to get it changed is not to start breaking it. On the contrary, history shows it to be one of the few effective methods. You're saying that Rosa Parks was wrong when she refused to go to the back of the bus. The underground railroad was wrong for refusing to comply with fugitive slave laws. Ghandi was wrong for breaking the laws imposed by the British. We live in a civilized society precisely because many people have disobeyed uncivilized laws. It's actually one of the hallmarks of our civilization that we can draw a distinction between what's right and what's legal.
  - gnu8 14y ago
    The part where he broke into a network closet and connected unauthorized equipment is what really rubs me the wrong way.
j_s 14y ago
Part of legitimate civil disobedience (which may be a stretch of terminology in this case) is facing the consequences. A legal defense fund could be viewed as a part of that (allowing those donating to join in), or as an attempt to avoid the consequences. So much depends on specifics of the situation that I'm not really comfortable making any type of judgement on anyone involved.
tptacek 14y ago
I hope he wins his case.
sciurus 14y ago
Do you think his actions [0] merit 13 felony charges and the decades in prison they could lead to? I don't, so I donated. [0] http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/21/aaron-swartz-indicted-hacking-charges http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/21/aaron-swart...
adharmad 14y ago
Concur. This case reminds me of another public case: Randal Schwartz's case. Randal's case was fairly black and white since he did not deny running the password-cracking scripts. He also had a harder time since Intel decided to twist the knife and make an example out of him.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Aaron Swartz's case is so unlike Randal Schwartz's case that just making the comparison is a kind of "tell". Randal Schwartz was a contractor for Intel, through an IT contracting company. At the conclusion of his contact and, as I remember, his employment with the company that placed him, he backdoored systems at Intel. He later used those backdoors to regain access to Intel systems and got caught. Randal Schwartz' defense has always been that his activities were innocuous (and, in some cases, necessary to complete work for Intel, which is a claim that is damaged by the fact that some of his actions took place after his business relationship with Intel was severed). There is no "service to the greater good" angle in Randal Schwartz's case. What happened with him was either a spectacular misunderstanding or a galactic-scale instance of bad decisionmaking on his part. Aaron Swartz set out to liberate information from a private database, because that information had been unjustly locked up. What you're saying when you draw an equivalence between these cases is that you think most computer fraud/abuse cases are illegitimate. I'm not saying that's a ridiculous perspective to have (though it is not mine), but you should be on guard for the ways that perspective can cloud your reasoning. By all means keep believing that the Internet should be a "wild west" where the strong/gifted rule unchecked so long as they don't steal people's credit card numbers. But also read the case files when you want to argue about them.
  - adharmad 14y ago
    Hi Thomas, I never claimed that the two cases are the same. Just that Aaron's case reminded me of it. You are right, Randal never had a motive remotely close to Aaron for any greater good of any sort. [In fact I will go on and argue that there is no reason Aaron should be prosecuted since the plaintiff has decided not to pursue the case against him]. What I meant was that (same as the parent) although Aaron's goals may have been good, I do not agree with the manner he went about achieving it.

I'm not willing to donate. Aaron's goal may have been noble, but his actions are indefensible.

by gnu8 14y ago

I'm not willing to donate. Aaron's goal may have been noble, but his actions are indefensible.

I agree. He was extremely foolish and arrogant at best. I don't think this belongs on HN. Also didn't he make a ton of money selling Reddit?! :/

TheCowboy 14y ago
Could either one of you please explain how "his actions were indefensible" or how "he was extremely foolish and arrogant at beast"? Appreciated.
- mibbitier 14y ago
  Come on. If you download millions of files that obviously aren't supposed to be downloaded en masse, and then release them publicly, you're going to get in trouble. Common sense. He knew what he was doing, and hew knew what he was doing was wrong. Doesn't seem terribly smart to make enemies high up.
  - pmjordan 14y ago
    My understanding is that the civil/copyright matter has been settled, and he's now still facing criminal prosecution for (mis)using MIT's network infrastructure. So it's not actually the downloading itself he's in trouble for at the moment I think, just how he did it. That is, unless there's been some new development, of course.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      He's facing criminal prosecution for abusing JSTOR and MIT's computers. More of the charges go to JSTOR systems than to MIT systems. This is right in the indictment, which is linked from the last 'aaronsw post on HN.
  - luriel 14y ago
    > He knew what he was doing, and hew knew what he was doing was wrong. He might have known (and even the extent of this is not clear) that what he was doing was illegal. But that doesn't mean it is wrong, law and morality are two very different things. Me and many others would argue that what he did was almost a moral imperative, he tried to free human knowledge (mostly paid by tax dollars!) from the artificial monopoly of some corporate leeches. And if you need more arguments for this, just read up on what Thomas Jefferson had to say about it: http://harmful.cat-v.org/economics/intellectual_property/ http://harmful.cat-v.org/economics/intellectual_property/
    - mibbitier 14y ago
      If something is illegal, and you do it, you are at risk of being prosecuted. If you believe something shouldn't be illegal, then campaign to get the law changed! Are people video-camming movies in cinemas "just freeing human knowledge"? Were wikileaks publishing secret sensitive hacked info "just freeing human knowledge"? I don't need any more arguments, because I absolutely disagree. If you believe a law needs to be changed, the way to get it changed is not to start breaking it. We live in a civilised society here. It's this kind of "political activism" I detest.
      - Joeboy 14y ago
        > If you believe a law needs to be changed, the way to get it changed is not to start breaking it. Is that because you believe it's not likely to be effective, or because you'd rather see an unjust law than an unruly populace? Edit: ...or some third opinion that I can't think of
      - ef4 14y ago
        > If you believe a law needs to be changed, the way to get it changed is not to start breaking it. On the contrary, history shows it to be one of the few effective methods. You're saying that Rosa Parks was wrong when she refused to go to the back of the bus. The underground railroad was wrong for refusing to comply with fugitive slave laws. Ghandi was wrong for breaking the laws imposed by the British. We live in a civilized society precisely because many people have disobeyed uncivilized laws. It's actually one of the hallmarks of our civilization that we can draw a distinction between what's right and what's legal.
- gnu8 14y ago
  The part where he broke into a network closet and connected unauthorized equipment is what really rubs me the wrong way.

j_s 14y ago

Part of legitimate civil disobedience (which may be a stretch of terminology in this case) is facing the consequences. A legal defense fund could be viewed as a part of that (allowing those donating to join in), or as an attempt to avoid the consequences. So much depends on specifics of the situation that I'm not really comfortable making any type of judgement on anyone involved.

tptacek 14y ago

I hope he wins his case.

sciurus 14y ago

Do you think his actions [0] merit 13 felony charges and the decades in prison they could lead to? I don't, so I donated. [0] http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/21/aaron-swartz-indicted-hacking-charges http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/21/aaron-swart...

adharmad 14y ago

Concur. This case reminds me of another public case: Randal Schwartz's case. Randal's case was fairly black and white since he did not deny running the password-cracking scripts. He also had a harder time since Intel decided to twist the knife and make an example out of him.

tptacek 14y ago
Aaron Swartz's case is so unlike Randal Schwartz's case that just making the comparison is a kind of "tell". Randal Schwartz was a contractor for Intel, through an IT contracting company. At the conclusion of his contact and, as I remember, his employment with the company that placed him, he backdoored systems at Intel. He later used those backdoors to regain access to Intel systems and got caught. Randal Schwartz' defense has always been that his activities were innocuous (and, in some cases, necessary to complete work for Intel, which is a claim that is damaged by the fact that some of his actions took place after his business relationship with Intel was severed). There is no "service to the greater good" angle in Randal Schwartz's case. What happened with him was either a spectacular misunderstanding or a galactic-scale instance of bad decisionmaking on his part. Aaron Swartz set out to liberate information from a private database, because that information had been unjustly locked up. What you're saying when you draw an equivalence between these cases is that you think most computer fraud/abuse cases are illegitimate. I'm not saying that's a ridiculous perspective to have (though it is not mine), but you should be on guard for the ways that perspective can cloud your reasoning. By all means keep believing that the Internet should be a "wild west" where the strong/gifted rule unchecked so long as they don't steal people's credit card numbers. But also read the case files when you want to argue about them.
- adharmad 14y ago
  Hi Thomas, I never claimed that the two cases are the same. Just that Aaron's case reminded me of it. You are right, Randal never had a motive remotely close to Aaron for any greater good of any sort. [In fact I will go on and argue that there is no reason Aaron should be prosecuted since the plaintiff has decided not to pursue the case against him]. What I meant was that (same as the parent) although Aaron's goals may have been good, I do not agree with the manner he went about achieving it.