9 ms·

I'm still more disturbed by the laws in play. Aaron was facing a cumulative maximum penalty of 35 years in prison. The roommates of one of the Boston bombers

by Smerity 13y ago

I'm still more disturbed by the laws in play. Aaron was facing a cumulative maximum penalty of 35 years in prison. The roommates of one of the Boston bombers was only facing 25 years in prison[1] if found guilty of helping Dzhokhar Tsarnaev dispose of a laptop, fireworks, and a backpack in the aftermath of the bombings. I understand it's not a straight comparison, but no matter how I try to re-arrange those numbers in my head, I can't reconcile the impact to punishment. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombings#Dias_Kadyrbayev.2C_Azamat_Tazhayakov_and_Robel_Phillipos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombings#Dias_K...

betterunix 13y ago
Well now, the Boston bombers only killed three people -- bad, but you know, not that bad. Aaron was going to freely distribute knowledge to people, threatening a centuries-old business model and potentially allowing undeserving people to learn something. Worse, Aaron had already freely shared legal documents on the Internet, and had the nerve to stand up for himself and not be thrown in jail for it. Obviously Aaron was doing something far more dangerous and destructive to our country than aiding a terrorist.
- herbig 13y ago
  It's money, power, and ego over individual humans lives. Yesterday's top post on HN was "Burn the Fucking System to the Ground."
- bananacurve 13y ago
  >Well now, the Boston bombers only killed three people -- bad, but you know, not that bad. That is cruel to the hundreds injured. Try harder to not be a jackass.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    I think you might have missed the sarcasm in that sentence, and maybe in the rest of my post. Try harder to understand the things you read before commenting on them.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
      - hhw 13y ago
        You clearly misread what he posted, and are now threatening violence? That is beyond pathetic. Grow up, and get over yourself.
        bananacurve 13y ago
        Fine. Deleted. betterunix is a mouthy clown who would never dare say his bullshit in person. Edit: Read his comments, he often is uninformed. I am very sympathetic to Aaron but joking about those injured at the marathon is stupid.
bsdetector 13y ago
They also come down hard on arson. Why? Because it's really, really easy to get away with arson so they make the punishment really severe to alter the equation. If you got 3 months with probation for arson there would be fires all over the place -- at least that's the calculus. Same thing with computer crimes. It could have been pretty easy to get away with the data if Swartz had been even slightly clever about it (like not physically returning to the scene of the crime...). It's not as easy to get away with as one might think (see Harvard bomb threat guy), but that's the perception of lawmakers.
- DanBC 13y ago
  They come down hard on arson because it risks lives of people in buildings and firefighters, not because it's easy to commit. Many crimes are easy to commit. The reason that there aren't more fatal stabbings isn't because there's a long prison sentence but because most people are not stabbers.
  - sinwave 13y ago
    I think bsdetector was referring to the expected cost of committing arson. (Probability of Getting Caught) * (Expected repercussions if caught) = (Expected Cost of Crime). bsdetector was saying that it is "easy to get away with" arson i.e. the "probability of getting caught" is low, so the heavy consequences are intended to address the low expected cost of the crime.
mpyne 13y ago
> Aaron was facing a cumulative maximum penalty of 35 years in prison. That's not true in any reasonable sense. And either way if you're just adding up cumulative values it was 50 years after the charges were amended, not 35. From Jennifer Granick's post [1] decrying everything that the prosecutors did to Aaron: > He would be looking at 15 to 21 months of incarceration. That number could get higher quickly. ... True, 35 years wasn't in the cards, despite the fact that's the sentence the government publicly waived over Aaron's head. Neither was a maximum of 50 years, which was what the government arrived at after its perplexing choice to get a superceding indictment. But Aaron could easily have come out to over a year in his guideline calculation. Either way there were plea options on the table. Do you think there's any chance that Tsarnaev ends up with 6 months in jail for killing 3 people and wounding dozens more? Don't muddle up the real need for CFAA reform with such shoddy logic and misleading statements, it only makes it easier for legislators to ignore you as a "mere extremist". [1] http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/01/towards-learning-losing-aaron-swartz-part-2 http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/01/towards-learning-l... (you'll note she's not a fan of the Federal government on this)
- Smerity 13y ago
  I said upfront that this is not a straight up comparison. The main point for me is that I walk past the memorial for the MIT police officer killed in duty about once per week. One of these events had a tremendous impact on MIT and the surrounding community, the other had a negligible one. Regardless, have a re-read of the article you linked to. Jennifer Granick writes: > He could plead guilty to all 13 felony charges and the government would argue for a six-month prison term ... Some have blithely said Aaron should just have taken a deal. This is callous. There was great practical risk to Aaron from pleading to any felony. ... More particularly, the court is not constrained to sentence as the government suggests. ... if he plead guilty to a felony, he could have been sentenced to as many as 5 years, despite the government's agreement not to argue for more. Each additional conviction would increase the cap by 5 years ... On top of that, Aaron "would have had to swear under oath that he committed a crime, something he did not actually believe". Due to the obscenely high maximum penalty, it is no longer a sane option to fight to prove one's innocence, even in the case of what would be a minor crime, as the risk in case of failure is disastrous. Even if he pleaded guilty to all the crimes, there was no guarantee of a six month sentence. Thank you for linking to the article though. It's well written and sheds a light on the complexities at play. Small note: I didn't mention Tsarnaev in my original post, I mentioned his roommates, so your statement about Tsarnaev and a six month jail term is unfounded.
rscale 13y ago
I also find the sentence Aaron faced to be excessive. For additional context, David Headley received a 35 year sentence for his active participation in the Mumbai bombings which killed 160 people.[1] The median sentence for murder and non-negligent manslaughter in the US (effective 2000) is 24 years, 3 months.[2] I can't help but find Aaron's prospective punishment to be far more abhorrent than his crimes. It continues to sadden me that MIT used their influence in such a hurtful manner. [1]: http://www.propublica.org/article/david-headley-homegrown-terrorist http://www.propublica.org/article/david-headley-homegrown-te... [2]: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/Fssc00.txt http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/Fssc00.txt
- rayiner 13y ago
  There is no sensible way in the U.S. to talk about a sentence without reference to the Sentencing Guidelines. Any number not based on the guidelines is effectively fiction. If he got more than the one or two years guideline range they would be in danger of being overturned on appeal. That's still excessive of course. The CFAA is a misdemeanor, and the provision allowing it to be enhanced to a felony in conjunction with another crime is misguided.
- pdonis 13y ago
  It continues to sadden me that MIT used their influence in such a hurtful manner. I don't think this is a fair description; it would be fairer to say that MIT failed to use its influence in a helpful manner. (Even then I'm not sure it would have made a difference; it seems to me that the prosecutors were intent on "getting" Swartz and weren't listening to reasonable arguments for backing off.)
  - Jormundir 13y ago
    Whether it would have made a difference or not, the institution had the chance to act for what was right, and they did not.
    - pdonis 13y ago
      True, but that's failing to use its influence helpfully; it's not the same as using influence hurtfully.

by Smerity 13y ago

betterunix 13y ago

Well now, the Boston bombers only killed three people -- bad, but you know, not that bad. Aaron was going to freely distribute knowledge to people, threatening a centuries-old business model and potentially allowing undeserving people to learn something. Worse, Aaron had already freely shared legal documents on the Internet, and had the nerve to stand up for himself and not be thrown in jail for it. Obviously Aaron was doing something far more dangerous and destructive to our country than aiding a terrorist.

herbig 13y ago
It's money, power, and ego over individual humans lives. Yesterday's top post on HN was "Burn the Fucking System to the Ground."
bananacurve 13y ago
>Well now, the Boston bombers only killed three people -- bad, but you know, not that bad. That is cruel to the hundreds injured. Try harder to not be a jackass.
- betterunix 13y ago
  I think you might have missed the sarcasm in that sentence, and maybe in the rest of my post. Try harder to understand the things you read before commenting on them.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - hhw 13y ago
      You clearly misread what he posted, and are now threatening violence? That is beyond pathetic. Grow up, and get over yourself.
      - bananacurve 13y ago
        Fine. Deleted. betterunix is a mouthy clown who would never dare say his bullshit in person. Edit: Read his comments, he often is uninformed. I am very sympathetic to Aaron but joking about those injured at the marathon is stupid.

bsdetector 13y ago

They also come down hard on arson. Why? Because it's really, really easy to get away with arson so they make the punishment really severe to alter the equation. If you got 3 months with probation for arson there would be fires all over the place -- at least that's the calculus. Same thing with computer crimes. It could have been pretty easy to get away with the data if Swartz had been even slightly clever about it (like not physically returning to the scene of the crime...). It's not as easy to get away with as one might think (see Harvard bomb threat guy), but that's the perception of lawmakers.

DanBC 13y ago
They come down hard on arson because it risks lives of people in buildings and firefighters, not because it's easy to commit. Many crimes are easy to commit. The reason that there aren't more fatal stabbings isn't because there's a long prison sentence but because most people are not stabbers.
- sinwave 13y ago
  I think bsdetector was referring to the expected cost of committing arson. (Probability of Getting Caught) * (Expected repercussions if caught) = (Expected Cost of Crime). bsdetector was saying that it is "easy to get away with" arson i.e. the "probability of getting caught" is low, so the heavy consequences are intended to address the low expected cost of the crime.

mpyne 13y ago

> Aaron was facing a cumulative maximum penalty of 35 years in prison. That's not true in any reasonable sense. And either way if you're just adding up cumulative values it was 50 years after the charges were amended, not 35. From Jennifer Granick's post [1] decrying everything that the prosecutors did to Aaron: > He would be looking at 15 to 21 months of incarceration. That number could get higher quickly. ... True, 35 years wasn't in the cards, despite the fact that's the sentence the government publicly waived over Aaron's head. Neither was a maximum of 50 years, which was what the government arrived at after its perplexing choice to get a superceding indictment. But Aaron could easily have come out to over a year in his guideline calculation. Either way there were plea options on the table. Do you think there's any chance that Tsarnaev ends up with 6 months in jail for killing 3 people and wounding dozens more? Don't muddle up the real need for CFAA reform with such shoddy logic and misleading statements, it only makes it easier for legislators to ignore you as a "mere extremist". [1] http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/01/towards-learning-losing-aaron-swartz-part-2 http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/01/towards-learning-l... (you'll note she's not a fan of the Federal government on this)

Smerity 13y ago
I said upfront that this is not a straight up comparison. The main point for me is that I walk past the memorial for the MIT police officer killed in duty about once per week. One of these events had a tremendous impact on MIT and the surrounding community, the other had a negligible one. Regardless, have a re-read of the article you linked to. Jennifer Granick writes: > He could plead guilty to all 13 felony charges and the government would argue for a six-month prison term ... Some have blithely said Aaron should just have taken a deal. This is callous. There was great practical risk to Aaron from pleading to any felony. ... More particularly, the court is not constrained to sentence as the government suggests. ... if he plead guilty to a felony, he could have been sentenced to as many as 5 years, despite the government's agreement not to argue for more. Each additional conviction would increase the cap by 5 years ... On top of that, Aaron "would have had to swear under oath that he committed a crime, something he did not actually believe". Due to the obscenely high maximum penalty, it is no longer a sane option to fight to prove one's innocence, even in the case of what would be a minor crime, as the risk in case of failure is disastrous. Even if he pleaded guilty to all the crimes, there was no guarantee of a six month sentence. Thank you for linking to the article though. It's well written and sheds a light on the complexities at play. Small note: I didn't mention Tsarnaev in my original post, I mentioned his roommates, so your statement about Tsarnaev and a six month jail term is unfounded.

rscale 13y ago

I also find the sentence Aaron faced to be excessive. For additional context, David Headley received a 35 year sentence for his active participation in the Mumbai bombings which killed 160 people.[1] The median sentence for murder and non-negligent manslaughter in the US (effective 2000) is 24 years, 3 months.[2] I can't help but find Aaron's prospective punishment to be far more abhorrent than his crimes. It continues to sadden me that MIT used their influence in such a hurtful manner. [1]: http://www.propublica.org/article/david-headley-homegrown-terrorist http://www.propublica.org/article/david-headley-homegrown-te... [2]: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/Fssc00.txt http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/Fssc00.txt

rayiner 13y ago
There is no sensible way in the U.S. to talk about a sentence without reference to the Sentencing Guidelines. Any number not based on the guidelines is effectively fiction. If he got more than the one or two years guideline range they would be in danger of being overturned on appeal. That's still excessive of course. The CFAA is a misdemeanor, and the provision allowing it to be enhanced to a felony in conjunction with another crime is misguided.
pdonis 13y ago
It continues to sadden me that MIT used their influence in such a hurtful manner. I don't think this is a fair description; it would be fairer to say that MIT failed to use its influence in a helpful manner. (Even then I'm not sure it would have made a difference; it seems to me that the prosecutors were intent on "getting" Swartz and weren't listening to reasonable arguments for backing off.)
- Jormundir 13y ago
  Whether it would have made a difference or not, the institution had the chance to act for what was right, and they did not.
  - pdonis 13y ago
    True, but that's failing to use its influence helpfully; it's not the same as using influence hurtfully.