3 ms·

"Some of Swartz's advocates believe the prosecution sought excessive punishment to set an example in the age of Wikileaks and Anonymous." I seriously doubt tha

"Some of Swartz's advocates believe the prosecution sought excessive punishment to set an example in the age of Wikileaks and Anonymous." I seriously doubt that setting an example was a significant motivation. "Ortiz and Heymann refused to offer a deal that didn't include at least six months of prison time and a guilty plea on all 13 charges." In other words there was no deal being offered that didn't include a guilty plea -- a pelt on Ortiz's belt. They targeted Aaron Swartz because he was a rung on their ladder, an easy win. One, he was part of an all but not understood minority to the rest of the population, a hacker. Two, it's routine to portray neutral hackers (our sense of the word) as evil hackers (everyone else's sense). Not understanding what we do makes us all potential witches, and no one is sad when an evil witch gets what he deserves, even when we don't understand what he did. With Swartz ringed in by a large pile of charges, the result would likely have been at least one conviction. It only takes one out of N for Ortiz to put another mark in the "successful prosecutions" column. Swartz just got in the way of Ortiz's and Heymann's ambitions. Collateral damage.

mpyne 14y ago
> One, he was part of an all but not understood minority to the rest of the population, a hacker. Two, it's routine to portray neutral hackers (our sense of the word) as evil hackers (everyone else's sense). His motives might have neutral but his actions were not, at least in this case. But either way, I wish we would all take a step back and critically examine why it is that it is so easy for 'hackers' to be portrayed negatively. Part of it is because "they don't understand", sure. But there's another large part, which is the feeling of helplessness. Computing controls more and more of everyone's life with each passing day. In the past people could take control of more of what was important to them. They could tweak with their car's engine and chassis, they could put money in the bank and feel reasonably safe it wouldn't have disappeared to some identity thief by the morning, they could go home secure in the knowledge that their work would physically be still sitting on their desk when they went back the next day. Now computers have taken over everything and there are very, very few people who actually understand what's going on. And when the "average Joe" sees someone taking advantage of that, for whatever reason, it is natural to feel distrustful. You trust Aaron and I trust Aaron (even if I disagree with his methods), but why should everyone trust Aaron? The past two weeks we've seen a chorus of criticism from hackers regarding a justice system that they don't understand. Much of the criticism is accurate, and much of it wasn't even in the right ballpark. This isn't even the only example, just look at the strictly-technical debates about open source software like Ruby on Rails or systemd where FUD is the rule. So if even the very smartest of us are liable to this type of behavior, why should we expect any better of the general public? People in general want to think that at least someone understands hacking besides the hackers and is working to keep them safe from those few with the means to destroy those computerized things which are becoming increasingly valuable to them.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 14y ago
  > The past two weeks we've seen a chorus of criticism from hackers regarding a justice system that they don't understand. Much of the criticism is accurate, and much of it wasn't even in the right ballpark. Dead on. The DOJ might have, in a fit of paranoia, jumped to the "evil hacker" stereotype because it didn't understand Swartz's actions, but the "hacker community," in a similar fit of paranoia, jumped to the "big evil government suppressing any threats" stereotype. I don't think the DOJ understand the "free culture" movement. At the same time, I don't think a lot of hackers understand the public's desire for order, boundaries, and security.

mpyne 14y ago

> One, he was part of an all but not understood minority to the rest of the population, a hacker. Two, it's routine to portray neutral hackers (our sense of the word) as evil hackers (everyone else's sense). His motives might have neutral but his actions were not, at least in this case. But either way, I wish we would all take a step back and critically examine why it is that it is so easy for 'hackers' to be portrayed negatively. Part of it is because "they don't understand", sure. But there's another large part, which is the feeling of helplessness. Computing controls more and more of everyone's life with each passing day. In the past people could take control of more of what was important to them. They could tweak with their car's engine and chassis, they could put money in the bank and feel reasonably safe it wouldn't have disappeared to some identity thief by the morning, they could go home secure in the knowledge that their work would physically be still sitting on their desk when they went back the next day. Now computers have taken over everything and there are very, very few people who actually understand what's going on. And when the "average Joe" sees someone taking advantage of that, for whatever reason, it is natural to feel distrustful. You trust Aaron and I trust Aaron (even if I disagree with his methods), but why should everyone trust Aaron? The past two weeks we've seen a chorus of criticism from hackers regarding a justice system that they don't understand. Much of the criticism is accurate, and much of it wasn't even in the right ballpark. This isn't even the only example, just look at the strictly-technical debates about open source software like Ruby on Rails or systemd where FUD is the rule. So if even the very smartest of us are liable to this type of behavior, why should we expect any better of the general public? People in general want to think that at least someone understands hacking besides the hackers and is working to keep them safe from those few with the means to destroy those computerized things which are becoming increasingly valuable to them.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 14y ago
> The past two weeks we've seen a chorus of criticism from hackers regarding a justice system that they don't understand. Much of the criticism is accurate, and much of it wasn't even in the right ballpark. Dead on. The DOJ might have, in a fit of paranoia, jumped to the "evil hacker" stereotype because it didn't understand Swartz's actions, but the "hacker community," in a similar fit of paranoia, jumped to the "big evil government suppressing any threats" stereotype. I don't think the DOJ understand the "free culture" movement. At the same time, I don't think a lot of hackers understand the public's desire for order, boundaries, and security.