
US Attorney Chided Swartz On Day of Suicide - Pr0
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/01/13/139218/us-attorney-chided-swartz-on-day-of-suicide
======
flipper28
I think it's kind of ridiculous that everyone is pointing fingers at "everyone
else" other than the man responsible for the suicide, Aaron Swartz himself.

Sure, he was in a tough situation, and I'll admit I don't know the entire
backstory of what led up to this man's suicide(although there is no shortage
of information on the HN front page as of late), but there is nobody that can
be held responsible for his suicide other than himself.

It is self-evident that this man was well-respected in the online community.

He killed himself. Nobody else is responsible for that extraordinary action.
We can only speculate on his exact reasoning for doing it, but I would suspect
a man in that state of mind may not be acting completely rationally and just
wanted to escape but sadly could not find a way out other than ending his own
life.

Let's celebrate his life and accomplishments and stop trying to find people to
blame.

~~~
duairc
Totally ridiculous, victim-blaming comment.

“If you add up everyone's responsibility for something, it doesn't equal 100%
— it equals a billion percent if it has to, because any number of entities can
be fully responsible for the same thing.” — Ran Prieur, The Mathematics of
Responsibility (<http://ranprieur.com/essays/mathres.html>)

~~~
watty
There's nothing ridiculous about claiming Aaron caused his situation and
killed himself. There is a prosecutor, defendant and a judge. Prosecutors
typically exaggerate their case, defendants typically downplay their side, and
the judge is responsible for determining the outcome.

Wasn't she just doing her job? She was brought a high profile case. It
involved a notorious internet prodigy who stashed a laptop and wrote a program
to download 4M+ articles that otherwise would have cost a ton of money. A
quick search revealed prices around $30. $30 * 4M = 120M. What am I missing?

~~~
mindslight
Critical thinking skills. Instead, you're repeating a tired emotional appeal
to top-down prescribed "morals".

Here is a program to download "4M+" articles:

    
    
        i=1;while true;do wget http://foo/$i;i=1$i;done
    

I'll license my Unary Downloader Pro to you for $120MM. Oh wait, you just
copied it into your brain and then reverse engineered it even!? You just did
$120MM+ worth of damages!

~~~
milesokeefe
What he used doesn't matter as much as the fact that he did it.

If you kill someone with a knife, it does not matter how difficult it was to
obtain or create that knife.

~~~
glesica
He didn't kill someone with a knife, he put butter on his toast with a knife.
There was literally no crime committed, certainly no crime worthy of federal
prosecutors and decades of potential incarceration.

He downloaded a bunch of files using a publicly accessible computer network,
from a web site that was available without authentication from that network.
He didn't crack any passwords or encryption schemes, he didn't access any
material he was supposed to pay for without paying, he simply didn't do
anything to warrant the type of prosecution that was launched against him.

The article below explains a lot. What Aaron Swartz did was _rude_ , not
_illegal_.

[http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-
swartz...](http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartzs-
crime/)

~~~
tedunangst
Tell it to the jury. Sounds like a slam dunk acquittal.

~~~
glesica
That's the wrong way to look at it. The process had wiped him out financially
and almost certainly damaged his mental state. It doesn't matter if you're
acquitted if you are punished before the trial even begins.

------
tptacek
The author of this filing is making an argument before the court, not chiding
Swartz personally. More importantly: I'm unclear on whether its author is US
Attorney Carmen Ortiz or her deputy AUSA Stephen Heymann. I believe the
distinction is meaningful; Heymann would have been responsible for the
superseding indictment and the overall prosecution strategy; the former is a
political appointee who may be supporting her deputies just like anyone else
in her position would be doing.

Heymann is a nationally recognized authority in the prosecution of computer
crimes, and if he's responsible for the overall strategy used by the
prosecution, it's him most of all you'd want to see accountable; not just
because removing Ortiz (which will for what it's worth never happen) wouldn't
remove him, but also because he's the key national influencer in cybercrime
prosecution, not Ortiz.

~~~
bstar77
I lived this situation when I was around 14. My father was an executive in a
firm that was being investigated for fraud. Most of my father's peers (using
the term lightly) went to jail (and rightfully so), but the prosecution could
never find anything on my father.

Despite that fact, our family had to endure 6 years of constant threats,
extortion attempts and harassment for crimes that were never committed- I've
had a few heart to heart conversations with my father and am convinced that he
never committed a crime. As a result, the situation put my father into a
depression and just destroyed his spirit, something I'm still trying to help
him restore 20 years later. The (us attorney) prosecution was responsible for
the attacks, but it was always at the behest of the share holders.

I believe the MIT owns the lion's share of the responsibility in the
situation. The burden of these charges can be completely overwhelming. I just
wish that Aaron understood the situation he was getting himself into. Some
people seemingly handle these situations well (Julian Assange?), but most of
us would buckle under the constant pressure. I think he may have felt that MIT
would eventually come to their senses and have some compassion for his plight.

~~~
winter_blue
> Some people seemingly handle these situations well (Julian Assange?)

Julian Assange knew that he'd be pursued to the point of death, both legally
and illegally (assassination) by various governments around the world. He knew
exactly what he was getting into when he started Wikileaks.

And so he did so fully aware of the potential consequences, which so far
haven't actually been as bad as one would have expected. (By now, one would
have expected him to have been "finished off" by one of the many governments
he's pissed off.)

------
btilly
Hopefully this drives more people to
[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-
stat...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-
district-attorney-carmen-ortiz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck),
which is almost a quarter of the way to the point where the administration has
to respond.

~~~
Wingman4l7
There is also this one, whose goal is to "Posthumously pardon Aaron Swartz" to
"send a strong message about the improportionality with which he was
prosecuted": [https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/posthumously-
pardo...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/posthumously-pardon-aaron-
swartz/DVpdmSBj)

While I have mixed feelings about the idea of governments pardoning people who
should never have been prosecuted in the first place _(think of Turing -- why
should the government get to absolve themselves of their misdeeds so easily?)_
, this petition might be more likely to get a real response than ones calling
for the reprimand or firing of high-level government employees.

~~~
3825
I thought the idea with Turing's pardon was that pardoning him implies that he
did something wrong which is clearly not the case. What do you think about
this argument?

~~~
Wingman4l7
There is that implication as well. There is also the implication _(Turing
again being used as the example)_ that only a famous person who contributed
greatly to society is worthy of "forgiveness", and the government doesn't need
to bother acknowledging that other "regular people" harmed under the same
unjust law.

------
rgrieselhuber
I found this interesting:

"With MIT President Emeritus Charles M. Vest currently serving as a Trustee of
JSTOR parent Ithaka as well as a Trustee of The MIT Corporation, one might
have expected MIT to issue a statement similar to the let's-put-this-behind-us
one JSTOR made on the Swartz case back in 2011."

I had been wondering if JSTOR was really as hands-off as they made themselves
out to be. This suggests at least one financial incentive MIT might have had
for cooperating on this case.

~~~
jpdoctor
> _MIT President Emeritus Charles M. Vest currently serving as a Trustee of
> JSTOR parent Ithaka_

I've met him a few times in the past: From what little interaction I've had, I
find it hard to believe his attitude was "Teach that meddling kid a
lesson!!1!". I'd also wonder if "trustee" borders on an ex-officio
designation. (I forget his latest gig... NAS? Something like that.) Of course
I could be wrong, but my money would be elsewhere.

------
damm
Wait a minute? your telling me the system built to protect Americans are
bullies who just force you to admit your guilty? say it ain't so.

It's unfortunate that no one talks about how normal. Speaking as someone who
has small dealings with our system I can honestly say they are not your
friend. They will lie to your parents, lie to your spouse and lie to your
neighbors in hopes of making you sign a guilty plea. They Press will spin it's
own story to make a buck or two. Now you ask where's the truth? (I don't have
the answer to that)

I really doubt that much will change over this, as the (cynical) reason that
the US Attorney General went after Swartz is because he wanted to make
American's quite clear that he won't tolerate this behavior.

Keep in mind that part of our Judicial system does is create fear so you won't
commit the same crime. Sadly that's all he was after here, fear. :(

Unfortunately it will take thousands more deaths before our leaders start
listening. It's too Bad America isn't 'We The People' any longer... :(

------
danso
Doesn't the footer suggest that the writer was STEPHEN P. HEYMANN acting on
behalf of Ortiz?

~~~
smalter
Yes

From here, this looks like an ordinary court filing that happened to have been
made on the day of Swartz's death.

~~~
FireBeyond
Which also means he most likely never saw it. In any case I've been involved
with, it typically takes at least a couple of days after the court filing for
a document to filter through the other attorney to the party.

------
treme
how do people feel about MIT's negligence of making an active decision on the
matter; thereby passively contributing to fed's attempt to make the case?

------
peeters
> The e-mail that Defendant Swartz's supplemental memorandum cites as
> paramount to his fifth motion to suppress [evidence against him] is
> relevant, but not nearly as important as he tries to make it out to be

I'm sorry, "chided"? This is just a legal argument. It's what happens in court
proceedings. And it's pretty tame. It's not personal, and while it names
"Defendant Swartz", what it really means is his attorneys since they are the
ones that submitted the memo. There is no malice in this statement at all.
This headline is sensationalist.

Yes, Swartz was bullied by the government. This is not an example of it, and
it's a shameful attempt at shifting blame for a tragedy.

------
edouard1234567
Why would the secret service be involved with this? Is it common practice in
similar cases?

~~~
damm
Why wouldn't they? They are protecting the assets of America..

~~~
edouard1234567
It's like James Bond going after Jean Valjean...

I find it surprising they get involved with this. I'd assume they get involved
in matters of national security, if they suspect him to be part of criminal
organization of some sort or to be a spy. Or maybe somebody who is very
influential asked them to... I don't like conspiration theories but their
involvement with this sounds off to me and deserves at least clarification.

~~~
chris11
The Secret Service was originally created to fight counterfeiting, not protect
government officials. And they are also currently tasked with investigating
financial crime and major fraud in addition to protecting high-ranking
government officials. I'm guessing the fraud charges brought them in on this
case.

------
dohertyjf
Crazy that they're talking about Swartz's laptop in that email. Is the
government so blind as to think that he would actually have all of those
documents on his computer? I wonder what the laws are surrounding content kept
in the cloud. Is that "possession"?

------
teyc
Heymann probably thinks he's Javert.

------
CyberDroiD
This is currently the top story on Hacker News. Instead of dealing with the
fact that someone's depression caused them to commit suicide, they are casting
about for blame.

That's not a very healthy way to deal with this situation. But I realize what
you are all doing: you are trying to use his horrible death as a political
statement to further your causes (something about making academic papers free
and accessible, nothing to die over, especially if you have to deal with the
cops).

If you can't do the time, or deal with the repercussions without killing
yourself, don't do the crime. Also I find the reaction on Hacker News
disgustingly trying to use this to further their narrow agenda.

So to respond to the title of this top thread: who cares if he was chided?? No
reason to kill yourself! Give me a break! Show the man some respect.

~~~
benevpayor
Suicide is the catalyst, but it is not the reason for the protest. The reason
is that no U.S. citizen should face 30 years in prison, $1,000,000 in fines,
and a trial that would lead to financial ruin (no matter the outcome) for
making publicly funded documents public. This reads like something that would
happen in China, not here.

