10 ms·

Now let me see if I got this right: 1. Brilliant programmer gets chance of a lifetime. 2. Turns that into lots of money early in life. 3. Decides to chan

• st3fan 14y ago
  Maybe he can't. Maybe he is broke already. Maybe his fortune from previous enterprised wasn't that much. Who knows .. there must be a good reason. I'll support him.
  • oinksoft 14y ago
    Didn't he write a blog post about having "fuck you money" a few years ago? I can't find it now.
    • tptacek 14y ago
      You may have him confused with Eric Raymond.
      • oinksoft 14y ago
        I must be crazy then. I would've sworn that aaronsw wrote a blog post where he talked about having "fuck you money", depression, and other things like that.
        • drusenko 14y ago
          here's one: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/theaftermath http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/theaftermath i remember another one too, something about depression and it didn't matter who paid for dinner anymore, but i can't find that one.
          • oinksoft 14y ago
            I think that's it, and I probably heard the term "fuck you money" in the discussion following.
      • philh 14y ago
        I don't recall ESR ever writing about fuck you money, and Google doesn't turn up anything.
        • biot 14y ago
          http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/1999121000105NWLF http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/1999121000105NWLF
• brador 14y ago
  It comes down to why he did it. He did it to, as far as I know, set the information free from the paywall. To release that information so anyone and everyone can access the research we'd already paid for. A noble cause? yeah I think so. I don't want to compare it to Ghandi's salt works but the comparison could be made. A stand against artificial restrictions on something that should be free or cheap for all.
  • skanuj 14y ago
    It is Gandhi and not Ghandi.
  • tptacek 14y ago
    No. Imagine a museum was displaying an oil painting that had been illegally taken by the Nazis in the 1940s and kept from its rightful owners, who were alive today and appalled that their property, evidence of the 20th Century's worst war crime, was hanging on someone else's wall. Now imagine someone broke into the museum, took the painting, and returned it to their owners. That person is guilty of breaking and entering and, I believe, of theft. We are a nation ruled by laws, not people. It is via the due process of law that claims like "all the information held in JSTOR is the property of the citizens of the US" are resolved. It is not up to Aaron Swartz.
    • toddheasley 14y ago
      I agree with you, but I think you just landed the elusive "half-Godwin."
    • brador 14y ago
      Your analogy is off the mark. What right do I have to restrict your access to knowledge? What if someone went around the entire country and put every book into a huge safe. Then locked the safe shut and let anyone enter the safe for $25 a pop. Would you be okay with this? Would you cite the law and accept your fate? Yes, this is a country governed by laws, and we're all grateful. But those laws can and are at times abused to create monopolistic practices, like restricting access to research. Ask yourself, just what value does JSTOR add that's worth $25 per article in the modern day of digital distribution?
• andrewljohnson 14y ago
  1) I don't think Aaron made more than six figures from Reddit. Soon after acquisition, he went on walkabout, and then he got canned. He probably got some money, but did not vest most of his share. So, don't worry - he's poor enough for your pity and support. 2) As to your second line of thought, that we should punish him because he consciously broke the law... I disagree with anyone on this forum who says that Aaron didn't know the potential consequences of his actions, and therefore should not be punished. But I also disagree with you. This was a victimless crime, and the only ones pursuing it are some relentless G-men. Where is the corporation or person that has been wronged? Who, in the public, wants to pillory Aaron? What did Aaron gain? Do we really need to make an example of him, so this doesn't happen again? Is this really good a use of taxes? My reaction is just shame and disgust... I mean, really? This brilliant kid is going to jail because of civil disobedience? Just so we can show there is still a book than can be thrown?
  • tptacek 14y ago
    From the prosecution's vantage point --- and please stop for a minute and consider that perspective even though there's no chance you'll agree with it --- this was not a victimless crime. As the prosecution sees it, Aaron broke into a service and took information that JSTOR charges 5 figures for access to with the intent of putting it on a file sharing network and thus destroying the commercial value of that information. If you read the indictment, the prosecution's vantage point seems to show that Aaron did this with the intention of destroying the commercial value of the information, because he opposes the commercialization† of that kind of information. The prosecution's charge is that Aaron deliberately set out to harm an organization because they were incompatible with his own ideology. † JSTOR is a nonprofit but you get the drift
    • andrewljohnson 14y ago
      The prosecution's perspective is warped by incentives - we should never care about how prosecutors feel or think - they are just tools of the people. Prosecutors need convictions, promotions, and press to succeed at their jobs. At this point, it's not JSTOR who wants this case prosecuted, it's just government agents. And they are just going through the motions. It may be up to a jury to do the right thing - they stand a better change of being unbiased, thankfully for Aaron.
• guelo 14y ago
  > looked forward to meeting him If the feds get their way you'll know exactly where to find him for the next 35 years.
  • tptacek 14y ago
    There is virtually no chance Swartz is going to spend time in prison. People convicted of far more malicious computer frauds have spent minimal (and sometimes no) time in prison. Swartz, on the other hand, is a young, successful first-time offender. I know it makes the story a lot more boring to talk about when the only consequences are financial and reputational, but consider that perhaps when you talk about Swartz spending "35 years" in federal prison, you are being ghoulish.
    • larrys 14y ago
      "story a lot more boring" "you are being ghoulish" Agree. It's an artifact of the way the media has everyone trained. "If convicted he could spend up to 400 years in prison!" (counts*years per count, full load) The math is also the way the prosecutors get people to plea.
      • tptacek 14y ago
        Yeah, also a good point. For what it's worth: I don't support what Aaron did. I do hope he wins his case. And, like you said, it seems clear that the specific array of charges he's facing constitute a deliberate shock-and-awe campaign on the part of the AUSA prosecuting the case. You maybe figure, the AUSA's position is, whatever happens in this case, Swartz is at least walking away with a felony conviction.
        • ryanmolden 14y ago
          From serving on a federal grand jury I got the distinct (though unstated) impression that the indictment was used as leverage in plea negotiations. It is fine and good to display "I will fight this to the bitter end" bravado on the internet, but when faced with an uncertain trial outcome (all are, even if you are 100% innocent) where the cost of losing is say 20+ years in the federal system (which has no parole, so if you get 20 years you serve 20 years), people tend to welcome deals/pleas. In one view everyone wins, the govt. has a victory and the defendant avoids the worst outcome. On the other hand it is depressing to see the justice system used in this manner (i.e. bullying/threats used to get defendants to agree to a plea deal so the govt. doesn't have to bother with a real trial).
• sharkweek 14y ago
  I think the most interesting aspect of this case is that JSTOR is not pressing any sort of civil charges. In fact, they said Aaron's actions urged them to expedite something they were planning on doing anyways. For this reason I am happy to help how I can
  • tptacek 14y ago
    People keep bringing this up like it means something. JSTOR isn't pressing civil charges because there's no upside in it for them to do that. Relative to the overwhelming majority of criminal cases, this case is a media shitstorm. If I was a director at a nonprofit, I too would avoid sticking my whole head into the angry wasp's nest that is the Swartz federal case. You cannot reasonably read tacit support for Aaron Swartz into JSTOR's failure to press charges. I was mugged last year and I didn't press charges (my three muggers were, as it turned out, barely old enough to have graduated high school). Do I support muggings? (Some nerd is typing as fast as he can to make the argument that I tacitly am doing that, so let me head you off at the pass NO I DO NOT.)
    • ktizo 14y ago
      I've fought off folk with knives and didn't press charges and I don't support being stabbed. But I still agree with what this guy did, which is nothing whatsoever to do with the stuff that has happened to me. But I am a nerd. Make connections if you like.
• Randgalt 14y ago
  Perfectly stated. This is the correct point of view.
• shmulkey18 14y ago
  Exactly. Mr. "Demand Progress" needs to understand that we are a nation of laws, and that those who knowingly break those laws will be -- and should be -- punished. And, no, this is not a case of civil disobedience. If it was, Swartz would have publicly violated the law (rather than attempting to conceal the crime) in order to draw attention to its putative unfairness. Aaron Swartz is a spoiled brat. I hope that they throw the book at him.
  • orangecat 14y ago
    I hope that they throw the book at him. So you think the appropriate punishment for what he did is a longer prison sentence than most rapists and murderers receive?
  • ohreilly 14y ago
    You are posting this comment on a forum that is run by a business co-founded by someone who was convicted under the same statute as Swartz is accused of violating. You knew that, right? Many years ago, he "broke the law" and was convicted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. But he served no jail time. I guess the situation was different in many ways. Tell us how. Or maybe it was not so different. What do you think? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Tappan_Morris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Tappan_Morris My guess is Swartz will end up dropping his rebellious attitude and will apologise for what he did.
• freemanindia 14y ago
  If the consequences were in line with his actions this logic would work, but life in prison is an extraordinarily oppressive response to this type of disobedience. Further, using the legal system to extract a huge penalty before any jury has decided on guilt is the worst type of bullying by the big against the small. Lastly, many of us relate to what Aaron is going through, and simple compassion compels us to help. Saying Aaron should "man up, take responsibility for his actions, and pay his own bills" belittles him and those of us who have chosen to support him.
• ktizo 14y ago
  What the fuck is meant by "man up" in these kind of circumstances? Is your average man supposed to take 30 years+ on the chin for trying to release academic papers? If he didn't have a penis would you feel more compassion? As I have never heard it be suggested that a woman in desperate circumstances has a need to man up. As for what could he do to give more breaks to other programmers, he was trying to give out academic papers for fuck's sake. On the scale of things, that is giving more breaks to others, than most people accomplish in a lifetime. What is your idea of changing the world?