
1/13 noon at MIT: Protest wrongful prosecution of Aaron Swartz - hendler
https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=215659122039078971677.0004d321f835d25585230&msa=0&ll=42.358163,-71.055622&spn=0.067357,0.154152
======
BenoitEssiambre
I have been digesting this news for a day and even though Aaron was a complete
stranger to me, I can't remember feeling outrage this persistent in my entire
life.

This was an attack on freedom not carried out by a confused and brainwashed
group of people desperate for their lives due to living in an impoverished
country or warzone. It was an organised attack, meant to ruin a person's life
and deter anyone who wants to fight for information freedom, coordinated by
well off, educated people who made conscious choices, had access to all the
facts, were reminded repeatedly by the media how ridiculous and immoral their
actions were and did it all for the political and financial benefit of special
interests and the serfdom of everyone else.

These people were informed, they had to know how malevolent they were acting
towards Aaron and those who try to maintain freedom and democracy in the
digital world. They were aware and still chose to try to ruin his life even
though he was clearly acting entirely in the interest of others and doing it
in a manner that was civil and non violent. They did it just because he was
smarter than most and thus a greater threat to entrenched powers. The level of
evil here is truly off the scale. The fact that it resulted in his death is
just... I'm at a loss for words.

And they call themselves department of justice.

~~~
drats
This is an excellent explanation of the core outrage in this case. I can't
believe there are people in other threads attempting to excuse the actions of
the prosecutors. The publisher dropped the case, there should have only been a
pursuit for a minor ~30 day tresspass sentence if MIT specifically requested
it.

------
alan_cx
Just for Aaron? Oh man, what about every one else? US law is insane, hurting
too many people to list. Mostly, Americans, but also world citizens who don't
even get to vote in the US. You need to deal with law its self, not this one
single individual. Not just the law, but I suspect your entire value system.

I had sympathy yesterday, but this is turning in to hero martyr worship. Its
getting ridiculous. Step back and think. Form a proper long term strategy.
Think about Kim Dotcom, Bradley, the British bloke you chaps tried to get,
copyright stuff, patent stuff, hell, think about damn drone strikes which I
assume will begin to happen in the US eventually. Look at the lot of it in
this blokes name, not just one tiny insignificant part of it. Most of all
think about the relationship between government and ...... YOU. Its supposed
to be YOUR government.

I get the grief, but if all you can think of is this one single case, then
expect the world to be a better place you are deluding your selves. Those Wall
Street protests amounted to nothing what so ever, which means you have to do
much better than them. Think about it.

As say this because I want American people, the intelligent, considered,
sensitive people I read here to win their country back.

When it costs $1.5m to prove your innocence you no longer have any right to
the word "democracy", less right to point fingers at other countries.

Come on America, be the people the rest of us hope you really are.

~~~
popee
Guys, you in US really need new kind of anti-establisment movement, because
you are fighting against Goliat here. MIT and others ARE part of establishment
and if establishment decide to take control over internet, they will do it.
Wait, they ARE DOING it right now and as you can see people are getting killed
just because someone said "i want you to click and pay". Damn, if someone said
to me few decades ago that internet will be this way, i would not belive it.
Personally i call last 10 years: era of Internet colonisation. Sorry on bad
English.

~~~
lostlogin
Interesting point. What is essentially a two party system doesn't really allow
smaller groups to participate in high level political discourse.

~~~
benevpayor
SOPA much?

~~~
lostlogin
As a non-American I only have a passing understanding of SOPA - although I do
know that it's scope would affect me here in New Zealand.

~~~
benevpayor
SOPA is an example of a law with bi-partisan support that was blocked after
technologists outside of the two-party system rallied to block it.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA>

~~~
lostlogin
Ah, your comment was refuting my statement (US has a 2 party system that
excludes views of small groups). Thanks, great example.

------
TimSchumann
Not to rain on anyone's parade or anything, but this might be more poignant on
a weekday, when individuals meant to see said protest are actually at work.

That being said It's a great idea and I wish I could be there.

------
adamnemecek
How ironic that this did not happen when it could have made a difference.

~~~
javajosh
I was about to post something along the lines of, "And to all those people
about to post something about how useless this is, STFU." It's not useless,
and it will make a difference. Aaron's memory is important, and acknowledging
the gross injustice that lead to his death is important. A protest will send a
clear signal that we are aware of the governments tendency to overreach, and
that we, the people, will stand for it.

So STFU.

~~~
arcatek
He is not saying that it is useless.

He is just saying that it would have probably been far more useful to do it
while he was still alive, which is sadly true.

Being said, I agree that's it's a nice move.

~~~
adamnemecek
Yeah, that is what I was trying to say. Nice gesture, sure. At the same time,
I can't help but feel that it is a bit reactionary. As if it was only Aaron's
suicide that made people realize that it was a gross injustice and had he not
killed himself, no one would have cared.

~~~
doktrin
In fairness, a lot of fairly important details did not surface until today. It
was an active case, after all. It is true that a lot of the will to act has
come from the catalyst of Aaron's death, but the facts were not as clearly
available before (IMO).

Edit : I should add that I believe there would have been a meaningful backlash
had he for some reason lost his criminal case and been sentenced to (n > 3)
years in federal prison.

In hindsight, there was a great deal of empathy to be shown to an individual
who was being financially and emotionally drained by the legal system.
However, that's the sort of stuff that doesn't readily occur to most people
(myself included).

------
MIT_Hacker
As an MIT undergraduate, I will be there

~~~
droithomme
Have you considered disenrolling? Based on what has come out that this entire
case has been pushed by MIT officials and JSTOR was opposed to it, affiliation
with MIT right now, even as a student, looks to me like affiliation with the
Nazi youth. Financial support of MIT through tuition looks like support of
what is a terrorist organization.

~~~
i_cannot_hack

      > affiliation with MIT right now, even as a student, 
      looks to me like affiliation with the Nazi youth
    

Take a break. Hyperbole and strange exaggerations won't solve anything.

~~~
droithomme
There is no hyperbole here. People who voluntarily affiliated with the Nazis
suffered a permanent black mark on their reputations, even when they were not
aware of what was going on at the time. Those who, after the extent of their
evil actions were known, continued to choose to be affiliated with them, were
considered exceptionally vile.

Those retaining voluntary affiliation with MIT after these events are vile. I
choose, as a matter of personal morality, going forward to have nothing but
disgust towards them and will not cooperate or affiliate with them anymore
than I would with Neo-Nazi Skinheads. Those who had affiliation with MIT in
the past, such as graduated students, provided they disavow all connection or
affiliation with this organization might be redeemed, just as Nazi youth who
have since disavowed their affiliation have become tolerable. The affiliation
though will always be a black mark on someone's record regardless of whether
they knew the details of the evil committed by their organization.

~~~
milkshakes
> There is no hyperbole here.

> I choose, as a matter of personal morality, going forward to have nothing
> but disgust towards them and will not cooperate or affiliate with them
> anymore than I would with Neo-Nazi Skinheads.

------
ernestipark
I've been having a tough time tracking down more information on this so I'll
ask here. What exactly did MIT do (or not do) that people want to protest? Is
it that MIT pursued legal action, or did not try and help Swartz out?

~~~
jameskilton
30 years in prison and up to $1 million in fines for downloading files
publicly accessible to anyone in the MIT network.

This is the proverbial straw that's getting people to realize and understand
just how fucked up the law is when it comes to digital "crimes".

------
btilly
Hopefully they bring up the petition to dismiss the prosecutor in this case.

[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)

Already about a fifth of the way there.

------
robomartin
I've been taking all of this in trying to both formulate a reasonably valid
mental framework to understand and, yes, be able to personally judge or form
an opinion about this entire story. Not an easy task when you don't have
direct knowledge of the facts and the people involved and, to make matters
worst, morons add noise to the wire.

To say that this is a catastrophe at many levels is an understatement. This
should not have happened.

While I did not personally know Aaron I have lost at least one good friend to
the pressures and stresses of running a business and colliding with the legal
system. I've seen it happen right in front of my eyes.

These things are not worth a person's life.

Of course, we have a natural "who done it?" attitude and now want to find
someone to blame for his untimely death. At some level you do have to blame
him. No, not for downloading files but rather for making the decision to end
his life. Nobody but him made that decision. I have suffered enough in
business to actually understand how a person can get there, how, before you
know it, mental stress and anguish walks you right up to the edge of that
precipice. And, once there, only an external force can keep you from jumping
off. In my case this "non-mascable interrupt" were my kids. I know they saved
my life, even though they had no clue they were doing so. I can't even guess
as to why this young and brilliant man did not have someone to pull him away
from the edge.

And so, as much as one can blame Aaron for taking his own life, it also took
external forces to cause him to walk to the edge of the precipice. Sadly, it
seems, these forces originated with actions taken by MIT and were amplified by
the DOJ. I find myself strangely contemplating the idea that, perhaps, just
perhaps, pro-gun extremists who believe the government is out to get us might
know something that we don't. But I digress.

Who done it? Well, MIT and DOJ. At least that's how I read it. I also think
JSTOR is at fault, even though they seem to be washing their hands. Negligence
through inaction.

Can anything make this right? Well, not really. You can't replace a life. Yet,
the part of me that always wants both sides of an equation to balance has been
searching for something that might at least make this horrible event make some
sense.

I love MIT, but I get the horrible feeling that they fucked up in a big way.
Admittedly I have formed this opinion without direct access to the facts. I
have to concede at least that to be fair. Still, one idea keeps circling
around in my head and I just had to come here and put it out there:

JSTOR can no-longer exist. MIT, needs to acquire JSTOR, release all content to
the public domain and disband the organization. MIT, shouldn't even have
direct control of this data. perhaps it should be handed over to Wikipedia for
dissemination (along with the requisite financial support).

If it is true that MIT initiated this and they, along with JSTOR, could have
made tons of noise to pull back the DOJ, they really need to engage in deep
introspection in order to make sure this never happens again. And they need to
make JSTOR ancient history. If, despite their substantial financials, this
acquisition is beyond their capabilities industry giants such as Apple and
Google need to intervene. One of the best ways I can think of honoring Aaron's
memory is for this data to be free for anyone, anywhere, to access.

RIP

~~~
rohern
> If it is true that MIT initiated this and they, along with JSTOR, could have
> made tons of noise to pull back the DOJ, they really need to engage in deep
> introspection in order to make sure this never happens again.

A person suspected of breaking federal law will be prosecuted by the Federal
government at its own discretion. The alleged victims get no say in that.
Their forgiveness may be taken into account by a judge at sentencing, but it
has nothing at all to do with the pursuit of prosecution. In fact, a federal
prosecutor would be behaving in an impeachable way to fail to pursue a
violation of federal law.

~~~
btilly
_In fact, a federal prosecutor would be behaving in an impeachable way to fail
to pursue a violation of federal law._

Citation needed.

Particularly considering the fact that prosecutors do not have the resources
to pursue all violations of federal law. Doubly so given that multiple states
currently have extremely uneven enforcement of federal law around the sale of
marijuana.

Selective enforcement is a reality.

~~~
rprasad
Federal prosecutors swear an oath to uphold all federal laws, and are
generally bound by that oath unless an executive order by the president
directs them not to enforce a particular law (in which case the president, not
the prosecutor, would be subject to potential impeachment).

State and local prosecutors do not have the resources to pursue violations of
federal law; they also do not have the jurisdiction to do so.

Federal prosecutors have several billions in resources to pursue violations of
federal law, and are effectively not capped in their pursuit of "justice".

 _Doubly so given that multiple states currently have extremely uneven
enforcement of federal law around the sale of marijuana._

Federal prosecution of drug laws regarding marijuana are fairly even. The
difference is that states which have legalized marijuana make it far easier
for federal prosecutors to find defendants than states where it is illegal
(because defendants in those states do not distribute their marijuana in the
public eye).

~~~
btilly
You said the same thing at <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5049530> and
were corrected there. So I'll just point you back to that.

------
anoncow
How about boycotting MIT - the institution.

~~~
droithomme
Personally, I am now doing so. I will no longer cooperate with or work with
individuals who maintain affiliation with this fascist organization. MIT
should be shut down and its assets sold.

~~~
gfodor
Jesus give it a rest you are not helping

~~~
droithomme
Support killers if you want. I choose not to.

------
hendler
Via <https://twitter.com/yarnivore/status/290289294835318784>

~~~
hendler
<https://twitter.com/aigeanta/status/290285112707399680>

------
Argentum01
I happen to be flying there the day after tomorrow. I just checked and there
are no earlier flights that I could take.

Is there anything further planned that you're aware of?

------
nvartolomei
It's really sad, I'm younger than Aaron and he was like an example of a white
hat hacker, great example.

It's sad that people started to protest after his death, hey, where you'we
been before?

Had anyone imaged that Aaron decided to suicede just to wake people up, he did
so many great things and was so altruistic for to internet freedom that this
could be a real scenario...

RIP

------
Fice
It is not just wrongful prosecution that leads one to depression. The much
harder thing is the feeling of lack of support. We should have been protesting
when Aaron was alive, it's too late now. We are to blame for his death, and we
should make a lesson out of it.

------
xijuan
I also wish I could be there!!! I almost had the impulse to book a flight and
go down there to join the protest! Thank you for organizing this!!

------
sirwanimayur
Long live the legend,

------
dmix
Is there a livestream?

------
nerdfiles
I don't understand. I've downloaded articles from JSTOR, Project Muse, books
on top of books, and am publicly re-hosting them through my own Dropbox, which
I publicly link to on my own Website.

Maybe I'm missing something here. Was he made an example? Is this the
fundamental nature of the protest and the outrage, that we perceive that he
was made an example of, that we are aware, and that it is unfair, in some
essential way, for them to target leaders who are no less perpetrators than
the rest of us?

Because we do that to them when BoingBoing or Anons cry to bring down or apply
heat to CNN or pundits. I'm not playing devil's advocate, but I'm trying to
understand the nature of the protest. I believe these questions can be fairly
asked about [the protest] without counting as some sort of insincerity toward
Mr. Schwartz.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
If I had to name the cause of the outrage, it is that the charges were _so_
disproportional to the alleged offense that it drove a good man to suicide. If
he had been charged with an offense for which the penalty was proportionate to
what he is alleged to have done, e.g. a misdemeanor with a $500 fine or a
fortnight in jail, I have to imagine that there would be very little
protesting going on, and for that matter that he would still be alive. But
they decided they had to break him, and they did, so here we are.

~~~
nerdfiles
I'm just going to state this, as statefully as I can, without trying to be
sensationalist. Everyone I come across these days insist on calling me
"schizophrenic" or "paranoid" or what have you:

But "Marshall Law", as I understand it, is _more or less_ in effect, and a lot
of people are talking about Obama's UAVs and whatever it is they do. (I know
it was repealed. But you get what I mean. We're all consuming roughly the same
information; so can we just bootstrap past the facts, please? I don't want to
play semantics, pedantics, or any kind of fact-checking game.)

So I must ask: Is this a civil war? When do we call it that? 100 years ago, it
meant having a militia or something of that order. Now we all play slapstick
at our keyboards and write "modules" and pentests. Is it possible to call a
spade a spade?

I'm asking seriously here. Every week I have to stop and ask myself, "Should I
read the news? Will there be another episode or thread of death that I'll have
to keep track of on account of something our government did?"

I really do appreciate Mr. Schwartz efforts and work. But this country is
taking heavy demoralizing blows every week.

Beating someone down who isn't trained or prepared to fight is a different
matter from beating down leaders, ideologues, activitists, and fighters. It
seems like this country, our communities, are being served heavy blows, in
much the same way the U.S. demoralizes the "Middle East" with its extended arm
of Social/Big Media.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
I don't know if you can call it a civil war when only one side has a military.
There are no defined "sides" even. Not everyone in government or politics is a
bad guy -- look at Sen. Wyden or Rep. Lofgren, for example.

It's almost like the internal struggle we all face in our own lives. Doing the
right thing is hard, doing the wrong thing is convenient. So the people we
have running our government are human, they pick the wrong thing sometimes.
Most of the time they probably don't even realize they're acting like the bad
guys. People can rationalize anything.

What we have to do is to stop them when they do wrong. The check on the common
criminal is law enforcement. The check on law enforcement is Congress. The
check on Congress is the people.

We the people need to do our job.

~~~
nerdfiles
Something needs to be done, I agree, but I do not understand what you mean
when you say "we the people". (I'm not sure how one reads the Internet
Declaration of Independence and walks away thinking that phrase is meaningful
in any politically relevant sense.)

And honestly. I'm sure a majority of us here are prepared to print a gun and
build a quadcopter at the drop of a pizza slice.

[Ugh. Of course that doesn't mean "let's go out and get crazy!" I just want to
make it clear that something is emerging socially in this country, and it is
due to the fact that weaponry is so widely available. (And even further, by
the Bureau for Justice Assistance, my Terminal is technically considered a
weapon.) Many of us defend the idea of printing a gun, and this in itself is
problematic for something like a "Congress" that cannot even begin to
understand, in any practical sense, what 3D printing amounts to economically
and socially.]

