9 ms·

"Aaron would be alive today if MIT had acted as JSTOR did. MIT had a moral imperative to do so." It's natural to look for someone to blame. Should we lay the b

by freyr 13y ago

"Aaron would be alive today if MIT had acted as JSTOR did. MIT had a moral imperative to do so." It's natural to look for someone to blame. Should we lay the blame on MIT? If they had called off an overzealous D.A. from throwing the book at him, he might be alive today. Why not blame the D.A.? Or JSTOR? In any case, aiding in prosecution did not cause his death directly. The decision to commit suicide was ultimately his own. Of all the options he had available to him, he consciously chose that option. I'm reminded of a quote by Viktor Frankl: "Forces beyond your control can take away everything you possess except one thing, your freedom to choose how you will respond to the situation." Aaron had the power to choose right until his last choice. Why do some people survive terrible hardships, and others don't? According to his close friends' personal accounts, Aaron suffered from suicidal thoughts and depression for many years. Long before the JSTOR case, and long before MIT ever got involved. As long as we're speculating about things we can't know for sure, I'm guessing depression was really to blame for his suicide. That won't satisfy everyone, since it doesn't give them a powerful organization to rage against. But reality doesn't always work that way.

jlgreco 13y ago
> If they had called off an overzealous D.A. from throwing the book at him, he might be alive today. Why not blame the D.A.? False dilemma. I am capable of blaming both.
- freyr 13y ago
  Sure. Are you blaming them both for the same thing? And what is that, exactly? His anguish, his death, both?
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    I consider both to be partially responsible for his death. Not legally, but morally.
VladRussian2 13y ago
yep, blame the victim. People on HN like to remind others about need to take responsibility for one's own actions. They did it to Aaron before his death and do this after. Being a passive observer while something awful is being done to another human being is a bit uncomfortable, it is much easy and self-comforting to our consciousness to think about the victim as being the one who is solely responsible for and is causing the awful things being done to him.
- freyr 13y ago
  > it is much easy and self-comforting to our consciousness to think about the victim as being the one who is solely responsible for and is causing the awful things being done to him. Just as it's much easier to heap the blame on a villain, rather than consider that Aaron had other options and a life still full of potential. My point is that both perspectives are one-dimensional and both rely heavily on speculation about things that you and I don't really know about. And more to the point, both downplay the reality that Aaron suffered from severe depression for years preceding the trial. If MIT was the tipping point, so be it. But often the tipping point is just the proverbial straw, and shouldn't be held responsible for Aaron's actions.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - VladRussian2 13y ago
    >Just as it's much easier to heap the blame on a villain, rather than consider that Aaron had other options and a life still full of potential. 1.redirect the blame from actual villain to the victim. "easier to heap the blame on a villain" - an especially great line, i immediately felt sorry for doing it. >My point is that both perspectives are one-dimensional and both rely heavily on speculation about things that you and I don't really know about. 2.sow the doubt. >And more to the point, both downplay the reality that Aaron suffered from severe depression for years preceding the trial. If MIT was the tipping point, so be it. But often the tipping point is just the proverbial straw, and shouldn't be held responsible for Aaron's actions. 3.downplay the villain's actions severity through showing a perceived weakness of the victim. Nice, man!
FuzzyDunlop 13y ago
> Why do some people survive terrible hardships, and others don't? > Aaron suffered from [...] depression for many years. This answers the question, although I would prefer not to use the term 'suicidal depression', which is not a medical term. As someone who's attempted suicide, I also believe your choice of quote is both wrong and unfair. Surviving the holocaust is in no way comparable to surviving the things your mind can convince you to do when you suffer from anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder or any other such condition.
- freyr 13y ago
  You're right, the fact that Frankl was a holocaust survivor was not relevant, and I didn't mean to draw a comparison between the two experiences. My impression of depression is that it's pervasive and crippling, and often the events surrounding it can be incidental. Not to say that one event couldn't be a tipping point, but neither is it fair to put all blame on one event or one organization or one person, as it downplays the effect of the underlying condition.
  - FuzzyDunlop 13y ago
    And also by the same token, pinning it squarely on the condition can equally downplay the situation such a person might find themselves in. It's an incredibly difficult topic to discuss.
WalterSear 13y ago
I think we are confusing 'responsible for his death' with 'the cause of his death' The mental anguish of being ruthlessly sued by a government, with the cooperation and possible collusion of your school, and facing the potential for many years in prison is inarguably substantial. How well would you have handled the same thing? Whether a more stable person would have been able to suck it up is inconsequential - they still did the damage that they did. In his case, it was too much. The damage is there either way. They may not be responsible for the ultimate outcome, but they are responsible for the anguish that put him there.
- mscarborough 13y ago
  > with the cooperation and possible collusion of your school Aaron went to Stanford, and was for a time a fellow at Harvard. To my knowledge he was never an MIT student, and chose MIT for the network hack for separate reasons.
  - WalterSear 13y ago
    I stand corrected.
    - jlev 13y ago
      He wasn't a student, but he was definitely part of the MIT community. He was in a student group, a technical member of the W3C (housed on campus), and his father was an alum and a contractor at the Media Lab. Joi Ito, the head of the lab, sent President Reif a letter asking if this could be dealt with as a "family matter". Reif (or his lawyers) refused. MIT may not be culpable in his suicide, but they sure don't come out of this looking good. They maintained strict neutrality, when they could have stood up for open access. Their behavior makes me ashamed to be an alum of my school.
- Shivetya 13y ago
  they are party responsible that is true, but he is responsible himself for creating the situation that brought him to their attention. Do need weigh every prosecution against the ability of the accused to act rationally? Do rational actors break laws or go to extremes to do so? I am all for levying some culpability on MIT, but it started with him
coldtea 13y ago
>Aaron had the power to choose right until his last choice. Why do some people survive terrible hardships, and others don't? That's bad reasoning. That "some people survive terrible hardships, and others don't" can just as well prove the reverse: that NOT all people have the same "power to choose". Especially a self-professed depressive like Aaron. Some people are more thick-skinned, either due to temperament, upbringing, genetics, circumstances etc. >I'm guessing suicidal depression was really to blame for his suicide. And this "suicidal depression" was unknown to MIT/his prosecutors? Or they found it nice to taunt and threaten someone suffering with such, over a non-issue? >That won't satisfy everyone, since it doesn't give them a powerful organization to rage against. But reality doesn't always work that way. I'm finding pop psychology explanations like your serve another plausible rationalization mechanism: it makes those saying them feel superior and more logical compared to the naives that "seek a powerful organization to rage against". (If you allow me the same pop psychology) In the real world, putting the blame with Aaron and his depression doesn't solve anything (even if it was true). Blaming MIT and the prosecution will prevent people from being fucked for trying similar benfifical hacks in the future.
- freyr 13y ago
  > In the real world, putting the blame with Aaron and his depression doesn't solve anything (even if it was true). > Blaming MIT and the prosecution will prevent people from being fucked for trying similar benfifical hacks in the future. So MIT and the prosecution unfairly targeted Aaron to serve their personal motives. And now you're suggesting we unfairly pin his death on them to serve your personal motives. I'm done with this.
  - markdown 13y ago
    Set aside the suicide and imagine that Aaron were still alive today, and you'll find that everything we're saying against MIT still stands. They acted terribly. The thing is, a guy's dead, and the best thing we can do is use his death to make the world a better place.
    - mpyne 13y ago
chaostheory 13y ago
> According to his close friends' personal accounts, Aaron suffered from suicidal depression for many years. Long before the JSTOR case, and long before MIT ever got involved One can argue that both MIT and the DOJ needlessly helped exacerbate a problem over a victimless crime of providing free access to publicly funded research. http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR... http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR..... "AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million." http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit/bj8oThPDwzgxBSHQt3tyKI/story.html http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit... "Andy Good, Swartz’s initial lawyer, is alternately sad and furious. 'The thing that galls me is that I told Heymann the kid was a suicide risk,' Good told me. 'His reaction was a standard reaction in that office, not unique to Steve. He said, ‘Fine, we’ll lock him up.’ I’m not saying they made Aaron kill himself. Aaron might have done this anyway. I’m saying they were aware of the risk, and they were heedless.'" "Marty Weinberg, who took the case over from Good, said he nearly negotiated a plea bargain in which Swartz would not serve any time. He said JSTOR signed off on it, but MIT would not. 'There were subsets of the MIT community who were profoundly in support of Aaron,' Weinberg said. That support did not override institutional interests."
- v1tyaz 13y ago
  "...victimless crime of providing free access to publicly funded research" Sorry, I'm just curious, but how do you propose funding the scanning, organizing and hosting of this research? JStor is a non-profit that has spent tons of money going back and doing all of this for millions of articles, and continues to spend money doing it so researchers can access the data without having to flip through thousands of paper research journals in some library.
  - chaostheory 13y ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't allowing researchers to freely post their publicly funded papers on whatever medium they desire whether it's their own website or another freely accessible site solve this problem? As you've also pointed out, JStor is a non-profit. Donations and soliciting volunteers would probably help fund this stuff; it seems to work fine for Wikipedia. Regardless, publicly funded research shouldn't be kept behind pay walls.
thezilch 13y ago
Throughout this thread, you purport that Taren wants to blame and hold responsible MIT for Aaron's death. When, instead, from start to finish, she is calling out their actions that lead up to Aaron's "decision." Their "whitewashing" and possibly lying about the facts and continued ignorance that they had alternatives that might have taken Aaron -- others in future, similar cases -- down a different path. You don't rebuke the text you quote of her's.

by freyr 13y ago

jlgreco 13y ago

> If they had called off an overzealous D.A. from throwing the book at him, he might be alive today. Why not blame the D.A.? False dilemma. I am capable of blaming both.

freyr 13y ago
Sure. Are you blaming them both for the same thing? And what is that, exactly? His anguish, his death, both?
- jlgreco 13y ago
  I consider both to be partially responsible for his death. Not legally, but morally.

VladRussian2 13y ago

yep, blame the victim. People on HN like to remind others about need to take responsibility for one's own actions. They did it to Aaron before his death and do this after. Being a passive observer while something awful is being done to another human being is a bit uncomfortable, it is much easy and self-comforting to our consciousness to think about the victim as being the one who is solely responsible for and is causing the awful things being done to him.

freyr 13y ago
> it is much easy and self-comforting to our consciousness to think about the victim as being the one who is solely responsible for and is causing the awful things being done to him. Just as it's much easier to heap the blame on a villain, rather than consider that Aaron had other options and a life still full of potential. My point is that both perspectives are one-dimensional and both rely heavily on speculation about things that you and I don't really know about. And more to the point, both downplay the reality that Aaron suffered from severe depression for years preceding the trial. If MIT was the tipping point, so be it. But often the tipping point is just the proverbial straw, and shouldn't be held responsible for Aaron's actions.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  >Just as it's much easier to heap the blame on a villain, rather than consider that Aaron had other options and a life still full of potential. 1.redirect the blame from actual villain to the victim. "easier to heap the blame on a villain" - an especially great line, i immediately felt sorry for doing it. >My point is that both perspectives are one-dimensional and both rely heavily on speculation about things that you and I don't really know about. 2.sow the doubt. >And more to the point, both downplay the reality that Aaron suffered from severe depression for years preceding the trial. If MIT was the tipping point, so be it. But often the tipping point is just the proverbial straw, and shouldn't be held responsible for Aaron's actions. 3.downplay the villain's actions severity through showing a perceived weakness of the victim. Nice, man!

FuzzyDunlop 13y ago

> Why do some people survive terrible hardships, and others don't? > Aaron suffered from [...] depression for many years. This answers the question, although I would prefer not to use the term 'suicidal depression', which is not a medical term. As someone who's attempted suicide, I also believe your choice of quote is both wrong and unfair. Surviving the holocaust is in no way comparable to surviving the things your mind can convince you to do when you suffer from anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder or any other such condition.

freyr 13y ago
You're right, the fact that Frankl was a holocaust survivor was not relevant, and I didn't mean to draw a comparison between the two experiences. My impression of depression is that it's pervasive and crippling, and often the events surrounding it can be incidental. Not to say that one event couldn't be a tipping point, but neither is it fair to put all blame on one event or one organization or one person, as it downplays the effect of the underlying condition.
- FuzzyDunlop 13y ago
  And also by the same token, pinning it squarely on the condition can equally downplay the situation such a person might find themselves in. It's an incredibly difficult topic to discuss.

WalterSear 13y ago

I think we are confusing 'responsible for his death' with 'the cause of his death' The mental anguish of being ruthlessly sued by a government, with the cooperation and possible collusion of your school, and facing the potential for many years in prison is inarguably substantial. How well would you have handled the same thing? Whether a more stable person would have been able to suck it up is inconsequential - they still did the damage that they did. In his case, it was too much. The damage is there either way. They may not be responsible for the ultimate outcome, but they are responsible for the anguish that put him there.

mscarborough 13y ago
> with the cooperation and possible collusion of your school Aaron went to Stanford, and was for a time a fellow at Harvard. To my knowledge he was never an MIT student, and chose MIT for the network hack for separate reasons.
- WalterSear 13y ago
  I stand corrected.
  - jlev 13y ago
    He wasn't a student, but he was definitely part of the MIT community. He was in a student group, a technical member of the W3C (housed on campus), and his father was an alum and a contractor at the Media Lab. Joi Ito, the head of the lab, sent President Reif a letter asking if this could be dealt with as a "family matter". Reif (or his lawyers) refused. MIT may not be culpable in his suicide, but they sure don't come out of this looking good. They maintained strict neutrality, when they could have stood up for open access. Their behavior makes me ashamed to be an alum of my school.
Shivetya 13y ago
they are party responsible that is true, but he is responsible himself for creating the situation that brought him to their attention. Do need weigh every prosecution against the ability of the accused to act rationally? Do rational actors break laws or go to extremes to do so? I am all for levying some culpability on MIT, but it started with him

coldtea 13y ago

>Aaron had the power to choose right until his last choice. Why do some people survive terrible hardships, and others don't? That's bad reasoning. That "some people survive terrible hardships, and others don't" can just as well prove the reverse: that NOT all people have the same "power to choose". Especially a self-professed depressive like Aaron. Some people are more thick-skinned, either due to temperament, upbringing, genetics, circumstances etc. >I'm guessing suicidal depression was really to blame for his suicide. And this "suicidal depression" was unknown to MIT/his prosecutors? Or they found it nice to taunt and threaten someone suffering with such, over a non-issue? >That won't satisfy everyone, since it doesn't give them a powerful organization to rage against. But reality doesn't always work that way. I'm finding pop psychology explanations like your serve another plausible rationalization mechanism: it makes those saying them feel superior and more logical compared to the naives that "seek a powerful organization to rage against". (If you allow me the same pop psychology) In the real world, putting the blame with Aaron and his depression doesn't solve anything (even if it was true). Blaming MIT and the prosecution will prevent people from being fucked for trying similar benfifical hacks in the future.

freyr 13y ago
> In the real world, putting the blame with Aaron and his depression doesn't solve anything (even if it was true). > Blaming MIT and the prosecution will prevent people from being fucked for trying similar benfifical hacks in the future. So MIT and the prosecution unfairly targeted Aaron to serve their personal motives. And now you're suggesting we unfairly pin his death on them to serve your personal motives. I'm done with this.
- markdown 13y ago
  Set aside the suicide and imagine that Aaron were still alive today, and you'll find that everything we're saying against MIT still stands. They acted terribly. The thing is, a guy's dead, and the best thing we can do is use his death to make the world a better place.
  - mpyne 13y ago

chaostheory 13y ago

> According to his close friends' personal accounts, Aaron suffered from suicidal depression for many years. Long before the JSTOR case, and long before MIT ever got involved One can argue that both MIT and the DOJ needlessly helped exacerbate a problem over a victimless crime of providing free access to publicly funded research. http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR... http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR..... "AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million." http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit/bj8oThPDwzgxBSHQt3tyKI/story.html http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-deficit... "Andy Good, Swartz’s initial lawyer, is alternately sad and furious. 'The thing that galls me is that I told Heymann the kid was a suicide risk,' Good told me. 'His reaction was a standard reaction in that office, not unique to Steve. He said, ‘Fine, we’ll lock him up.’ I’m not saying they made Aaron kill himself. Aaron might have done this anyway. I’m saying they were aware of the risk, and they were heedless.'" "Marty Weinberg, who took the case over from Good, said he nearly negotiated a plea bargain in which Swartz would not serve any time. He said JSTOR signed off on it, but MIT would not. 'There were subsets of the MIT community who were profoundly in support of Aaron,' Weinberg said. That support did not override institutional interests."

v1tyaz 13y ago
"...victimless crime of providing free access to publicly funded research" Sorry, I'm just curious, but how do you propose funding the scanning, organizing and hosting of this research? JStor is a non-profit that has spent tons of money going back and doing all of this for millions of articles, and continues to spend money doing it so researchers can access the data without having to flip through thousands of paper research journals in some library.
- chaostheory 13y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't allowing researchers to freely post their publicly funded papers on whatever medium they desire whether it's their own website or another freely accessible site solve this problem? As you've also pointed out, JStor is a non-profit. Donations and soliciting volunteers would probably help fund this stuff; it seems to work fine for Wikipedia. Regardless, publicly funded research shouldn't be kept behind pay walls.

thezilch 13y ago

Throughout this thread, you purport that Taren wants to blame and hold responsible MIT for Aaron's death. When, instead, from start to finish, she is calling out their actions that lead up to Aaron's "decision." Their "whitewashing" and possibly lying about the facts and continued ignorance that they had alternatives that might have taken Aaron -- others in future, similar cases -- down a different path. You don't rebuke the text you quote of her's.