
The Life And Death Of 'The Internet's Own Boy' - soasme
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/07/06/327774311/the-life-and-death-of-the-internets-own-boy
======
tptacek
_Two years into his legal battle with federal government, Swartz faced a
maximum penalty 35 years in prison and up to $1 million in fines._

No, he didn't. You can only arrive at that number by ignoring the way the
federal sentencing system works, because it's based on taking the _maximum_
penalty for any count of the offense charged and multiplying it by the total
number of _every count_.

In reality, like charges group --- you are typically sentenced based on a
single count, usually the most severe of the counts.

Prosecutors threatened Swartz not with 35 years but with 7. But 7 years is an
equally ludicrous number for the actual offenses charged, which were non-
remunerative, non-destructive, and applied to a first-time defendant. Which
may be why prosecutors offered Swartz a plea deal with a custodial sentence
just several months long.

Swartz's own lawyer, writing after Swartz's tragic death, believed that Swartz
could have gone to trial, lost and been found guilty, and _still_ not served a
custodial sentence. Not implausible for a first-time offender who didn't try
to make a cent from his offense.

Reporters parrot these numbers because the DOJ supplies them in press
releases. DOJ is lying when it makes these outlandish claims, but deception on
the part of prosecutors isn't an excuse for reporters not to talk to lawyers
before amplifying those lies in the press.

As usual, you can count on Popehat --- a blog run by a former federal
prosecutor turned civil rights attorney --- for a pretty excellent summary of
how the system _actually_ works:

[http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-
sentence...](http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-
eleventy-million-years/)

(If you're interested, here's the sentencing guidelines for 18 USC 1030:
[http://books.google.com/books?id=nZu3w1y4fkYC&pg=PA299&lpg=P...](http://books.google.com/books?id=nZu3w1y4fkYC&pg=PA299&lpg=PA299&dq=guideline+2Q2.1&source=bl&ots=VCrUGGT_Dr&sig=xdBB4bzMj2BkS9S8_I5oLgCAgtM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FZ0RUeHPGoLFigKi0YGYAw&sqi=2&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=computer%202b1.1&f=false))

~~~
scintill76
As long as the DOJ are allowed to essentially lie to the public like this, why
shouldn't it be fair to factor it in when trying to get an idea of how Swartz
felt?

They lie to the public and exaggerate to the accused, in order to instill
fear, prop up careers, and coerce the accused. Correcting the number of years
doesn't qualitatively change how I feel about it much, and probably the same
for Swartz.

Maybe people should focus more on it being a felony. The documentary left me
with the feeling that Swartz was more distraught by the threat of becoming a
felon[0], than with what length of time he'd be in jail. And it fits with the
spirit of what most people are saying when they throw around "35 years": Is
such a harsh punishment for downloading academic papers really fair?

[0] possibly the emotional and monetary burden of his defense on his family
and friends, too

~~~
pdabbadabba
> As long as the DOJ are allowed to essentially lie to the public like this,
> why shouldn't it be fair to factor it in when trying to get an idea of how
> Swartz felt?

It should be a factor, for sure, but it should be a very small one. Swartz had
much more information than the "35-year" number thrown out by the government.
He had the benefit of his lawyers' advice, who thought that he could very well
avoid any custody at all, and of the plea deal in which he would only have
served a few months.

Also bear in mind that DOJ was not actually lying: a 35-year sentence was
theoretically possible under the law. A judge could have imposed it. It was
just extremely extremely unlikely.

I agree that what Swartz did should not be a federal crime (though it's easy
to come up with similar conduct that should be). But there is a huge
difference between a crime that will likely have been punished by 35 years'
imprisonment (as many would have us believe) -- it's not easy to get up to
that number even with a crime of violence -- and one punishable by a few
months' imprisonment, or none at all.

~~~
scintill76
Yes, Swartz likely knew it was nowhere near as bad as 35 years.

Still, you are not addressing what a felony conviction would mean. After
spending millions (according to his father on the documentary) on defense, say
he is convicted, sentenced to a best case of some community service,
probation, and no jail time. He's now spent all his money, his name is sullied
in the public mind, he may be barred from voting, he may be restricted by the
terms of probation, he may have difficulty finding a job and housing[0], and
hopes of a political career are pretty much demolished. On the documentary,
Quinn Norton says, "He just didn't believe that he could continue in his life,
with a felony, you know. He said to me one day-- We were walking by the White
House, and he said to me, 'They don't let felons work there.' ... He really
wanted that to be his life." (around 52:00)

So, you can say "he should have known what he was getting into" if you want,
but "he didn't face much prison time" really rings hollow to me. The prison
time was probably one of the last concerns on his mind, especially if he was
"only" expecting a few months of prison. It would have been followed by
several years of parole/probation and the rest of life as a felon.

And if a 35-year sentence was actually possible, then yes, the DoJ wasn't
lying, but it only reinforces the arguments of everyone talking about how
disgusting is the threat of 35 years for downloading articles.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony#United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony#United_States)

~~~
pdabbadabba
You wrote this:

>As long as the DOJ are allowed to essentially lie to the public like this,
why shouldn't it be fair to factor [the purported 35-year maximum sentence] in
when trying to get an idea of how Swartz felt? . . .They lie to the public and
exaggerate to the accused, in order to instill fear, prop up careers, and
coerce the accused.

That's what I am responding to. Beyond that, it sounds like we're not
disagreeing much, except for this small point: it is true, as you say, that
being convicted of any felony at all is a huge deal. And probably even more so
for Aaron Swartz. But that doesn't mean that the difference between a six-
month sentence and a 35-year sentence is not also incredibly significant!

I sympathize with those who think that this debate over the length of Aaron's
potential and likely sentences misses the point. But I think that is just
another criticism that ought to be leveled at media outlets and activists who
continue to repeat the 35-year number without explanation or qualification.
Those people repeat the 35-year figure precisely because they do regard it as
significant and, often, reiterate it as a way of inflaming people's passions.
I think this is a dishonest way of framing and spurring the debate. I, like
you it seems, think that we would be better off reevaluating what is
criminalized in the first place than flailing about, speculating about how
long Aaron's sentence would have been, what the government "threatened him"
with, etc.

In short: I take issue with the 35-year number not because I think that, in
reality, the sentence was so short that Aaron had nothing to worry about, but
because it is a misleading (because it is misinformed) starting point for any
meaningful discussion.

------
thinkcomp
Anyone who is interested in helping support one of the causes that Aaron was
interested in--the opening of public court records to the public--should
participate in Operation Asymptote. It requires a U.S. credit or debit card,
but costs nothing.

[http://www.plainsite.org/asymptote/](http://www.plainsite.org/asymptote/)

We also need help finishing an IE version of RECAP
([http://www.recapthelaw.org](http://www.recapthelaw.org), started by Stephen
Schultze, profiled in the movie). See:

[https://github.com/yinglei/recap-ie](https://github.com/yinglei/recap-ie)

Law firms use IE. They download tons of legal documents. If we can get RECAP
working on IE, we can make a pretty big dent in PACER.

~~~
thaumaturgy
I think it's fantastic that you've continued the technical approach to one of
the problems Aaron wanted to solve. Nice, I'll be joining Operation Asymptote
shortly.

You're also the only person in this thread so far with a technical comment, so
there's that.

------
mathattack
I hate to say it, but it's hard to read articles about him any more. I get so
pissed off that it becomes counterproductive.

~~~
pixelmonkey
Lawrence Lessig, who is featured in this documentary, recently completed his
ambitious $5M fundraising for the MayDay PAC on July 4.

When they hit this fundraising goal, he tweeted, "That's it. We did it. For
US. For @aaronsw. Tears, and sleep, and endless thanks. #MayDayPAC"
([https://twitter.com/lessig/status/485233905545400321](https://twitter.com/lessig/status/485233905545400321)).

"For @aaronsw." Lessig says in the documentary that it was a conversation with
@aaronsw a few years back that convinced him to move on from issues of
copyright and into "root issues" in politics, like campaign finance and
corruption.

MayDay may not succeed, but it has already raised $5M and Lessig has a good
track record for achieving change, so one must assume something positive will
come out of it.

Though I identify with your anger, I think you can channel it positively.

As RFK said,

"Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others,
or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and
crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring
those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of
oppression and resistance.”

~~~
jacobolus
> _Lessig has a good track record for achieving change_

Examples?

~~~
wcarss
One significant work was the founding of the Creative Commons in 2001, whose
licenses provide an alternative to traditional "all right reserved" copyright
schemes, now applied to hundreds of millions of works.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons)
[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/)

------
wavesum
I don't want to come off as a folio hat but what is the actual evidence of the
suicide? Has any of this stuff been made public?

~~~
iterationx
The government says suicide and everyone simply believes it. _shakes head_

~~~
Tomte
No, the girlfriend and family say it was suicide.

~~~
wavesum
Which one of the girlfriends? Can you link to an article? Does she mention
evidence? Did he leave a message or a note or anything?

------
sparkzilla
Aaron Swartz Timeline: [http://newslines.org/aaron-
swartz/](http://newslines.org/aaron-swartz/)

------
epx
Swartz, Manning and Snowden: heroes of our time. How many decades until
history books mention them?

~~~
hueving
I could perhaps see Snowden recognized, but what did the other two do for
society that was so heroic?

~~~
TheBiv
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
I 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.

------
paulhauggis
"It's speculated that what he might have been doing is downloading these
articles to analyze them for corporate funding — corruption, essentially —
that led to biased results in research, particularly in the area of climate
change."

This is complete speculation. Why include this in the article other to sway a
certain demographic to view you in a favorable light?

I know the HN community treats him like some kind if freedom of information
hero, but I don't.

He illegally copied information that he didn't own..and then cracked when the
authorities went after him.

He made millions of dollars from Reddit, he should have had plenty of money to
take care of any mental health issues he had.

~~~
tptacek
This comment would be much, much better without the last sentence. There's
some validity to the argument about NPR speculating about his motives; there's
significant countervailing evidence about that. But that doesn't make being
sick his fault.

~~~
paulhauggis
This was my opinion..and I was silenced as a result of it. I wish the
progressives on HN were more about being open and free, rather than closed.

If I say something that anyone here even remotely disagrees with, I am down
voted.

This is why people like me will stop coming here and eventually leave the HN
community completely.

~~~
paulhauggis
his was my opinion..and I was silenced as a result of it. I wish the
progressives on HN were more about being open and free, rather than closed. If
I say something that anyone here even remotely disagrees with, I am down
voted. This is why people like me will stop coming here and eventually leave
the HN community completely.

I will keep posting this until I get my point across.

~~~
AngrySkillzz
Don't leave eventually, leave now. Thanks. HN already has enough idiots who
don't understand mental health.

~~~
dang
Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News.

