4 ms·

With all due respect, using Aaron Schwartz's case about copyright as motivator for the case against surveillance seems weird. Why do you even need some personif

by hnha 13y ago

With all due respect, using Aaron Schwartz's case about copyright as motivator for the case against surveillance seems weird. Why do you even need some personification?

bendoernberg 13y ago
I didn't know Aaron Swartz, but my understanding is that surveillance and whistleblowing were important issues for him. For instance, he developed software for anonymous whistleblowing for those like Edward Snowden: http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/aaron-swartz-inbox-for-whistleblowers-is-back-with-an-nsa-proof-makeover http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/aaron-swartz-inbox-for-whis...
- hnha 13y ago
  Nice! I wasn't aware of that, thanks.
- randallsquared 13y ago
  "surveillance and whistleblowing were important issues for him" There you've conflated them again, and then provided another point about Swartz being in favor of access to information. You specifically did not address the grandparent's question about why Swartz would be against access to information for some cases and for access to information in other cases. I'm not suggesting that he wouldn't (I don't know offhand, but it's clear that pro-whistleblowing folks often self-identify as anti-surveillance, too), but it's not clear what information-related principles are being used to justify these positions.
  - quadrangle 13y ago
    I wish you were kidding. Very few people who care about these issues are confused about the difference between access and control over published cultural and scientific information and other inherently public things versus private unpublished personal things. The Free Culture movement is totally aligned with valuing privacy. It doesn't say everything should be public, it says that the public must have freedom regarding things that are in fact public, i.e. things that are published and otherwise necessary for democratic transparency and such.
  - bendoernberg 13y ago
    I guess that's a fair point. I am definitely operating under the assumption that those who worked closely with him would not be using his name for a campaign he would not have supported. Having worked with these organizations and folks in the past, I find that highly unlikely, but I understand why that might not be a convincing argument to everyone.
  - zipdog 13y ago
    I don't think there is a necessary contradiction in "favoring access" to government-promoted or funded arts and sciences, as well as "favoring access" to full disclosure of surveillance programs and desiring effective judicial oversight, and not "favoring access" when the government wants to have a large amount of data about the lives of its citizens. The current surveillance is being performed without oversight and in secret: so a "favoring access" stance aligns with wanting full disclosure of the surveillance, and a judicial process that allows for oversight of what is being surveilled and when. Within the surveillance issue is a desire for privacy (which is not "favouring access" to information, as you note), which I think comes from two issues: that the government is a public institution for the public good and so it has less expectation of privacy than an individual. and also that there is a power imbalance between what the ability to act on information between governments and other entities, and an individual. Publicly-funded research that the public is denied access to is an issue of both government openness and power imbalance. Government promotion of the arts and sciences (which is the reason for copyright) being used to unduly deny the public access to aspects arts and sciences falls into both as well, IMHO.
- RyanMcGreal 13y ago
  He was also the founder of Demand Progress.
Helianthus 13y ago
That's just kinda how people/movements work.
catshirt 13y ago
it didn't feel "weird" to me per se, i see the value. but, also with all due respect, i'm concerned the people who need to read this probably won't be at all familiar with Aaron and it might hinder the message.
larrys 13y ago
"Why do you even need some personification?" People need to be anchored in something they can relate to or is memorable or of note. Think of all the laws like "megans law" etc. Somewhat common to use a person as a rallying point for a cause.
- themckman 13y ago
  But let's be honest with ourselves. In the case of, say, a "Megan's Law", Megan was an innocent little girl who deserved none of what happened to her. Aaron, on the other hand, entered a networking closet, configured his computer in such a way to bypass the network's security/authorization protocols and then violated the terms of service of JSTOR to download all their content. He knew he shouldn't have been doing he was doing, but did it anyways.
  - jmcqk6 13y ago
    >Aaron, on the other hand, entered a networking closet, configured his computer in such a way to bypass the network's security/authorization protocols and then violated the terms of service of JSTOR to download all their content. If you think that's all Aaron did with his life, or that this is what his life should be defined by, then that is a tragedy.
quadrangle 13y ago
As stated by others, Aaron happened to be involved in a copyright issue relating to his legal situation. But his most significant impact on the world is not about copyright specifically but freedom in general. He founded Demand Progress and was key in the fight against SOPA. That's the significance.
- hnha 13y ago
  I, and I guess others judging.by the votes my post got, had no idea. Thanks! Still, sopa and pipa were copyright/censorship, not surveillance.

by hnha 13y ago

With all due respect, using Aaron Schwartz's case about copyright as motivator for the case against surveillance seems weird. Why do you even need some personification?

bendoernberg 13y ago

I didn't know Aaron Swartz, but my understanding is that surveillance and whistleblowing were important issues for him. For instance, he developed software for anonymous whistleblowing for those like Edward Snowden: http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/aaron-swartz-inbox-for-whistleblowers-is-back-with-an-nsa-proof-makeover http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/aaron-swartz-inbox-for-whis...

hnha 13y ago
Nice! I wasn't aware of that, thanks.
randallsquared 13y ago
"surveillance and whistleblowing were important issues for him" There you've conflated them again, and then provided another point about Swartz being in favor of access to information. You specifically did not address the grandparent's question about why Swartz would be against access to information for some cases and for access to information in other cases. I'm not suggesting that he wouldn't (I don't know offhand, but it's clear that pro-whistleblowing folks often self-identify as anti-surveillance, too), but it's not clear what information-related principles are being used to justify these positions.
- quadrangle 13y ago
  I wish you were kidding. Very few people who care about these issues are confused about the difference between access and control over published cultural and scientific information and other inherently public things versus private unpublished personal things. The Free Culture movement is totally aligned with valuing privacy. It doesn't say everything should be public, it says that the public must have freedom regarding things that are in fact public, i.e. things that are published and otherwise necessary for democratic transparency and such.
- bendoernberg 13y ago
  I guess that's a fair point. I am definitely operating under the assumption that those who worked closely with him would not be using his name for a campaign he would not have supported. Having worked with these organizations and folks in the past, I find that highly unlikely, but I understand why that might not be a convincing argument to everyone.
- zipdog 13y ago
  I don't think there is a necessary contradiction in "favoring access" to government-promoted or funded arts and sciences, as well as "favoring access" to full disclosure of surveillance programs and desiring effective judicial oversight, and not "favoring access" when the government wants to have a large amount of data about the lives of its citizens. The current surveillance is being performed without oversight and in secret: so a "favoring access" stance aligns with wanting full disclosure of the surveillance, and a judicial process that allows for oversight of what is being surveilled and when. Within the surveillance issue is a desire for privacy (which is not "favouring access" to information, as you note), which I think comes from two issues: that the government is a public institution for the public good and so it has less expectation of privacy than an individual. and also that there is a power imbalance between what the ability to act on information between governments and other entities, and an individual. Publicly-funded research that the public is denied access to is an issue of both government openness and power imbalance. Government promotion of the arts and sciences (which is the reason for copyright) being used to unduly deny the public access to aspects arts and sciences falls into both as well, IMHO.
RyanMcGreal 13y ago
He was also the founder of Demand Progress.

Helianthus 13y ago

That's just kinda how people/movements work.

catshirt 13y ago

it didn't feel "weird" to me per se, i see the value. but, also with all due respect, i'm concerned the people who need to read this probably won't be at all familiar with Aaron and it might hinder the message.

larrys 13y ago

"Why do you even need some personification?" People need to be anchored in something they can relate to or is memorable or of note. Think of all the laws like "megans law" etc. Somewhat common to use a person as a rallying point for a cause.

themckman 13y ago
But let's be honest with ourselves. In the case of, say, a "Megan's Law", Megan was an innocent little girl who deserved none of what happened to her. Aaron, on the other hand, entered a networking closet, configured his computer in such a way to bypass the network's security/authorization protocols and then violated the terms of service of JSTOR to download all their content. He knew he shouldn't have been doing he was doing, but did it anyways.
- jmcqk6 13y ago
  >Aaron, on the other hand, entered a networking closet, configured his computer in such a way to bypass the network's security/authorization protocols and then violated the terms of service of JSTOR to download all their content. If you think that's all Aaron did with his life, or that this is what his life should be defined by, then that is a tragedy.

quadrangle 13y ago

As stated by others, Aaron happened to be involved in a copyright issue relating to his legal situation. But his most significant impact on the world is not about copyright specifically but freedom in general. He founded Demand Progress and was key in the fight against SOPA. That's the significance.

hnha 13y ago
I, and I guess others judging.by the votes my post got, had no idea. Thanks! Still, sopa and pipa were copyright/censorship, not surveillance.