4 ms·
It's hard to take your comment at face value, but I'll assume you are being genuine. Aaron Swartz gave us granularity to what the term "hacker" should be used
by TheBiv 12y ago
It's hard to take your comment at face value, but I'll assume you are being genuine.
Aaron Swartz gave us granularity to what the term "hacker" should be used for, when it comes to malicious intent. It was likely possible for lawyers to argue that anyone who used a computer to download something could been seen as having malicious intent. However Aaron's case has proven that you have to look at what was being downloaded, how and why before you can paint a broad brush such as malicious intent.
- exelius 12y agoI don't disagree that Swartz was a victim of a ludicrously overzealous justice system, but I wouldn't call him a hero. What he did was illegal and he knew it was illegal when he did it. You can argue that it was a bad law and he was practicing civil disobedience, but I don't think it was that either (a big part of traditional civil disobedience is to draw the process out as long and as loudly as possible, then proudly serve the time.) Maybe it started out as civil disobedience, then depression kicked in and he felt hopeless and took his own life. It's hard to say, and honestly I'm sick of the post-mortem psychoanalysis of a kid who was trying to make sense of his life (as we all were at that age). But either way, Swartz was not a mere victim of circumstance; he made choices that painted a target on his back, malicious intent or no.