13 ms·

Prosecutor pursuing Aaron Swartz linked to suicide of another hacker

296 points by nighthawk 14y ago

tych0 14y ago
> In 2008 Jonathan James killed himself after being implicated in the largest personal identity hack in history. Wrong kind of hacker.
- rurounijones 14y ago
  Alleged hacker.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- nighthawk 14y ago
  maybe, but there's a lot more to it than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_James http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_James http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/07/hacker/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/07/hacker/
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Or, from another perspective: The same kind of hacker.
  - djt 14y ago
    alleged credit card fraud is different from Aaron's case I would say.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      In your point of view, a reasonable point of view, yes of course. To an apparently unreasonable prosecutor though?
    - malandrew 14y ago
      You'd be amazed by what people will construe as a fraud worthy of prosecuting. Even the most socially accepted dishonesties all of a sudden become a serious federal crime when another crime is involved. A prosecutor will tack on multiple charges just in case they can't pin them for the primacy crime they believe the accused is guilty of. It's never about finding out the truth, but about finding the accused guilty of a crime the prosecutor believes the accused actually committed prior to reviewing the evidence and confirming that fight. Or basically, "I personally believe the accused committed crime X, so I'm going to nail him regardless of the evidence. And just in case the evidence doesn't support what I believe or is inconclusive, I'm going to go ahead and charge him with several other crimes of little to no social consequence by themselves, since if I fail to convict of crime X, I know I can nail him for some of these minor crimes." When prosecutors tack on every crime they can imagine, they are simply admitting that they simply want to put the person away at any cost. That being said, without more details of what this alleged credit card fraud entails, I'm naturally skeptical of the charges. Wasn't JJ the guy who got caught, cooperated with the FBI and then was "thrown under the bus" so to speak by his handlers at the FBI?
      - djt 14y ago
        Yeah it gives them leverage to force a plea bargain. ie the same as when they extended the charges for Aaron to 13. It's a tough one though because it works both ways. Remember when they put the mobsters away using Tax laws because they couldn't make any murders or extortion stick. Unfortunately ethics isn't binary.
- logn 14y ago
  He claimed he was innocent in his suicide note. Maybe a suicide note is a great place to lie in attempt to clear your name. But I think he's probably being honest to an extent. Note that he was charged and found guilty of hacking NASA (essentially), but his suicide related to the identity theft. From Wikipedia on the identity theft investigation: "Though he denied having done anything, James—who was friends with some of the hackers involved—was investigated by the Secret Service, who raided James', his brother's, and his girlfriend's houses [...] they apparently discovered no connection to the intrusion". The article goes on that he was mentioned as a conspirator in another defendant's case for the identity theft, but James hadn't (yet?) been indicted.
  - tych0 14y ago
    Yeah, I don't disagree that he probably was innocent. My point is simply that this isn't the Hacker News hacker, but the talking head hacker.
greghinch 14y ago
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fire-assistant-us-attorney-steve-heymann/RJKSY2nb https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fire-assistant-us-...
- kule 14y ago
  This just feels like mob mentality to me. Someone messed up, albeit badly. I would guess the guy feels bad enough as it is without needing to get 25k people to kick him when he's down. EDIT: I guess what I'd really hope to have seen (not being a US citizen) is some petitions to get the laws/system changed rather than looking for someone to blame.
  - rustynails77 14y ago
    I see it differently. This person behaved extremely aggressively and clearly unethically. You want them to get off free? If nothing is done, this person will show remorse for a short time, and then be right back in the game. In my industry, some choose to behave unethically - even if it's within the bounds of the rules. I like to see these people smacked down because they -choose- to behave an a nasty manner.
  - dredmorbius 14y ago
    And here's why I disagree: - The US is a democracy. Our government, elected, appointed, or career civil servants, is accountable to the people. - The position of prosecutor has great power, and we all know that that requires great responsibility. Prosecutors can destroy reputations, livelihoods, lives, families, and more. Choosing on whom to bring the full strength of the US government to bear, and how much of that strength to loose at a particular target, is part of the critical judgment required for the position. Proper prosecutorial discretion has been shown sorely lacking in this (and other) protest-oriented hacking incidents. I'll be happy to let Otiz, Haymann, and Garland speak for themselves to let us know just how badly they feel. To date, I've seen no word from any of them. Speaking to your edit: there is a petition to change elements of the CFAA that the EFF has identified as particularly problematic: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/reform-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act-reflect-realities-computing-and-networks-2013/qMvdwVNw https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/reform-computer-fr... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/aaron-swartz-fix-draconian-computer-crime-law https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/aaron-swartz-fix-draco... http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5064448 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5064448
joering2 14y ago
Don't think twice if devil has horns or tail; here is the photo: http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/2013/01/Stephen-Heymann.jpg http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/2013/01/Stephen-Heymann....
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- jpdoctor 14y ago
  That's Rafael Reif, current president of MIT not Heymann.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    Supporting evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Rafael_Reif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Rafael_Reif
- rpm4321 14y ago
  Pic is of Rafael Reif, not Heymann. Wow, I think there probably should be consequences for Heymann (and possibly Ortiz), but in one sentence you've probably given the best demonstration of why vigilante justice is so troubling.
rprasad 14y ago
Two weeks after the Secret Service raided his house in conjunction with the investigation led by Heymann into the theft of tens of thousands of credit card numbers, James was found dead. Innocent people do not kill themselves when confronted with the possibility of a trial. They kill themselves after they have lost at trial. This other hacker (Jonathan James) didn't even wait until they pressed charges. It's not a matter of the prosecutor being overzealous. It's a matter of hackers being far more susceptible to suicidal tendencies than others in the face of extreme social conflict.
- angersock 14y ago
  I have a dead relative that would probably disagree with you. Don't assume so much.
- btilly 14y ago
  Innocent people do not kill themselves when confronted with the possibility of a trial. They kill themselves after they have lost at trial. Citation needed. It makes perfect sense to me that a depressed person who has realized what trial is going to cost, and who does not believe that anyone is going to believe them, would commit suicide. An innocent person who BELIEVES that they WILL be believed probably reacts very differently. But there are a lot of people in this world who, while innocent, won't necessarily have that belief. I would not be surprised if there was a high concentration of such among people who choose to use computers heavily.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - alaskamiller 14y ago
    Are you a clinical psychologist? Do you have citations for your perfect sense? Can you quantify your lack of surprise?
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      Is rprasad a clinical psychologist?. If he is pulling things out of his ass without citations, it seems reasonable that he receive responses that do the same.
nnq 14y ago
I bet 99% of "hackers" (I'm using the criminal sense of the word, that I hate to use, btw) have psychological issues of one way or another and they are a suicide risk! The SS, prosecutors and whoever handles these people should fucking take that into account and put it in balance with the fact that they are a valuable resource to society! You may put a "criminal hacker" in jail for credit card fraud, but chances are, if he doesn't stay in there too long to get his brain "fried", he will grow up to become the security guy that keeps shit safe so you can keep online shopping 'till you drop! I mean... these guys are a subset of what one calls "infosec field people" that are a subset of "IT people" that are a subset of "tech people"... the smaller the subset the less the chance that a member of it will be (1) "well socialized", (2) "psychologically robust" or even (3) "sane"... add up that they're in their 20s and... what would you freakin expect?!
- danso 14y ago
  Don't think too many people are going to go for the idea of a certain type of criminal requiring certain special treatment...why couldn't rapists and murderers claim the same kind of social deficiencies?
  - nnq 14y ago
    Rapists and murderers commit their crimes in the context of close interaction with their victims. Criminal hackers are the opposite. For most of them any form of social interaction, especially the forced one with the law enforcement personnel will be extremely stressful. I think that even "basic interaction with the law system" would qualify as a mild form of psychological torture for hackers. Imagine keeping a drug addicted rapist in solitary confinement for a month with no drugs, in a windowless cell, preventing him from even masturbating or smth like that - I think this would be closer to the psychological equivalent of the stress "hackers" experience when interacting with the law system! (ok, maybe I'm exaggerating with this example but I don't know enough about drug addicted rapists' psychology to construct a better one) Jonathan James wrote in his suicide note "Either way, I have lost control over this situation and this is my only way to regain control". For him, the lack of control and predictability of his future, induced by interaction with the law system was painful enough to make him commit suicide! People are very different and respond very differently to stress - my "basic family social interactions" may mean "psychological torture" to you! :)
aw3c2 14y ago
Already discussed three days ago http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5049881 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5049881
jamesaguilar 14y ago
I can understand how people might expect different behavior in the Swartz case. But what in the behavior discussed in this article is other than exactly what you would expect? Of course she is going to prosecute a credit card thief who has stolen tens of thousands of cards. How does this stack up as added evidence against her?
- monsterix 14y ago
  Please 'know' before taking sides. It's easy to comment, and opine, than to know. Here are some insights from Wikipedia: US has had the highest incarceration rate in past decade [1]. Why so? Does it mean more percentage of citizens are lately turning into what one would qualify as a criminal, a thief or a murderer? Or otherwise. Quoting from Wikipedia: A. "The United States has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated population." B. "imprisons a larger percentage of its black population than South Africa did at the height of apartheid" C. A graph showing a strange spike: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_incarceration_timeline-clean-fixed-timescale.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_incarceration_timeline-... etc. etc. etc. Also consider these - is it is profitable for a section/group of people (read prosecutors or ip enforcers) to persecute and push people over using tricks like applying one set of laws, if another set of laws couldn't be applied? Is it like we have provision for cheapness in trials, but none for justice or humanity. Is the intention of a trial to set an example, or to be fair? Is it not criminal wastage of money, time and talent this way? I mean these are intricate details that reveal something is wrong at leadership level. Related to the direction of the country. This is not a working level problem which is where students, staff, entrepreneurs and hackers lie. Ponder. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Sta... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_James http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_James [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rat... [Edits: Grammar, tone and with inputs from Ars below.]
  - ars 14y ago
    What does this have to do with what jamesaguilar posted? > No. Surely, something else is broken. Really? There are no other options you can think of? Perhaps the US is simply stricter? I quote from the article this image is from: "Still, it is the length of sentences that truly distinguishes American prison policy. Indeed, the mere number of sentences imposed here would not place the United States at the top of the incarceration lists." So yup, the US is stricter, but it does not have more criminals, nor does it imprison more people. > A graph showing a strange spike There is no spike, this is the result of using a linear graph when it should have been a logarithmic one. (A very common mistake, and also frequently employed when trying to make a point without support in the data.) In this particular graph even better would be to normalize to the population level, but logarithmic is also OK. Either way, if you fix the graph you will find no spike. This graph is better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._incarceration_rates_1925_onwards.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._incarceration_rates_1... It shows an increase, but no spike. So why the increase? And especially why has it slowed down? Read this and you shall know: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5006368 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5006368
logn 14y ago
Seems like we need a prosecutor with the zeal of Stephen Heymann to go after Stephen Heymann. This guy's history has a smell. Two suicides? Maybe there's something more going on? Maybe not, but it's worth a look.
jnsaff2 14y ago
"Swartz’s attorney Elliot Peters accused Heymann of aggressively pursuing Swartz because the case “"was going to receive press and he was going to be a tough guy and read his name in the newspaper."" This is very similar to how many SV startup founders and CEO's roll. Press-coverage and case-studies are more important than actually doing something worth doing.
guard-of-terra 14y ago
I don't understand why people like JJ kill just themself. Me, I would go postal (kill someone from that 'justice' system?) in a situation like this. And only then myself. At least I hope I would have the guts to.
downandout 14y ago
The reality is that it is quite rare for a federal defendant to kill themselves. To have 2 of them (that we know about) stemming from prosecutions by one individual, I would have to say, is pretty remarkable. While it could just be a coincidence, the one common denominator in these two statistically rare incidents is Stephen Heymann. We'll just call him "Suicide Steve". On a somewhat related note, the callousness of the people that work in the MA US Attorney's office apparently extends to their spouses. The husband of US Attorney Carmen Ortiz posted on his (now deleted) twitter account criticizing Aaron's family for the content of his obituary (screenshot of his tweet here - http://imgur.com/IR5ah http://imgur.com/IR5ah ).
- djt 14y ago
  Is it quite rare though? It would be good to see some figures on that. It could also be sampling bias playing a part. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_bias
  - downandout 14y ago
    Two does not necessarily make a trend, to be sure. However, if the odds are 1 in 10,000, a small number of incidents quickly become a significant indicator that the way this guy handles cases dramatically increases the likelihood of suicide. I don't know if any reports have been done on the subject that would be relevant here (specific to federal defendants, as they generally are looking at more time and are more likely to be experiencing jail for the first time than state defendants). However, anectdotally, I know a fair number of criminal defense attorneys, and they all say that it's actually quite rare. It seems that most defense attorneys have never had a criminal client commit suicide.
    - Fjolle 14y ago
      You assume way too much. I highly doubt that federal defendants are 10 times less likely to commit suicide than the general population in USA. For me personally two is still waaay to low for it to be considered anything but a fluke.
gesman 14y ago
Dr. Steve, Assisted suicide expert.
snowwrestler 14y ago
Only one person is responsible for a suicide--the person who committed suicide. This realization is a very important part of the healing process for those left behind. Otherwise it's possible to torture oneself thinking "if only I'd done more." Logically, if it's partially Steve Heymann's fault, it could also partially be the fault of those close to Aaron who did not sufficiently help him. Or at least, there is a danger that those close to Aaron could feel this way--it's very common in suicides. But ultimately, Aaron chose to kill himself, and it was solely his decision to do so.
- sk5t 14y ago
  This seems like a dangerous way to understand any harmful act. It may be inconvenient that other views trouble the healing process, but wishing doesn't make it so. Suppose one were to say, "Only one person is responsible for a DUI fatality--the driver. Otherwise it's possible for the bartender to torture himself thinking 'if only I'd cut him off two hours ago.'"
  - snowwrestler 14y ago
    The driver is the only person responsible for a DUI, unless they were somehow forced into driving against their will. Are you seriously proposing that we hold bartenders responsible for the actions of drunk people?
    - sk5t 14y ago
      I'm not proposing it--the law already recognizes that bars bear some of the responsibility for over-serving their customers. It's rarely-enforced, however, and appears that the drunken driver must harm someone with a bit of pull in the legal system for charges to surface. http://missoulian.com/news/local/bartender-sentenced-to-jail-for-serving-drinks-that-led-to/article_ae790a40-7a41-11df-bd40-001cc4c03286.html http://missoulian.com/news/local/bartender-sentenced-to-jail...
pdonis 14y ago
One factoid in the article about Aaron Swartz's case confuses me: "Though JSTOR decided not to press charges – and even urged the US government to drop the case – MIT went ahead with a civil suit." First I've heard of a civil suit by MIT against Swartz. Has anyone seen anything corroborating this?

296 points by nighthawk 14y ago

tych0 14y ago

> In 2008 Jonathan James killed himself after being implicated in the largest personal identity hack in history. Wrong kind of hacker.

rurounijones 14y ago
Alleged hacker.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
nighthawk 14y ago
maybe, but there's a lot more to it than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_James http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_James http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/07/hacker/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/07/hacker/
jlgreco 14y ago
Or, from another perspective: The same kind of hacker.
- djt 14y ago
  alleged credit card fraud is different from Aaron's case I would say.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    In your point of view, a reasonable point of view, yes of course. To an apparently unreasonable prosecutor though?
  - malandrew 14y ago
    You'd be amazed by what people will construe as a fraud worthy of prosecuting. Even the most socially accepted dishonesties all of a sudden become a serious federal crime when another crime is involved. A prosecutor will tack on multiple charges just in case they can't pin them for the primacy crime they believe the accused is guilty of. It's never about finding out the truth, but about finding the accused guilty of a crime the prosecutor believes the accused actually committed prior to reviewing the evidence and confirming that fight. Or basically, "I personally believe the accused committed crime X, so I'm going to nail him regardless of the evidence. And just in case the evidence doesn't support what I believe or is inconclusive, I'm going to go ahead and charge him with several other crimes of little to no social consequence by themselves, since if I fail to convict of crime X, I know I can nail him for some of these minor crimes." When prosecutors tack on every crime they can imagine, they are simply admitting that they simply want to put the person away at any cost. That being said, without more details of what this alleged credit card fraud entails, I'm naturally skeptical of the charges. Wasn't JJ the guy who got caught, cooperated with the FBI and then was "thrown under the bus" so to speak by his handlers at the FBI?
    - djt 14y ago
      Yeah it gives them leverage to force a plea bargain. ie the same as when they extended the charges for Aaron to 13. It's a tough one though because it works both ways. Remember when they put the mobsters away using Tax laws because they couldn't make any murders or extortion stick. Unfortunately ethics isn't binary.
logn 14y ago
He claimed he was innocent in his suicide note. Maybe a suicide note is a great place to lie in attempt to clear your name. But I think he's probably being honest to an extent. Note that he was charged and found guilty of hacking NASA (essentially), but his suicide related to the identity theft. From Wikipedia on the identity theft investigation: "Though he denied having done anything, James—who was friends with some of the hackers involved—was investigated by the Secret Service, who raided James', his brother's, and his girlfriend's houses [...] they apparently discovered no connection to the intrusion". The article goes on that he was mentioned as a conspirator in another defendant's case for the identity theft, but James hadn't (yet?) been indicted.
- tych0 14y ago
  Yeah, I don't disagree that he probably was innocent. My point is simply that this isn't the Hacker News hacker, but the talking head hacker.

greghinch 14y ago

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fire-assistant-us-attorney-steve-heymann/RJKSY2nb https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fire-assistant-us-...

kule 14y ago
This just feels like mob mentality to me. Someone messed up, albeit badly. I would guess the guy feels bad enough as it is without needing to get 25k people to kick him when he's down. EDIT: I guess what I'd really hope to have seen (not being a US citizen) is some petitions to get the laws/system changed rather than looking for someone to blame.
- rustynails77 14y ago
  I see it differently. This person behaved extremely aggressively and clearly unethically. You want them to get off free? If nothing is done, this person will show remorse for a short time, and then be right back in the game. In my industry, some choose to behave unethically - even if it's within the bounds of the rules. I like to see these people smacked down because they -choose- to behave an a nasty manner.
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  And here's why I disagree: - The US is a democracy. Our government, elected, appointed, or career civil servants, is accountable to the people. - The position of prosecutor has great power, and we all know that that requires great responsibility. Prosecutors can destroy reputations, livelihoods, lives, families, and more. Choosing on whom to bring the full strength of the US government to bear, and how much of that strength to loose at a particular target, is part of the critical judgment required for the position. Proper prosecutorial discretion has been shown sorely lacking in this (and other) protest-oriented hacking incidents. I'll be happy to let Otiz, Haymann, and Garland speak for themselves to let us know just how badly they feel. To date, I've seen no word from any of them. Speaking to your edit: there is a petition to change elements of the CFAA that the EFF has identified as particularly problematic: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/reform-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act-reflect-realities-computing-and-networks-2013/qMvdwVNw https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/reform-computer-fr... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/aaron-swartz-fix-draconian-computer-crime-law https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/aaron-swartz-fix-draco... http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5064448 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5064448

joering2 14y ago

Don't think twice if devil has horns or tail; here is the photo: http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/2013/01/Stephen-Heymann.jpg http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/2013/01/Stephen-Heymann....

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jpdoctor 14y ago
That's Rafael Reif, current president of MIT not Heymann.
- nitrogen 14y ago
  Supporting evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Rafael_Reif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Rafael_Reif
rpm4321 14y ago
Pic is of Rafael Reif, not Heymann. Wow, I think there probably should be consequences for Heymann (and possibly Ortiz), but in one sentence you've probably given the best demonstration of why vigilante justice is so troubling.

rprasad 14y ago

Two weeks after the Secret Service raided his house in conjunction with the investigation led by Heymann into the theft of tens of thousands of credit card numbers, James was found dead. Innocent people do not kill themselves when confronted with the possibility of a trial. They kill themselves after they have lost at trial. This other hacker (Jonathan James) didn't even wait until they pressed charges. It's not a matter of the prosecutor being overzealous. It's a matter of hackers being far more susceptible to suicidal tendencies than others in the face of extreme social conflict.

angersock 14y ago
I have a dead relative that would probably disagree with you. Don't assume so much.
btilly 14y ago
Innocent people do not kill themselves when confronted with the possibility of a trial. They kill themselves after they have lost at trial. Citation needed. It makes perfect sense to me that a depressed person who has realized what trial is going to cost, and who does not believe that anyone is going to believe them, would commit suicide. An innocent person who BELIEVES that they WILL be believed probably reacts very differently. But there are a lot of people in this world who, while innocent, won't necessarily have that belief. I would not be surprised if there was a high concentration of such among people who choose to use computers heavily.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- alaskamiller 14y ago
  Are you a clinical psychologist? Do you have citations for your perfect sense? Can you quantify your lack of surprise?
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Is rprasad a clinical psychologist?. If he is pulling things out of his ass without citations, it seems reasonable that he receive responses that do the same.

nnq 14y ago

I bet 99% of "hackers" (I'm using the criminal sense of the word, that I hate to use, btw) have psychological issues of one way or another and they are a suicide risk! The SS, prosecutors and whoever handles these people should fucking take that into account and put it in balance with the fact that they are a valuable resource to society! You may put a "criminal hacker" in jail for credit card fraud, but chances are, if he doesn't stay in there too long to get his brain "fried", he will grow up to become the security guy that keeps shit safe so you can keep online shopping 'till you drop! I mean... these guys are a subset of what one calls "infosec field people" that are a subset of "IT people" that are a subset of "tech people"... the smaller the subset the less the chance that a member of it will be (1) "well socialized", (2) "psychologically robust" or even (3) "sane"... add up that they're in their 20s and... what would you freakin expect?!

danso 14y ago
Don't think too many people are going to go for the idea of a certain type of criminal requiring certain special treatment...why couldn't rapists and murderers claim the same kind of social deficiencies?
- nnq 14y ago
  Rapists and murderers commit their crimes in the context of close interaction with their victims. Criminal hackers are the opposite. For most of them any form of social interaction, especially the forced one with the law enforcement personnel will be extremely stressful. I think that even "basic interaction with the law system" would qualify as a mild form of psychological torture for hackers. Imagine keeping a drug addicted rapist in solitary confinement for a month with no drugs, in a windowless cell, preventing him from even masturbating or smth like that - I think this would be closer to the psychological equivalent of the stress "hackers" experience when interacting with the law system! (ok, maybe I'm exaggerating with this example but I don't know enough about drug addicted rapists' psychology to construct a better one) Jonathan James wrote in his suicide note "Either way, I have lost control over this situation and this is my only way to regain control". For him, the lack of control and predictability of his future, induced by interaction with the law system was painful enough to make him commit suicide! People are very different and respond very differently to stress - my "basic family social interactions" may mean "psychological torture" to you! :)

aw3c2 14y ago

Already discussed three days ago http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5049881 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5049881

jamesaguilar 14y ago

I can understand how people might expect different behavior in the Swartz case. But what in the behavior discussed in this article is other than exactly what you would expect? Of course she is going to prosecute a credit card thief who has stolen tens of thousands of cards. How does this stack up as added evidence against her?

monsterix 14y ago
Please 'know' before taking sides. It's easy to comment, and opine, than to know. Here are some insights from Wikipedia: US has had the highest incarceration rate in past decade [1]. Why so? Does it mean more percentage of citizens are lately turning into what one would qualify as a criminal, a thief or a murderer? Or otherwise. Quoting from Wikipedia: A. "The United States has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated population." B. "imprisons a larger percentage of its black population than South Africa did at the height of apartheid" C. A graph showing a strange spike: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_incarceration_timeline-clean-fixed-timescale.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_incarceration_timeline-... etc. etc. etc. Also consider these - is it is profitable for a section/group of people (read prosecutors or ip enforcers) to persecute and push people over using tricks like applying one set of laws, if another set of laws couldn't be applied? Is it like we have provision for cheapness in trials, but none for justice or humanity. Is the intention of a trial to set an example, or to be fair? Is it not criminal wastage of money, time and talent this way? I mean these are intricate details that reveal something is wrong at leadership level. Related to the direction of the country. This is not a working level problem which is where students, staff, entrepreneurs and hackers lie. Ponder. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Sta... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_James http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_James [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rat... [Edits: Grammar, tone and with inputs from Ars below.]
- ars 14y ago
  What does this have to do with what jamesaguilar posted? > No. Surely, something else is broken. Really? There are no other options you can think of? Perhaps the US is simply stricter? I quote from the article this image is from: "Still, it is the length of sentences that truly distinguishes American prison policy. Indeed, the mere number of sentences imposed here would not place the United States at the top of the incarceration lists." So yup, the US is stricter, but it does not have more criminals, nor does it imprison more people. > A graph showing a strange spike There is no spike, this is the result of using a linear graph when it should have been a logarithmic one. (A very common mistake, and also frequently employed when trying to make a point without support in the data.) In this particular graph even better would be to normalize to the population level, but logarithmic is also OK. Either way, if you fix the graph you will find no spike. This graph is better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._incarceration_rates_1925_onwards.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._incarceration_rates_1... It shows an increase, but no spike. So why the increase? And especially why has it slowed down? Read this and you shall know: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5006368 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5006368

logn 14y ago

Seems like we need a prosecutor with the zeal of Stephen Heymann to go after Stephen Heymann. This guy's history has a smell. Two suicides? Maybe there's something more going on? Maybe not, but it's worth a look.

jnsaff2 14y ago

"Swartz’s attorney Elliot Peters accused Heymann of aggressively pursuing Swartz because the case “"was going to receive press and he was going to be a tough guy and read his name in the newspaper."" This is very similar to how many SV startup founders and CEO's roll. Press-coverage and case-studies are more important than actually doing something worth doing.

guard-of-terra 14y ago

I don't understand why people like JJ kill just themself. Me, I would go postal (kill someone from that 'justice' system?) in a situation like this. And only then myself. At least I hope I would have the guts to.

downandout 14y ago

The reality is that it is quite rare for a federal defendant to kill themselves. To have 2 of them (that we know about) stemming from prosecutions by one individual, I would have to say, is pretty remarkable. While it could just be a coincidence, the one common denominator in these two statistically rare incidents is Stephen Heymann. We'll just call him "Suicide Steve". On a somewhat related note, the callousness of the people that work in the MA US Attorney's office apparently extends to their spouses. The husband of US Attorney Carmen Ortiz posted on his (now deleted) twitter account criticizing Aaron's family for the content of his obituary (screenshot of his tweet here - http://imgur.com/IR5ah http://imgur.com/IR5ah ).

djt 14y ago
Is it quite rare though? It would be good to see some figures on that. It could also be sampling bias playing a part. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_bias
- downandout 14y ago
  Two does not necessarily make a trend, to be sure. However, if the odds are 1 in 10,000, a small number of incidents quickly become a significant indicator that the way this guy handles cases dramatically increases the likelihood of suicide. I don't know if any reports have been done on the subject that would be relevant here (specific to federal defendants, as they generally are looking at more time and are more likely to be experiencing jail for the first time than state defendants). However, anectdotally, I know a fair number of criminal defense attorneys, and they all say that it's actually quite rare. It seems that most defense attorneys have never had a criminal client commit suicide.
  - Fjolle 14y ago
    You assume way too much. I highly doubt that federal defendants are 10 times less likely to commit suicide than the general population in USA. For me personally two is still waaay to low for it to be considered anything but a fluke.

gesman 14y ago

Dr. Steve, Assisted suicide expert.

snowwrestler 14y ago

Only one person is responsible for a suicide--the person who committed suicide. This realization is a very important part of the healing process for those left behind. Otherwise it's possible to torture oneself thinking "if only I'd done more." Logically, if it's partially Steve Heymann's fault, it could also partially be the fault of those close to Aaron who did not sufficiently help him. Or at least, there is a danger that those close to Aaron could feel this way--it's very common in suicides. But ultimately, Aaron chose to kill himself, and it was solely his decision to do so.

sk5t 14y ago
This seems like a dangerous way to understand any harmful act. It may be inconvenient that other views trouble the healing process, but wishing doesn't make it so. Suppose one were to say, "Only one person is responsible for a DUI fatality--the driver. Otherwise it's possible for the bartender to torture himself thinking 'if only I'd cut him off two hours ago.'"
- snowwrestler 14y ago
  The driver is the only person responsible for a DUI, unless they were somehow forced into driving against their will. Are you seriously proposing that we hold bartenders responsible for the actions of drunk people?
  - sk5t 14y ago
    I'm not proposing it--the law already recognizes that bars bear some of the responsibility for over-serving their customers. It's rarely-enforced, however, and appears that the drunken driver must harm someone with a bit of pull in the legal system for charges to surface. http://missoulian.com/news/local/bartender-sentenced-to-jail-for-serving-drinks-that-led-to/article_ae790a40-7a41-11df-bd40-001cc4c03286.html http://missoulian.com/news/local/bartender-sentenced-to-jail...

pdonis 14y ago

One factoid in the article about Aaron Swartz's case confuses me: "Though JSTOR decided not to press charges – and even urged the US government to drop the case – MIT went ahead with a civil suit." First I've heard of a civil suit by MIT against Swartz. Has anyone seen anything corroborating this?