
Prosecutor pursuing Aaron Swartz linked to suicide of another hacker - nighthawk
http://rt.com/usa/news/swartz-prosecutor-suicide-hacker-050/
======
downandout
The reality is that it is quite rare for a federal defendant to kill
themselves. To have 2 of them (that we know about) stemming from prosecutions
by one individual, I would have to say, is pretty remarkable. While it could
just be a coincidence, the one common denominator in these two statistically
rare incidents is Stephen Heymann.

We'll just call him "Suicide Steve".

On a somewhat related note, the callousness of the people that work in the MA
US Attorney's office apparently extends to their spouses. The husband of US
Attorney Carmen Ortiz posted on his (now deleted) twitter account criticizing
Aaron's family for the content of his obituary (screenshot of his tweet here -
<http://imgur.com/IR5ah> ).

~~~
mistercow
>To have 2 of them (that we know about) stemming from prosecutions by one
individual, I would have to say, is pretty remarkable. While it could just be
a coincidence, the one common denominator in these two statistically rare
incidents is Stephen Heymann.

Careful. You are subtly reusing evidence in an invalid way.

The reason that Heymann's record is under examination in the first place is
that Swartz committed suicide while Heymann was prosecuting him. That's the
observation that generates the hypothesis "Heymann is more aggressive than the
average prosecutor, and this leads to an increase in suicides". So then we
test that hypothesis by looking at Heymann's record and seeing if we find more
suicides.

So far so good, but what we _can't_ do is then reuse Swartz's suicide to
support that hypothesis. Appropriately enough, this is an example of the
prosecutor's fallacy (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_fallacy>).
The key is that we have to keep an eye on the context of the original
hypothesis. If someone had looked at Heymann's methods and said "Wow, that's
going to lead to people killing themselves", and then looked into his record
and said "Willikers! Get a load of this body count!", then they'd be right to
count both Swartz' and James' suicides.

But that's not how we got here, so the question has to be "Is the number of
suicidal defendants prosecuted by Heymann — _other than Swartz_ —
significantly out of line with expectations?"

And that number is one. To answer the question would require some data. I've
tried gathering data from different angles, but I'm not sure it's out there.
Maybe someone else can take a whack at it.

~~~
Cushman
The point of the prosecutor's fallacy isn't that you should ignore evidence,
it's that you must include all the evidence in calculations of probability.
Swartz' suicide is inductive evidence for the hypothesis "Steve Heymann caused
Jonathan James' suicide", you can't just ignore it.

~~~
mistercow
I'm not saying to ignore it. I'm saying not to double-count it.

>Swartz' suicide is inductive evidence for the hypothesis "Steve Heymann
caused Jonathan James' suicide",

That's actually a separate hypothesis.

~~~
Cushman
Can you describe the point at which double counting is occurring? My
hypothesis is, "Steve Heymann's defendants are more likely than others to
commit suicide". I propose to determine with what likelihood a criminal
defendant will commit suicide, determine with what likelihood Steve Heymann's
defendants have historically committed suicide, and compare the two numbers.
How does excluding Aaron Swartz from consideration make my conclusion better
reflect reality?

------
jamesaguilar
I can understand how people might expect different behavior in the Swartz
case. But what in the behavior discussed in this article is other than exactly
what you would expect? _Of course_ she is going to prosecute a credit card
thief who has stolen tens of thousands of cards. How does this stack up as
added evidence against her?

~~~
monsterix
Please 'know' before taking sides. It's easy to comment, and opine, than to
know. Here are some insights from Wikipedia:

US has had the highest incarceration rate in past decade [1]. Why so? Does it
mean more percentage of citizens are lately turning into what one would
qualify as a criminal, a thief or a murderer? Or otherwise.

Quoting from Wikipedia:

A. "The United States has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's
incarcerated population."

B. "imprisons a larger percentage of its black population than South Africa
did at the height of apartheid"

C. A graph showing a strange spike:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_incarceration_timeline-...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_incarceration_timeline-
clean-fixed-timescale.svg)

etc. etc. etc.

Also consider these - is it is profitable for a section/group of people (read
prosecutors or ip enforcers) to persecute and push people over using tricks
like applying one set of laws, if another set of laws couldn't be applied? Is
it like we have provision for cheapness in trials, but none for justice or
humanity. Is the intention of a trial to set an example, or to be fair? Is it
not criminal wastage of money, time and talent this way?

I mean these are intricate details that reveal something is wrong at
leadership level. Related to the direction of the country. This is not a
working level problem which is where students, staff, entrepreneurs and
hackers lie.

Ponder.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Sta...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States)
[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_James> [3]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rat...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate)

[Edits: Grammar, tone and with inputs from Ars below.]

~~~
ars
What does this have to do with what jamesaguilar posted?

> No. Surely, something else is broken.

Really? There are no other options you can think of? Perhaps the US is simply
stricter? I quote from the article this image is from: "Still, it is the
length of sentences that truly distinguishes American prison policy. Indeed,
the mere number of sentences imposed here would not place the United States at
the top of the incarceration lists."

So yup, the US is stricter, but it does not have more criminals, nor does it
imprison more people.

> A graph showing a strange spike

There is no spike, this is the result of using a linear graph when it should
have been a logarithmic one. (A very common mistake, and also frequently
employed when trying to make a point without support in the data.) In this
particular graph even better would be to normalize to the population level,
but logarithmic is also OK. Either way, if you fix the graph you will find no
spike.

This graph is better:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._incarceration_rates_1...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._incarceration_rates_1925_onwards.png)
It shows an increase, but no spike.

So why the increase? And especially why has it slowed down? Read this and you
shall know: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5006368>

~~~
BrokenPipe
Increase ? Why does that look to me like a spike ? And are you denying either
of these claims ? Because if not it seems like you are just nitpicking to me,
the point of the parent is still fully correct regardless of the graph.

A. "The United States has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's
incarcerated population." B. "imprisons a larger percentage of its black
population than South Africa did at the height of apartheid"

~~~
ars
No, the point of the parent is not correct.

The parent is implying that the US manipulates things so that innocent people
go to prison. This is not the case. There is also no spike, but rather an
increase followed by leveling off.

The US does keep people in prison longer than other nations, there is no
dispute there. But it does not imprison more people than other nations. This
is a subtle but very important difference.

~~~
BrokenPipe
The US does imprison more people than other nations according to

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarcerat...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate)

And whether the US keeps people in prison longer than other nations or not,
doesn't really help you case IMHO.

~~~
ars
Go back and read it again.

This list of not the number of different people who go to prison, it's the
percentage at any given moment. So a longer sentence will inflate the numbers
on this list.

~~~
BrokenPipe
Still, the US has more people in jail than any other country however you look
at it. The fact that this is due to longer prison terms is relevant but
doesn't change a thing does it ?

I wouldn't suppose that citizens of the US are more criminal than the avg
citizen of the world.

It's just that you have the Prison Industry and legalized corruption (see
lobbying)

~~~
rayiner
The distinction is quite relevant to the narrative. If your narrative is that
the laws and prosecutors unfairly put people in prison that don't belong
there, then you want to compare the percentage of people who ever go to
prison, not the percentage if people in prison at any given time. The latter
fact is relevant to a narrative that our prison terms are too long, but that's
a distinct problem.

Also, we do have higher rates of violent crime than our peers. You can't
ignore that.

And while its phat to blame the lobbyists, I don't think that's the entirety
if the distinction. Americans are simply more retributive than other people.
Look at the death penalty. It's 2012 and half the country would be up in arms
if the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. At the end of the day,
prison terms are long because being "tough in crime" got a lot of votes in the
1970's and 1980's.

------
greghinch
[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fire-assistant-
us-...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fire-assistant-us-attorney-
steve-heymann/RJKSY2nb)

~~~
kule
This just feels like mob mentality to me. Someone messed up, albeit badly. I
would guess the guy feels bad enough as it is without needing to get 25k
people to kick him when he's down.

EDIT: I guess what I'd really hope to have seen (not being a US citizen) is
some petitions to get the laws/system changed rather than looking for someone
to blame.

~~~
dredmorbius
And here's why I disagree:

\- The US is a democracy. Our government, elected, appointed, or career civil
servants, is accountable to the people.

\- The position of prosecutor has great power, and we all know that that
requires great responsibility. Prosecutors can destroy reputations,
livelihoods, lives, families, and more. Choosing on whom to bring the full
strength of the US government to bear, and how much of that strength to loose
at a particular target, is part of the critical judgment required for the
position. Proper prosecutorial discretion has been shown sorely lacking in
this (and other) protest-oriented hacking incidents.

I'll be happy to let Otiz, Haymann, and Garland speak for themselves to let us
know just how badly they feel. To date, I've seen no word from any of them.

Speaking to your edit: there _is_ a petition to change elements of the CFAA
that the EFF has identified as particularly problematic:

[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/reform-computer-
fr...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/reform-computer-fraud-and-
abuse-act-reflect-realities-computing-and-networks-2013/qMvdwVNw)

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/aaron-swartz-fix-
draco...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/aaron-swartz-fix-draconian-
computer-crime-law)

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5064448>

------
tych0
> In 2008 Jonathan James killed himself after being implicated in the largest
> personal identity hack in history.

Wrong kind of hacker.

~~~
logn
He claimed he was innocent in his suicide note. Maybe a suicide note is a
great place to lie in attempt to clear your name. But I think he's probably
being honest to an extent.

Note that he was charged and found guilty of hacking NASA (essentially), but
his suicide related to the identity theft.

From Wikipedia on the identity theft investigation: "Though he denied having
done anything, James—who was friends with some of the hackers involved—was
investigated by the Secret Service, who raided James', his brother's, and his
girlfriend's houses [...] they apparently discovered no connection to the
intrusion".

The article goes on that he was mentioned as a conspirator in another
defendant's case for the identity theft, but James hadn't (yet?) been
indicted.

~~~
tych0
Yeah, I don't disagree that he probably was innocent. My point is simply that
this isn't the Hacker News hacker, but the talking head hacker.

------
jnsaff2
"Swartz’s attorney Elliot Peters accused Heymann of aggressively pursuing
Swartz because the case “"was going to receive press and he was going to be a
tough guy and read his name in the newspaper.""

This is very similar to how many SV startup founders and CEO's roll. Press-
coverage and case-studies are more important than actually doing something
worth doing.

------
logn
Seems like we need a prosecutor with the zeal of Stephen Heymann to go after
Stephen Heymann. This guy's history has a smell. Two suicides? Maybe there's
something more going on? Maybe not, but it's worth a look.

------
aw3c2
Already discussed three days ago <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5049881>

------
pdonis
One factoid in the article about Aaron Swartz's case confuses me:

"Though JSTOR decided not to press charges – and even urged the US government
to drop the case – MIT went ahead with a civil suit."

First I've heard of a civil suit by MIT against Swartz. Has anyone seen
anything corroborating this?

------
nnq
_I bet 99% of "hackers" (I'm using the criminal sense of the word, that I hate
to use, btw) have psychological issues of one way or another and they are a
suicide risk!_ The SS, prosecutors and whoever handles these people should
fucking take that into account and put it in balance with the fact that they
are a valuable resource to society! You may put a "criminal hacker" in jail
for credit card fraud, but chances are, if he doesn't stay in there too long
to get his brain "fried", he will grow up to become the security guy that
keeps shit safe so you can keep online shopping 'till you drop!

I mean... these guys are a subset of what one calls "infosec field people"
that are a subset of "IT people" that are a subset of "tech people"... the
smaller the subset the less the chance that a member of it will be (1) "well
socialized", (2) "psychologically robust" or even (3) "sane"... add up that
they're in their 20s and... what would you freakin expect?!

~~~
danso
Don't think too many people are going to go for the idea of a certain type of
criminal requiring certain special treatment...why couldn't rapists and
murderers claim the same kind of social deficiencies?

------
gesman
Dr. Steve, Assisted suicide expert.

------
snowwrestler
Only one person is responsible for a suicide--the person who committed
suicide. This realization is a very important part of the healing process for
those left behind. Otherwise it's possible to torture oneself thinking "if
only I'd done more."

Logically, if it's partially Steve Heymann's fault, it could also partially be
the fault of those close to Aaron who did not sufficiently help him. Or at
least, there is a danger that those close to Aaron could feel this way--it's
very common in suicides. But ultimately, Aaron chose to kill himself, and it
was solely his decision to do so.

~~~
sk5t
This seems like a dangerous way to understand any harmful act. It may be
inconvenient that other views trouble the healing process, but wishing doesn't
make it so. Suppose one were to say, "Only one person is responsible for a DUI
fatality--the driver. Otherwise it's possible for the bartender to torture
himself thinking 'if only I'd cut him off two hours ago.'"

~~~
snowwrestler
The driver is the only person responsible for a DUI, unless they were somehow
forced into driving against their will.

Are you seriously proposing that we hold bartenders responsible for the
actions of drunk people?

~~~
sk5t
I'm not proposing it--the law already recognizes that bars bear some of the
responsibility for over-serving their customers. It's rarely-enforced,
however, and appears that the drunken driver must harm someone with a bit of
pull in the legal system for charges to surface.

[http://missoulian.com/news/local/bartender-sentenced-to-
jail...](http://missoulian.com/news/local/bartender-sentenced-to-jail-for-
serving-drinks-that-led-to/article_ae790a40-7a41-11df-bd40-001cc4c03286.html)

------
rprasad
_Two weeks after the Secret Service raided his house in conjunction with the
investigation led by Heymann into the theft of tens of thousands of credit
card numbers, James was found dead._

Innocent people do not kill themselves when confronted with the possibility of
a trial. They kill themselves _after_ they have lost at trial. This other
hacker (Jonathan James) didn't even wait until they pressed charges.

It's not a matter of the prosecutor being overzealous. It's a matter of
hackers being far more susceptible to suicidal tendencies than others in the
face of extreme social conflict.

~~~
btilly
_Innocent people do not kill themselves when confronted with the possibility
of a trial. They kill themselves after they have lost at trial._

Citation needed.

It makes perfect sense to me that a depressed person who has realized what
trial is going to cost, and who does not believe that anyone is going to
believe them, would commit suicide. An innocent person who BELIEVES that they
WILL be believed probably reacts very differently. But there are a lot of
people in this world who, while innocent, won't necessarily have that belief.

I would not be surprised if there was a high concentration of such among
people who choose to use computers heavily.

~~~
alaskamiller
Are you a clinical psychologist?

Do you have citations for your perfect sense?

Can you quantify your lack of surprise?

~~~
jlgreco
Is rprasad a clinical psychologist?.

If he is pulling things out of his ass without citations, it seems reasonable
that he receive responses that do the same.

~~~
btilly
More to the point, rprasad is making sweeping statements of fact, along the
lines of, "Anyone who commits suicide before trial must be guilty." I'm making
what are clearly statements of personal opinion, along the lines of, "Here is
a scenario where I can imagine the stress of a legal case tipping a depressed
person over the cliff into suicide."

Strong claims require strong evidence. I'm making far, far weaker claims. The
burden of proof should squarely be on rprasad.

------
guard-of-terra
I don't understand why people like JJ kill just themself. Me, I would go
postal (kill someone from that 'justice' system?) in a situation like this.
And only then myself. At least I hope I would have the guts to.

------
joering2
Don't think twice if devil has horns or tail; here is the photo:
[http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/2013/01/Stephen-
Heymann....](http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/2013/01/Stephen-Heymann.jpg)

~~~
jpdoctor
That's Rafael Reif, current president of MIT not Heymann.

~~~
nitrogen
Supporting evidence: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Rafael_Reif>

