10 ms·

Jonathan James

366 points by will_brown 14y ago

nell 14y ago
Anyone who argues for any punishment, should first have experienced a sample of the same treatment. How can someone who doesn't know what it means and feels to live through a punishment wish to inflict it upon others. Seems like the behavior of a beast.
byoung2 14y ago
"I have no faith in the 'justice' system. Perhaps my actions today, and this letter, will send a stronger message to the public. Either way, I have lost control over this situation, and this is my only way to regain control. I die free." That is a sad and powerful statement.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  It is a testament to how control of this country has been completely wrested from the hands of the middle class since the 60s and 70s and taken over by megacorporations, the military-industrial complex, and the ultrawealthy. I recently read about this phenomenon in the book Who Stole the American Dream?, by Hedrick Smith[0]. I highly recommend it. The first signs of change appeared in the 2012 election, as the young people voted for marijuana legalization (and gay marriage) in two states and the hundreds of millions spent by the wealthy on campaign ads (enabled by the Citizens United ruling) failed to produce material results. Unfortunately, it appears that the older generations' viewpoints are largely stagnant, so this change will probably have to occur one funeral at a time. 0: http://www.amazon.com/Who-Stole-American-Dream-ebook/dp/B007MEWAX2 http://www.amazon.com/Who-Stole-American-Dream-ebook/dp/B007...
  - testimoney2 14y ago
    Well I mean the guy commited crimes and entered private systems. Its not like he is innocent. Are you saying you want it to be legal to hack into any random system in the world ? (that would remove all the fun of hacking) PS: And I have done some hacking, stolen some files, financial information a long time ago, but I agree that it is highly illegal and should be punished and I do regret my actions. Thankfully I stopped before it was too late
    - w1ntermute 14y ago
      Did you read the Wiki article? He claimed he wasn't responsible for the TJX hack, yet they were going to scapegoat him.
      - tkahn6 14y ago
        Yes, he claimed that. It doesn't make it true. His own father believed that he was involved.
        cantankerous 14y ago
        It doesn't matter what's true. It matters what's provable. Otherwise he's innocent until shown to be guilty...regardless of what his father or anybody else thinks.
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
        nitrogen 14y ago
        I can't speak to this specific case, but I'm sure lots of fathers have been completely wrong about their sons.
    - monsterix 14y ago
      How is it a crime to access (force access) content that belongs to the public? It was created using tax payers money and should have been available to the public without the hurdles in the first place. Note the same content is now available over the Internet for free legally. So what has changed, and what was lost?
    - caf 14y ago
      It certainly shouldn't attract a sentence considerably worse than violent crimes do. There's a persuasive argument that no nonviolent crime should be punished by prison time at all.
    - 14y ago
  - philwelch 14y ago
    > Unfortunately, it appears that the older generations' viewpoints are largely stagnant, so this change will probably have to occur one funeral at a time. Well, that's nothing new.
    - greghinch 14y ago
      I have hope. The generations born since the early to mid 80s have been raised in a world where change has become at least constant if not accelerated. These generations, as they age and take over the roles of the higher echelons of business and government, may prove more adaptable to an ever changing world. But this may just be a dream
      - w1ntermute 14y ago
        One problem is that the elderly are living longer than ever, and continuing to vote. At the same time, the birth rate is not too high. However, the internet has proven to be a very effective way of getting people to go to the polls, and you can target your campaigns much more specifically, so as to include young people and exclude the elderly (who don't use the internet much anyway). This is an important thing to keep in mind in a country like America, which has relatively low voter turnout. Election engineering can make all the difference in the results, as we saw with the success of Obama's reelection campaign machine.
        jlgreco 14y ago
        You know, I honestly think we should hack a few years off one side of the voting population and slap it onto the other. Let people start voting 5 years earlier, and forbid people from voting once they are five years younger than the current average life expectancy. A vote in our system is a vote for what should be. The concept of a vote is inherently tied to the future; the young have the most to win or lose because the vote is for something in their comparably massive future, while for the elderly it represents little more than an opportunity to influence a world they will (again, comparatively) soon have zero stake in. Of course that is more of a pipe-dream than owning my own bartending unicorn.
  - drzaiusapelord 14y ago
    >viewpoints are largely stagnant, so this change will probably have to occur one funeral at a time. There's a good argument out there that a lot of the recent social change has nothing to do with Obama, the internet, education, awareness, etc but the fact that so many of the old guard are dying out and that what we Americans call "liberal" or "progressive" is the new norm. It just too many conservatives had too much sway in politics. I mean, look at the desperate Texas and other red state gerrymandering. These guys are certainly scared of something. If you look at recent progressive victories, they're often of a slight majority. Votes that come in real close like 48-52 or 47% vs 48%, and losses are pretty narrow too. I guess until a lot of the boomers start dying out, this stuff will continue. Heh, by the time I'm old and gray I won't have to worry about no-knock raids on harmless potheads and computer nerds being roughed up by the DOJ. Oh well, maybe I'll feel better about my country when I'm retired.
  - intended 14y ago
    I've seen the one funeral at a time solution play out, (it's still playing out where i live, inter country conflict). It is something of a solution, but not much. Those older folk have a long time to poison a new generation, and the ideas which they hold are easy to believe and propagate. It's only through real leadership and setting exampls which run counter to the narrative, that our hope lies now. While the old grudges are being laid to rest, the effect is more like reduced signal propagation.
    - w1ntermute 14y ago
      > Those older folk have a long time to poison a new generation, and the ideas which they hold are easy to believe and propagate. This is definitely possible. But my hope is that the internet has started to change these things. Even someone living in a small rural town can now see what other young people are thinking and be exposed to a more diverse set of ideas. For example, if you go on Reddit, you can see how people have become atheists after reading about how religion is bunk. Someone who is forced by their parents to go to church every Sunday can find solace in the fact that there are others going through the same thing, and that there are others who have successfully escaped from such situations. I think such communities have the ability to accelerate change among the youth.
  - afterburner 14y ago
    Not to minimize what you wrote: wanting to regain control is a part of having suicidal thoughts, regardless of the political situation. Often the only relief to people who are suicidal is the thought that they can control when to end their life (which sometimes brings slight relief without having to go through with it).
  - smsm42 14y ago
    It has nothing to do with fashionable fable about ultraweathy ruining everything. The numbers of ultrawealthy are vanishingly small. They are not those who vote current political class into power and keep them there. They are not those who, knowing about politicians instituting mandatory minimum sentences of tens of years for victimless crimes, did not come to these politicians with tar and feathers but instead gave them their wholehearted support and their money to continue their campaigns. Blaming the vague alien group - being it the wealthy, Jews, Catholics, Christians, Muslims, black, white, whatever - for all problems, being behing the scenes and pulling all the ropes - is bullshit. It is your beloved middle class who has overwhelming voting power in this country. Those are the people who elect those politicians and enact those laws. Nobody is doing it to the innocent nation, the nation is doing it to itself and it is nowhere near innocent. The nation allows the current prosecutorial system where you either plead out or get a chance to fight 200 years in prison sentence with overworked public defendant that would have couple of hours to review your case if she'd sleep 4 hours a day. The nation allows the Congress to create 56 new federal crimes every year. US now has about 5000 different federal crimes, and who knows how many local too. Ultrawealthy have nothing to do with it - I'm sure if you ask random people on the street, overwhelming majority would support it with gusto. No ultrawealthy can prevent the middle class to vote all these guys out. If they keep instead voting them in - it's time to stop blaming the aliens and start realizing who the real guilty party is.
    - w1ntermute 14y ago
      Things are far from being as simple as you make them sound. In a two-party system with extreme gerrymandering and extensive lobbying by the rich, politicians are no longer beholden to the people. People don't blindly support new laws like you say they do. In fact, Congress's approval rating has been in the shitter for a long time. People nowadays vote by figuring out who they dislike the least. But when it comes to referendums, we're seeing real change - marijuana was legalized in 2 states this time around. And you say voters want more people in jail? The book I mentioned debunks your theory of the ultrawealthy not being responsible for these problems. The statistics are quite clear regarding the increase in lobbying efforts by the wealthy and by large corporations during the 70s.
jeremymims 14y ago
Looks like Steve Heymann has a history of this: "The case was picked up by Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Heymann in Boston, the cybercrime prosecutor who won a record 20-year prison stretch for TJX hacker Albert Gonzalez. Heymann indicted Aaron on 13 counts of wire fraud, computer intrusion and reckless damage. The case has been wending through pre-trial motions for 18 months, and was set for jury trial on April 1." [1] Appears that Jonathan James and Aaron Swartz both had the same prosecutor after them... [1] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/01/aaron-swartz/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/01/aaron-swartz/
- _delirium 14y ago
  Not a whole lot of information available about Heymann, but what little I can find doesn't make me like him more. Here's something that turned up from 1996, where he tried to get Harvard to authorize warrantless surveillance: Stephen Heymann, deputy chief of the criminal division in the U.S. attorney's office in Boston, wanted Harvard to put an electronic banner on its intranet telling users they were being monitored. The banner, implying consent, would let law enforcement do the data tap without having to get a court order. From the sidebar ("case in point") here: http://books.google.com/books?id=2xcEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA65 http://books.google.com/books?id=2xcEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA65 edit: He also apparently wrote a law-review article in 1997 entitled "Legislating Computer Crime", which might give a more accurate and perhaps nuanced account of his views on the subject. I'd link it, but it's paywalled.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    Someone please download it and repost.
    - BCM43 14y ago
      http://www.anonpaste.me/anonpaste2/index.php?b18e0b52166f3c18#l+HawNDVTZ5w4LnD7G7izLGtd2iw+3Ud1wapbCDiEU4= http://www.anonpaste.me/anonpaste2/index.php?b18e0b52166f3c1... In memory of Swartz.
- doktrin 14y ago
ALee 14y ago
Our government used to hire the brilliant minds who taught us about our security flaws. See here for RTM: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/08/us/living-with-the-computer-whiz-kids.html http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/08/us/living-with-the-compute... Even Sean Parker of Napster, Facebook, and now Spotify glory was offered a job when he was younger. Somehow something changed in the past 10 years.
- _delirium 14y ago
  And imagine the world if Jobs and Wozniak had been hounded by federal prosecutors...
  - sks 14y ago
    I read an article today which pointed out how Feynman went around cracking safes during the Manhattan Project. Something fundamental has changed in the society ... Imagine the present if people like Jobs/Woz would have been locked up for phone phreaking.
    - hkmurakami 14y ago
      If you're interested in reading more about it, his shenanigans are told in further detail in "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman!" http://www.amazon.com/Surely-Feynman-Adventures-Curious-Character/dp/0393316041/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_y http://www.amazon.com/Surely-Feynman-Adventures-Curious-Char...
- antoncohen 14y ago
  The Secret Service did hire Albert Gonzalez, the guy Jonathan James was accused of conspiring with. The story, including Jonathan James' involvement is well told by the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/magazine/14Hacker-t.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/magazine/14Hacker-t.html?p...
jmspring 14y ago
The problem I have with the justice system in cases like this is that there are curious people, they will have, probe, poke, tickle, whatever systems are available. The justice system, as mentioned, only sees those making these "intrusions" in black and white terms -- criminals. In the case linked, "NASA had to shut it's systems down for 3 weeks at the cost of $41000 to check and fix it's systems"...This is bullshit. First off, you should have sufficient redundancy in your internal systems, especially for life critical code, that an intrusion affects the front line, not things like your source repository. Further, you should have regular backups and checkpoints -- checksums, etc. to be able to compare and identify anything compromised. Laws to guard against lazy employees should not be allowed. A bogus case.
- coderdude 14y ago
  It's not really a bogus case at all. The message that these submissions are supposed to be sending is not that any of these people did not in fact commit crimes but that the ruthless pursuit of these individuals is immoral given the intent. Besides, there's no way for you to know how much it would cost NASA in time or money to double and triple check the integrity of their systems. $41k doesn't even sound like a whole lot of money for such a chore.
- cremnob 14y ago
  She shouldn't have been walking down that dark alley at that time anyway.
  - GuiA 14y ago
    I sincerely hope that you didn't post this analogy sincerely believing it, as the two are diametrically opposed.
    - cremnob 14y ago
      It absolutely was sincere. I'm not sure why you think they are "diametrically opposed". In both cases it is victim blaming.
lawnchair_larry 14y ago
How is this on the front page? This isn't recent or relevant to anything.
- tomasien 14y ago
  is that a joke?
- seanlinehan 14y ago
  The circumstances of Jonathan James's death are very similar to the death of Aaron Swartz...
  - Codhisattva 14y ago
    They sure are but I think the most significant part is the depression. Mental health is an unspoken issue in the industry.
nola1 14y ago
Great interview of Jonathan James with Frontline: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/hackers/interviews/anon.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/hackers/interv...
leoh 14y ago
I think one thing that users of HN are picking up on during this crisis is the sense that in some ways, "hackers" are alike--whether a relatively egregious case as in this article, a very mild to innocuous case such as Swartz's, or a truly innocuous case like reverse-engineering open source software--in that we are all curious and we are all sometimes foolish. What the justice department and the masses among us forget is that even very successful people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were and are hackers, and that in the case of the former's hacking (Jobs' blue-boxing days), it could have gotten him in really, really big trouble. So I think a big part of this is that we know that people make mistakes and that justice is absurdly harsh and out-of-proportion, not to mention the fact that as hackers, we definitely have the ability to do really insanely great things with our lives. But one thing to remember is that the justice system in this country is absurdly harsh to a lot of people. It's absurdly harsh to minorities and to drug users for example, too. The fact is, the way that justice is executed in this country needs to be re-thought for everyone. Edit: I just wanted to add to this. The key to a better outcome is greater kindness. Kindness to others and kindness to ourselves. There will always be foolish people like Swartz's prosecutor or the people at MIT. But in this technological age, in first-world countries, our immediate needs are usually taken care of. The things that make a true difference is kindness. The kindness of mentors, the kindness of friends and lovers, the kindness of strangers. Swartz's prosecutor could have been more kind. Even Swartz, I think it could be said, could have been kinder to himself, loving himself and taking more caution for himself instead of placing himself in such peril. We all need to be kind to others and ourselves as much as we can, without putting ourselves in danger. Sometimes a little danger is what it takes to change things, true. But kindness is what we all need more of in this age and what, I think, we truly desire. RIP Aaron.
- lilsunnybee 14y ago
  The vast majority of people will never experience the harshness of the US justice system, except those that chance or circumstance chooses. That really sucks, because how is anything supposed to change for the better if there isn't the awareness and outcry against the unfairness of the system?
InclinedPlane 14y ago
Relevant, journalist David Gregory blatantly violated Washington, DC firearms law, on air. He won't face charges: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/12/nbc_s_david_gregory_won_t_face_charges_for_displaying_ammo_clip_on_tv.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/12/nbc_s_davi... I hate to say it but if these trends continue we'll be well on our way to a new sort of feudalism, where laws are selectively enforced and the little guys who hold political views or who are part of minorities that are despised by the powers that be get hit hard while the people who are rich or politically connected get a break. We've seen it with drug laws (where even cocaine possession translates to much different charges when the accused is white and affluent vs black and poor), with prescription drug abuse, with tax laws, with gun laws, with computer crime (where a corporation can install rootkits on people's computers with few legal ramifications), etc.
- thosegivenmuch 14y ago
  and I hate to say, especially since I just created a new account to rebut this, but David Gregory's holding a magazine has zero basis for reference in this discussion. None. Its a bit of rightwing talking point at the moment, but it has nothing to do with aarons trial. So, no, not relevant. I don't care how much karma you have, or how long you've been on this site. I've been here for four years, maybe commented a dozen times at most. You're using a blatant talking point of the right wing to what? Make some grandiose statement about "where we're headed"? As if David Gregory getting prosecuted for making a point about magazine capacity would have some how made aarons situation more.....fair? Really? This is kind of despicable.
  - InclinedPlane 14y ago
    This has nothing to do with the debate about guns and everything to do with prosecutorial and judicial discretion and the abuse there of. Does the law matter? Does the law apply equally to everyone? It certainly doesn't seem so. And if you look at the other examples I gave, this is all of a piece, irrespective of gun regulation. If you are wealthy and connected then many laws don't apply to you, or there is always a way around them. The prosecutors or judges will look the other way or go easy on you when you violate firearms law. Or, as with Rush Limbaugh, when you abuse prescription drugs. It's not a partisan issue, it's about class and status. In the case of Aaron Swartz we have just such an example of being on the wrong end of prosecutorial discretion. JSTOR didn't go after Aaron, but the government decided to. They treated him like a terrorist.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
ck2 14y ago
We cannot see into Aaron's thoughts of course but if I had to guess, maybe he thought he was going to be Bradley Manning-inged which might drive anyone over the edge. Stripped naked and thrown into a cell "for his protection" (he got a whopping 100 days off his 30 years to life sentence for that abuse btw, so that will teach the people that did that right?) Perhaps we should use this energy to help the living Bradley Manning in protest as it does little to help Aaron or his loved ones now.
- alan_cx 14y ago
  Yes, but spread the net wider. Manning isnt the only one.
stesch 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Koch_%28hacker%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Koch_%28hacker%29
qweqwe22 14y ago
Am I the only one who realizes that HE CLEARLY BROKE THE LAW. He knew exactly what he was doing, the fault is his own.
gmt2027 14y ago
This article does not mention that the real J.J. in the TJX case could have been '7 foot tall' Stephen Watt, a former Morgan Stanley employee with the aliases 'Jim Jones' and 'Unix Terrorist' http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/watt/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/watt/
jellyksong 14y ago
I'm not sure we should glorify Jonathan James or even compare him to Aaron Swartz. His "hacking" of the DoD was undeniably illegal, and his sentencing seemed appropriate for his actions. We will never know if he was innocent or not of the TJX case. It's tragic that he killed himself, but, at least to me, his actions seemed on the whole more malicious than Swartz's ever was.
- will_brown 14y ago
  "I'm not sure we should glorify Jonathan James or even compare him to Aaron Swartz." I just posted the Wiki article in no way did I glorify him. However, to suggest I am in error to even compare his story to Aaron's is well....an error. "His "hacking" of the DoD was undeniably illegal, and his sentencing seemed appropriate for his actions." Illegal is an absolute term, an act is either illegal or not, there are not degrees such as "undeniably illegal." As to your observation that the sentence was appropriate, keep in mind that James was 15 at the time of his alleged hacking and he was the first minor tried by the US federal government. Further, the federal prosecutors (Janet Reno, in particular) used James story as a political gain by threatening James with adult charges carrying more than 10 years, all so they could "prove the Justice Department is willing to get tough on juveniles offenders accused of cyber crime." So James took a plea deal and at 16 was on 6 month house arrest and probation to 18 and he had to stop using computers for recreational use, shit even drunk drivers can drive again. "It's tragic that he killed himself, but, at least to me, his actions seemed on the whole more malicious than Swartz's ever was." I only want to address this as devil's advocate, but in terms of James' act being malicious, James acquired $1.7 million in NASA software, he did publish it or sell it, rather he did it to learn more coding. Further, he said he only pursued his exploits because he wanted to explore, which seems to be the very opposite of malicious, after all anyone who was malicious and in control of the Space Stations life sustaining systems could surely have caused more damage than copying the code if they were truly malicious. Whereas Aaron breached a system and copied information with the intent to redistribute it in mass to the detriment of the system itself, which fits the very definition of malice. I am in no way justifying anyone's actions and condemning another's actions, simply highlighting that your word choice of malicious really does not seem fitting for James as much as curious, whereas Aaron intended to destroy a system albeit one that many feel unethically controlled the flow of knowledge which should otherwise be open and free. Besides assuming Aaron did have intent and malice toward the system, is he any more legally culpable than say someone who takes bread to feed the hungry where they are otherwise being starved?

366 points by will_brown 14y ago

nell 14y ago

Anyone who argues for any punishment, should first have experienced a sample of the same treatment. How can someone who doesn't know what it means and feels to live through a punishment wish to inflict it upon others. Seems like the behavior of a beast.

byoung2 14y ago

"I have no faith in the 'justice' system. Perhaps my actions today, and this letter, will send a stronger message to the public. Either way, I have lost control over this situation, and this is my only way to regain control. I die free." That is a sad and powerful statement.

w1ntermute 14y ago
It is a testament to how control of this country has been completely wrested from the hands of the middle class since the 60s and 70s and taken over by megacorporations, the military-industrial complex, and the ultrawealthy. I recently read about this phenomenon in the book Who Stole the American Dream?, by Hedrick Smith[0]. I highly recommend it. The first signs of change appeared in the 2012 election, as the young people voted for marijuana legalization (and gay marriage) in two states and the hundreds of millions spent by the wealthy on campaign ads (enabled by the Citizens United ruling) failed to produce material results. Unfortunately, it appears that the older generations' viewpoints are largely stagnant, so this change will probably have to occur one funeral at a time. 0: http://www.amazon.com/Who-Stole-American-Dream-ebook/dp/B007MEWAX2 http://www.amazon.com/Who-Stole-American-Dream-ebook/dp/B007...
- testimoney2 14y ago
  Well I mean the guy commited crimes and entered private systems. Its not like he is innocent. Are you saying you want it to be legal to hack into any random system in the world ? (that would remove all the fun of hacking) PS: And I have done some hacking, stolen some files, financial information a long time ago, but I agree that it is highly illegal and should be punished and I do regret my actions. Thankfully I stopped before it was too late
  - w1ntermute 14y ago
    Did you read the Wiki article? He claimed he wasn't responsible for the TJX hack, yet they were going to scapegoat him.
    - tkahn6 14y ago
      Yes, he claimed that. It doesn't make it true. His own father believed that he was involved.
      - cantankerous 14y ago
        It doesn't matter what's true. It matters what's provable. Otherwise he's innocent until shown to be guilty...regardless of what his father or anybody else thinks.
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - nitrogen 14y ago
        I can't speak to this specific case, but I'm sure lots of fathers have been completely wrong about their sons.
  - monsterix 14y ago
    How is it a crime to access (force access) content that belongs to the public? It was created using tax payers money and should have been available to the public without the hurdles in the first place. Note the same content is now available over the Internet for free legally. So what has changed, and what was lost?
  - caf 14y ago
    It certainly shouldn't attract a sentence considerably worse than violent crimes do. There's a persuasive argument that no nonviolent crime should be punished by prison time at all.
  - 14y ago
- philwelch 14y ago
  > Unfortunately, it appears that the older generations' viewpoints are largely stagnant, so this change will probably have to occur one funeral at a time. Well, that's nothing new.
  - greghinch 14y ago
    I have hope. The generations born since the early to mid 80s have been raised in a world where change has become at least constant if not accelerated. These generations, as they age and take over the roles of the higher echelons of business and government, may prove more adaptable to an ever changing world. But this may just be a dream
    - w1ntermute 14y ago
      One problem is that the elderly are living longer than ever, and continuing to vote. At the same time, the birth rate is not too high. However, the internet has proven to be a very effective way of getting people to go to the polls, and you can target your campaigns much more specifically, so as to include young people and exclude the elderly (who don't use the internet much anyway). This is an important thing to keep in mind in a country like America, which has relatively low voter turnout. Election engineering can make all the difference in the results, as we saw with the success of Obama's reelection campaign machine.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        You know, I honestly think we should hack a few years off one side of the voting population and slap it onto the other. Let people start voting 5 years earlier, and forbid people from voting once they are five years younger than the current average life expectancy. A vote in our system is a vote for what should be. The concept of a vote is inherently tied to the future; the young have the most to win or lose because the vote is for something in their comparably massive future, while for the elderly it represents little more than an opportunity to influence a world they will (again, comparatively) soon have zero stake in. Of course that is more of a pipe-dream than owning my own bartending unicorn.
- drzaiusapelord 14y ago
  >viewpoints are largely stagnant, so this change will probably have to occur one funeral at a time. There's a good argument out there that a lot of the recent social change has nothing to do with Obama, the internet, education, awareness, etc but the fact that so many of the old guard are dying out and that what we Americans call "liberal" or "progressive" is the new norm. It just too many conservatives had too much sway in politics. I mean, look at the desperate Texas and other red state gerrymandering. These guys are certainly scared of something. If you look at recent progressive victories, they're often of a slight majority. Votes that come in real close like 48-52 or 47% vs 48%, and losses are pretty narrow too. I guess until a lot of the boomers start dying out, this stuff will continue. Heh, by the time I'm old and gray I won't have to worry about no-knock raids on harmless potheads and computer nerds being roughed up by the DOJ. Oh well, maybe I'll feel better about my country when I'm retired.
- intended 14y ago
  I've seen the one funeral at a time solution play out, (it's still playing out where i live, inter country conflict). It is something of a solution, but not much. Those older folk have a long time to poison a new generation, and the ideas which they hold are easy to believe and propagate. It's only through real leadership and setting exampls which run counter to the narrative, that our hope lies now. While the old grudges are being laid to rest, the effect is more like reduced signal propagation.
  - w1ntermute 14y ago
    > Those older folk have a long time to poison a new generation, and the ideas which they hold are easy to believe and propagate. This is definitely possible. But my hope is that the internet has started to change these things. Even someone living in a small rural town can now see what other young people are thinking and be exposed to a more diverse set of ideas. For example, if you go on Reddit, you can see how people have become atheists after reading about how religion is bunk. Someone who is forced by their parents to go to church every Sunday can find solace in the fact that there are others going through the same thing, and that there are others who have successfully escaped from such situations. I think such communities have the ability to accelerate change among the youth.
- afterburner 14y ago
  Not to minimize what you wrote: wanting to regain control is a part of having suicidal thoughts, regardless of the political situation. Often the only relief to people who are suicidal is the thought that they can control when to end their life (which sometimes brings slight relief without having to go through with it).
- smsm42 14y ago
  It has nothing to do with fashionable fable about ultraweathy ruining everything. The numbers of ultrawealthy are vanishingly small. They are not those who vote current political class into power and keep them there. They are not those who, knowing about politicians instituting mandatory minimum sentences of tens of years for victimless crimes, did not come to these politicians with tar and feathers but instead gave them their wholehearted support and their money to continue their campaigns. Blaming the vague alien group - being it the wealthy, Jews, Catholics, Christians, Muslims, black, white, whatever - for all problems, being behing the scenes and pulling all the ropes - is bullshit. It is your beloved middle class who has overwhelming voting power in this country. Those are the people who elect those politicians and enact those laws. Nobody is doing it to the innocent nation, the nation is doing it to itself and it is nowhere near innocent. The nation allows the current prosecutorial system where you either plead out or get a chance to fight 200 years in prison sentence with overworked public defendant that would have couple of hours to review your case if she'd sleep 4 hours a day. The nation allows the Congress to create 56 new federal crimes every year. US now has about 5000 different federal crimes, and who knows how many local too. Ultrawealthy have nothing to do with it - I'm sure if you ask random people on the street, overwhelming majority would support it with gusto. No ultrawealthy can prevent the middle class to vote all these guys out. If they keep instead voting them in - it's time to stop blaming the aliens and start realizing who the real guilty party is.
  - w1ntermute 14y ago
    Things are far from being as simple as you make them sound. In a two-party system with extreme gerrymandering and extensive lobbying by the rich, politicians are no longer beholden to the people. People don't blindly support new laws like you say they do. In fact, Congress's approval rating has been in the shitter for a long time. People nowadays vote by figuring out who they dislike the least. But when it comes to referendums, we're seeing real change - marijuana was legalized in 2 states this time around. And you say voters want more people in jail? The book I mentioned debunks your theory of the ultrawealthy not being responsible for these problems. The statistics are quite clear regarding the increase in lobbying efforts by the wealthy and by large corporations during the 70s.

jeremymims 14y ago

Looks like Steve Heymann has a history of this: "The case was picked up by Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Heymann in Boston, the cybercrime prosecutor who won a record 20-year prison stretch for TJX hacker Albert Gonzalez. Heymann indicted Aaron on 13 counts of wire fraud, computer intrusion and reckless damage. The case has been wending through pre-trial motions for 18 months, and was set for jury trial on April 1." [1] Appears that Jonathan James and Aaron Swartz both had the same prosecutor after them... [1] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/01/aaron-swartz/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/01/aaron-swartz/

_delirium 14y ago
Not a whole lot of information available about Heymann, but what little I can find doesn't make me like him more. Here's something that turned up from 1996, where he tried to get Harvard to authorize warrantless surveillance: Stephen Heymann, deputy chief of the criminal division in the U.S. attorney's office in Boston, wanted Harvard to put an electronic banner on its intranet telling users they were being monitored. The banner, implying consent, would let law enforcement do the data tap without having to get a court order. From the sidebar ("case in point") here: http://books.google.com/books?id=2xcEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA65 http://books.google.com/books?id=2xcEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA65 edit: He also apparently wrote a law-review article in 1997 entitled "Legislating Computer Crime", which might give a more accurate and perhaps nuanced account of his views on the subject. I'd link it, but it's paywalled.
- Evbn 14y ago
  Someone please download it and repost.
  - BCM43 14y ago
    http://www.anonpaste.me/anonpaste2/index.php?b18e0b52166f3c18#l+HawNDVTZ5w4LnD7G7izLGtd2iw+3Ud1wapbCDiEU4= http://www.anonpaste.me/anonpaste2/index.php?b18e0b52166f3c1... In memory of Swartz.
doktrin 14y ago

ALee 14y ago

Our government used to hire the brilliant minds who taught us about our security flaws. See here for RTM: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/08/us/living-with-the-computer-whiz-kids.html http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/08/us/living-with-the-compute... Even Sean Parker of Napster, Facebook, and now Spotify glory was offered a job when he was younger. Somehow something changed in the past 10 years.

_delirium 14y ago
And imagine the world if Jobs and Wozniak had been hounded by federal prosecutors...
- sks 14y ago
  I read an article today which pointed out how Feynman went around cracking safes during the Manhattan Project. Something fundamental has changed in the society ... Imagine the present if people like Jobs/Woz would have been locked up for phone phreaking.
  - hkmurakami 14y ago
    If you're interested in reading more about it, his shenanigans are told in further detail in "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman!" http://www.amazon.com/Surely-Feynman-Adventures-Curious-Character/dp/0393316041/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_y http://www.amazon.com/Surely-Feynman-Adventures-Curious-Char...
antoncohen 14y ago
The Secret Service did hire Albert Gonzalez, the guy Jonathan James was accused of conspiring with. The story, including Jonathan James' involvement is well told by the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/magazine/14Hacker-t.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/magazine/14Hacker-t.html?p...

jmspring 14y ago

The problem I have with the justice system in cases like this is that there are curious people, they will have, probe, poke, tickle, whatever systems are available. The justice system, as mentioned, only sees those making these "intrusions" in black and white terms -- criminals. In the case linked, "NASA had to shut it's systems down for 3 weeks at the cost of $41000 to check and fix it's systems"...This is bullshit. First off, you should have sufficient redundancy in your internal systems, especially for life critical code, that an intrusion affects the front line, not things like your source repository. Further, you should have regular backups and checkpoints -- checksums, etc. to be able to compare and identify anything compromised. Laws to guard against lazy employees should not be allowed. A bogus case.

coderdude 14y ago
It's not really a bogus case at all. The message that these submissions are supposed to be sending is not that any of these people did not in fact commit crimes but that the ruthless pursuit of these individuals is immoral given the intent. Besides, there's no way for you to know how much it would cost NASA in time or money to double and triple check the integrity of their systems. $41k doesn't even sound like a whole lot of money for such a chore.
cremnob 14y ago
She shouldn't have been walking down that dark alley at that time anyway.
- GuiA 14y ago
  I sincerely hope that you didn't post this analogy sincerely believing it, as the two are diametrically opposed.
  - cremnob 14y ago
    It absolutely was sincere. I'm not sure why you think they are "diametrically opposed". In both cases it is victim blaming.

lawnchair_larry 14y ago

How is this on the front page? This isn't recent or relevant to anything.

tomasien 14y ago
is that a joke?
seanlinehan 14y ago
The circumstances of Jonathan James's death are very similar to the death of Aaron Swartz...
- Codhisattva 14y ago
  They sure are but I think the most significant part is the depression. Mental health is an unspoken issue in the industry.

nola1 14y ago

Great interview of Jonathan James with Frontline: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/hackers/interviews/anon.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/hackers/interv...

leoh 14y ago

I think one thing that users of HN are picking up on during this crisis is the sense that in some ways, "hackers" are alike--whether a relatively egregious case as in this article, a very mild to innocuous case such as Swartz's, or a truly innocuous case like reverse-engineering open source software--in that we are all curious and we are all sometimes foolish. What the justice department and the masses among us forget is that even very successful people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were and are hackers, and that in the case of the former's hacking (Jobs' blue-boxing days), it could have gotten him in really, really big trouble. So I think a big part of this is that we know that people make mistakes and that justice is absurdly harsh and out-of-proportion, not to mention the fact that as hackers, we definitely have the ability to do really insanely great things with our lives. But one thing to remember is that the justice system in this country is absurdly harsh to a lot of people. It's absurdly harsh to minorities and to drug users for example, too. The fact is, the way that justice is executed in this country needs to be re-thought for everyone. Edit: I just wanted to add to this. The key to a better outcome is greater kindness. Kindness to others and kindness to ourselves. There will always be foolish people like Swartz's prosecutor or the people at MIT. But in this technological age, in first-world countries, our immediate needs are usually taken care of. The things that make a true difference is kindness. The kindness of mentors, the kindness of friends and lovers, the kindness of strangers. Swartz's prosecutor could have been more kind. Even Swartz, I think it could be said, could have been kinder to himself, loving himself and taking more caution for himself instead of placing himself in such peril. We all need to be kind to others and ourselves as much as we can, without putting ourselves in danger. Sometimes a little danger is what it takes to change things, true. But kindness is what we all need more of in this age and what, I think, we truly desire. RIP Aaron.

lilsunnybee 14y ago
The vast majority of people will never experience the harshness of the US justice system, except those that chance or circumstance chooses. That really sucks, because how is anything supposed to change for the better if there isn't the awareness and outcry against the unfairness of the system?

InclinedPlane 14y ago

Relevant, journalist David Gregory blatantly violated Washington, DC firearms law, on air. He won't face charges: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/12/nbc_s_david_gregory_won_t_face_charges_for_displaying_ammo_clip_on_tv.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/01/12/nbc_s_davi... I hate to say it but if these trends continue we'll be well on our way to a new sort of feudalism, where laws are selectively enforced and the little guys who hold political views or who are part of minorities that are despised by the powers that be get hit hard while the people who are rich or politically connected get a break. We've seen it with drug laws (where even cocaine possession translates to much different charges when the accused is white and affluent vs black and poor), with prescription drug abuse, with tax laws, with gun laws, with computer crime (where a corporation can install rootkits on people's computers with few legal ramifications), etc.

thosegivenmuch 14y ago
and I hate to say, especially since I just created a new account to rebut this, but David Gregory's holding a magazine has zero basis for reference in this discussion. None. Its a bit of rightwing talking point at the moment, but it has nothing to do with aarons trial. So, no, not relevant. I don't care how much karma you have, or how long you've been on this site. I've been here for four years, maybe commented a dozen times at most. You're using a blatant talking point of the right wing to what? Make some grandiose statement about "where we're headed"? As if David Gregory getting prosecuted for making a point about magazine capacity would have some how made aarons situation more.....fair? Really? This is kind of despicable.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  This has nothing to do with the debate about guns and everything to do with prosecutorial and judicial discretion and the abuse there of. Does the law matter? Does the law apply equally to everyone? It certainly doesn't seem so. And if you look at the other examples I gave, this is all of a piece, irrespective of gun regulation. If you are wealthy and connected then many laws don't apply to you, or there is always a way around them. The prosecutors or judges will look the other way or go easy on you when you violate firearms law. Or, as with Rush Limbaugh, when you abuse prescription drugs. It's not a partisan issue, it's about class and status. In the case of Aaron Swartz we have just such an example of being on the wrong end of prosecutorial discretion. JSTOR didn't go after Aaron, but the government decided to. They treated him like a terrorist.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

ck2 14y ago

We cannot see into Aaron's thoughts of course but if I had to guess, maybe he thought he was going to be Bradley Manning-inged which might drive anyone over the edge. Stripped naked and thrown into a cell "for his protection" (he got a whopping 100 days off his 30 years to life sentence for that abuse btw, so that will teach the people that did that right?) Perhaps we should use this energy to help the living Bradley Manning in protest as it does little to help Aaron or his loved ones now.

alan_cx 14y ago
Yes, but spread the net wider. Manning isnt the only one.

stesch 14y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Koch_%28hacker%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Koch_%28hacker%29

qweqwe22 14y ago

Am I the only one who realizes that HE CLEARLY BROKE THE LAW. He knew exactly what he was doing, the fault is his own.

gmt2027 14y ago

This article does not mention that the real J.J. in the TJX case could have been '7 foot tall' Stephen Watt, a former Morgan Stanley employee with the aliases 'Jim Jones' and 'Unix Terrorist' http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/watt/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/watt/

jellyksong 14y ago

I'm not sure we should glorify Jonathan James or even compare him to Aaron Swartz. His "hacking" of the DoD was undeniably illegal, and his sentencing seemed appropriate for his actions. We will never know if he was innocent or not of the TJX case. It's tragic that he killed himself, but, at least to me, his actions seemed on the whole more malicious than Swartz's ever was.

will_brown 14y ago
"I'm not sure we should glorify Jonathan James or even compare him to Aaron Swartz." I just posted the Wiki article in no way did I glorify him. However, to suggest I am in error to even compare his story to Aaron's is well....an error. "His "hacking" of the DoD was undeniably illegal, and his sentencing seemed appropriate for his actions." Illegal is an absolute term, an act is either illegal or not, there are not degrees such as "undeniably illegal." As to your observation that the sentence was appropriate, keep in mind that James was 15 at the time of his alleged hacking and he was the first minor tried by the US federal government. Further, the federal prosecutors (Janet Reno, in particular) used James story as a political gain by threatening James with adult charges carrying more than 10 years, all so they could "prove the Justice Department is willing to get tough on juveniles offenders accused of cyber crime." So James took a plea deal and at 16 was on 6 month house arrest and probation to 18 and he had to stop using computers for recreational use, shit even drunk drivers can drive again. "It's tragic that he killed himself, but, at least to me, his actions seemed on the whole more malicious than Swartz's ever was." I only want to address this as devil's advocate, but in terms of James' act being malicious, James acquired $1.7 million in NASA software, he did publish it or sell it, rather he did it to learn more coding. Further, he said he only pursued his exploits because he wanted to explore, which seems to be the very opposite of malicious, after all anyone who was malicious and in control of the Space Stations life sustaining systems could surely have caused more damage than copying the code if they were truly malicious. Whereas Aaron breached a system and copied information with the intent to redistribute it in mass to the detriment of the system itself, which fits the very definition of malice. I am in no way justifying anyone's actions and condemning another's actions, simply highlighting that your word choice of malicious really does not seem fitting for James as much as curious, whereas Aaron intended to destroy a system albeit one that many feel unethically controlled the flow of knowledge which should otherwise be open and free. Besides assuming Aaron did have intent and malice toward the system, is he any more legally culpable than say someone who takes bread to feed the hungry where they are otherwise being starved?