
Aaron Swartz Legal Defense Fund - sethbannon
https://free.aaronsw.com/
======
edw519
Now let me see if I got this right:

    
    
      1. Brilliant programmer gets chance of a lifetime.
      2. Turns that into lots of money early in life.
      3. Decides to change the world in his own way.
      4. Consciously & purposefully breaks the law.
      5. Has a webpage to get others to pay his legal bills.
    

I've never met Aaron but I've always enjoyed his writing and looked forward to
meeting him one day. But there is something seriously wrong about this.

Aaron should man up, take responsibility for his actions, and pay his own
bills.

And if this is his idea of changing the world, perhaps he should reconsider
his choices and find a better way of paying it forward to other brilliant
programmers who never got the breaks he did.

~~~
andrewljohnson
1) I don't think Aaron made more than six figures from Reddit. Soon after
acquisition, he went on walkabout, and then he got canned. He probably got
some money, but did not vest most of his share.

So, don't worry - he's poor enough for your pity and support.

2) As to your second line of thought, that we should punish him because he
consciously broke the law... I disagree with anyone on this forum who says
that Aaron didn't know the potential consequences of his actions, and
therefore should not be punished. But I also disagree with you.

This was a victimless crime, and the only ones pursuing it are some relentless
G-men. Where is the corporation or person that has been wronged? Who, in the
public, wants to pillory Aaron? What did Aaron gain? Do we really need to make
an example of him, so this doesn't happen again? Is this really good a use of
taxes?

My reaction is just shame and disgust... I mean, really? This brilliant kid is
going to jail because of civil disobedience? Just so we can show there is
still a book than can be thrown?

~~~
tptacek
From the prosecution's vantage point --- and please stop for a minute and
consider that perspective even though there's no chance you'll agree with it
--- this was _not_ a victimless crime.

As the prosecution sees it, Aaron broke into a service and took information
that JSTOR charges 5 figures for access to with the intent of putting it on a
file sharing network and thus destroying the commercial value of that
information. If you read the indictment, the prosecution's vantage point seems
to show that Aaron did this _with the intention of destroying the commercial
value of the information_ , because he opposes the commercialization† of that
kind of information.

The prosecution's charge is that Aaron deliberately set out to harm an
organization because they were incompatible with his own ideology.

† _JSTOR is a nonprofit but you get the drift_

~~~
tatsuke95
> _"The prosecution's charge is that Aaron deliberately set out to harm an
> organization because they were incompatible with his own ideology."_

Sort of like how Rosa Parks decided to harm an organization because it didn't
agree with _her_ ideology. I mean, we're a nation of laws, she should have
just sat where the bus driver told her to, am I right? Do we even have to
debate the idea that sometimes laws are dictated _to_ the people, not _by_ the
people?

Thankfully there are people who are actually willing to take action, rather
than shilling for the powers that be. Academic research by public institutions
_should_ be free, in both senses of the word.

> _"the prosecution's vantage point seems to show that Aaron did this with the
> intention of destroying the commercial value of the information"_

Of course they will claim that, what else would they argue?

~~~
tptacek
Huh? Rosa Parks didn't set out to harm the Montgomery Bus Line. She just took
the "wrong" seat.

It's funny that people can play the Anti-Godwin without even really knowing
who Rosa Parks was; at least you can assume the people who invoke Hitler
actually know why Hitler was evil.

~~~
tatsuke95
> _"Rosa Parks didn't set out to harm the Montgomery Bus Line. She just took
> the "wrong" seat."_

And Swartz didn't set out to harm JSTOR commercially. That's only the view of
prosecutors, which is completely expected.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The point of bringing up Rosa Parks is that
you make claims like, _"We are a nation ruled by laws, not people. It is not
up to Aaron Swartz"_. Substitute Aaron Swartz for Rosa Parks/Gandhi/whatever
other examples people have brought up, and you should see what a ridiculous
statement that is.

> _"It's funny that people can play the Anti-Godwin without even really
> knowing who Rosa Parks was"_

What's really funny is that, between calling opposing ideas "dumb" and
"retarded", you've managed to conceal from most of the HN community the fact
that you're really an arrogant blow-hard.

~~~
tptacek
Yes he did. He even posted a manifesto saying it.

~~~
tatsuke95
Funny, because I see him repeating, over and over, that the purpose is to set
academic research free. It's called the "Open Access Manifesto" for crying out
loud, not "Let's bankrupt JSTOR!"

And it's _that_ idea that myself and other "retards" here are able to get
behind, _despite_ the fact that he broke the law to try to accomplish it, and
will likely suffer consequences.

~~~
tptacek
Only on a message board are these two dots hard to connect. Because after
JSTOR's whole database is made public, people will continue to pay JSTOR
because they're nice guys.

~~~
tatsuke95
> _"Because after JSTOR's whole database is made public, people will continue
> to pay JSTOR because they're nice guys."_

Because Universities and research facilities are going to download the JSTOR
torrent as opposed to purchasing access, just because it's available, right?

That sounds a lot like the argument the record labels and MPAA make. I can't
remember, do people still pay for music and movies?

------
citricsquid
They really should include some sort of background or link on this page. For
anyone else that has little idea who he is or why he needs money:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#JSTOR>

More complete background: [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/07/reddit-
founder-ar...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/07/reddit-founder-
arrested-for-excessive-jstor-downloads/)

------
david_shaw
I don't necessarily disagree with the motives behind Aaron's actions, but if
you're going to break the law in what may be perceived as "civil
disobedience," you need to be willing to "do the time," too.[1]

I'm neither encouraging nor discouraging people from donating, but I do think
that it's a little off-putting that Aaron's taking what could have been a
selfless, martyrdom-filled act of civil disobedience and then changing it into
"silly mistake," from which he's asking for help recovering.

[1]: 'Doing the time' as a turn of speech. I doubt Aaron would get actual jail
time for this. Then again, I am not a lawyer.

~~~
shmulkey18
This was not civil disobedience, which involves publicly breaking a law in
order to demonstrate that it is unjust. Swartz, lacking the courage of his
convictions, tried to commit a crime in secret. Now he wants us to help him
pay the piper! Despicable.

~~~
ohreilly
When you impact JSTOR and the entire MIT network the way he did, it's hardly
"in secret". Something like a stream of one million continuous JSTOR downloads
24/7, significantly impacting the entire MIT network, is going to go
unnoticed?

His JSTOR use was heavy enough to draw an IP ban. Yet he continued. I fail to
believe he was really trying to hide - he knew his actions would be noticed.
Network admins would see what was going on. And even in the wiring closet,
putting a bike helmet over his face? That's not exactly covert.

JSTOR would know something was up - the IP ban was probably automatic but
still I would guess the folks administering their servers would have noticed a
huge spike in activity from MIT.

MIT would know something was up. Their network admins are not asleep at the
wheel.

Seems to me, it was no secret what he was doing. He did not try very hard to
conceal it. (Or maybe you think he was supposed to hold a press conference or
at least call the TV news first?) With the way he went about this, it's no
wonder he got caught.

Moreover, he already knew he had an FBI file from the PACER incident. So it's
not like he couldn't imagine the FBI getting involved.

Then again, I could be wrong. Maybe he really is that stupid.

------
bcl
If you want people to donate to your cause you need to do a couple things:

1\. Include some background on why I should care. 2\. Provide some level of
assurance that this page is actually linked to the issue at hand and isn't
just a phishing scheme.

~~~
_delirium
#2 seems reasonably certain, since aaronsw.com has been Aaron Swartz's domain
for a while now. As for background:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4528083>

------
lhnz
Why are they prosecuting a man for publicly making available beneficial
scientific knowledge that the public have effectively paid for? Is personal
gain of a few companies really more important than education, and should it
really be enshrined in law?

------
gnu8
I'm not willing to donate. Aaron's goal may have been noble, but his actions
are indefensible.

~~~
mibbitier
I agree. He was extremely foolish and arrogant at best. I don't think this
belongs on HN.

Also didn't he make a ton of money selling Reddit?! :/

~~~
TheCowboy
Could either one of you please explain how "his actions were indefensible" or
how "he was extremely foolish and arrogant at beast"? Appreciated.

~~~
mibbitier
Come on. If you download millions of files that obviously aren't supposed to
be downloaded en masse, and then release them publicly, you're going to get in
trouble. Common sense.

He knew what he was doing, and hew knew what he was doing was wrong. Doesn't
seem terribly smart to make enemies high up.

~~~
luriel
> He knew what he was doing, and hew knew what he was doing was wrong.

He might have known (and even the extent of this is not clear) that what he
was doing was illegal.

But that doesn't mean it is wrong, law and morality are two very different
things.

Me and many others would argue that what he did was almost a moral imperative,
he tried to free human knowledge (mostly paid by tax dollars!) from the
artificial monopoly of some corporate leeches.

And if you need more arguments for this, just read up on what Thomas Jefferson
had to say about it:
<http://harmful.cat-v.org/economics/intellectual_property/>

~~~
mibbitier
If something is illegal, and you do it, you are at risk of being prosecuted.

If you believe something shouldn't be illegal, then campaign to get the law
changed!

Are people video-camming movies in cinemas "just freeing human knowledge"?
Were wikileaks publishing secret sensitive hacked info "just freeing human
knowledge"?

I don't need any more arguments, because I absolutely disagree. If you believe
a law needs to be changed, the way to get it changed is not to start breaking
it. We live in a civilised society here. It's this kind of "political
activism" I detest.

~~~
ef4
> If you believe a law needs to be changed, the way to get it changed is not
> to start breaking it.

On the contrary, history shows it to be one of the few effective methods.

You're saying that Rosa Parks was wrong when she refused to go to the back of
the bus. The underground railroad was wrong for refusing to comply with
fugitive slave laws. Ghandi was wrong for breaking the laws imposed by the
British.

We live in a civilized society precisely _because_ many people have disobeyed
uncivilized laws. It's actually one of the hallmarks of our civilization that
we can draw a distinction between what's right and what's legal.

~~~
mibbitier
Well, agree to disagree. I do not think breaking the law, bullying,
protesting, etc are good ways to behave.

~~~
felipemnoa
Another good example is "Boston Tea Party" [1]. It was one of the catalysts of
the American Revolution.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party>

~~~
xtdx
One of the causes of the Revolution was lack of representation and a means to
change the law. Now that we have a representative government as a result of
that war, one might hope we would use it.

------
markbao
Is it just me, or does that payment box look kind of dodgy? I think there's a
reason that so many people use PayPal and services like it—people trust a
familiar face. But this one doesn't really have any padlocks or any details
like address or zip code or anything, and just looks out of character for a
checkout page.

As a person that knows about Aaron, I know it can be trusted, but it might not
be the same for others. Just a reaction that the folks supporting Aaron might
want to be aware of.

~~~
mrkmcknz
I get what you're saying.

One company who got around this hurdle was App.net(piggybacking on the
Stripe/Visa/Mastercard brand). I'm assuming this is another implementation of
Stripe.

~~~
oneplusone
It is the official Stripe payment tag. <https://stripe.com/docs/payment_tag>

~~~
protomyth
It would be really nice if there was somewhere on that payment tag to click to
verify it at stripe.com.

------
nostromo
I wish someone would make a KickStarter for legal stuff.

I've seen enough of these that it could be a real business. (Ex: help pay for
a defense against some government intrusion, or RIAA overreaching, or to bring
a case to challenge an unconstitutional statute, or to overturn a dumb
pantent, or whatever).

It could even evolve into a platform for the political moneybomb we've seen
before. (A bounty for the first person to introduce some bill, for example:
patent reform.)

~~~
sillysaurus
Actually, a Kickstarter for legal defense is a good idea.

~~~
shill
It is a good idea. Unfortunately, the Obama administration is STILL fighting
for indefinite detention powers[1] even after Judge Forrest's NDAA ruling[2].
The owner and users of a legal defense kickstarter could be at risk of
indefinite imprisonment without trial if a cause was somehow linked to
'terrorism'.

1\. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/ndaa-case-
indefinit...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/ndaa-case-indefinite-
dentention_n_1885204.html)

2\.
[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_ZWg1DMub...](http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_ZWg1DMubxpzgZlf58WFOZN415A?docId=560c3298937e445ca6cb325e18c3ab8b)

~~~
tptacek
You have to be pretty dumb to believe that the owners and users of a legal
defense Kickstarter could face indefinite detention.

The myriad of utterly retarded message board arguments you could hide behind
to make this claim are so obviously numerous and complicated that I'm not
touching this thread with a ten foot pole. Just chiming in to say, "no".

------
adastra
If people want to help Aaron, I'd recommend a political strategy as well as a
legal one. I'm not a lawyer and certainly no expert on this case, but my sense
is that there is something political going on or one of the prosecutors sees
this as a big career boost. For someone without a criminal background like
Aaron it would seem very much out of the norm to continue escalating the
charges as they've done, rather than move toward a plea bargain.

These prosecutors work for the Obama Administration, and ultimately the
President. The President has certainly courted the tech/internet vote, and I
think some internet activism in this case is worth a shot. But it would need
to be done basically _right now_ (i.e. before the election). Are the
prosecutors going to drop the charges? No. But some political pressure could
improve whatever the terms of a plea deal are.

Disclosure: Aaron and I briefly worked at the same non-profit organization
many years ago. But we were essentially in different departments, so while we
met once or twice I wouldn't say I know him personally.

~~~
tptacek
Good plan. Because surely a Republican-controlled DoJ would be much more
lenient about the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act.

~~~
adastra
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not.

My underlying assumption is that Obama is more than likely going to win re-
election. FiveThirtyEight has him at 75% likelihood to win, and intrade
bettors have him at 66%. But even if he wins, he'll have much less reason to
pay attention to the views of the reddit demographic after the election than
he will before. So Aaron's supporters should start working this right away.

Same goes with Congress by the way, if a member of Congress could be enlisted
to help (what's the Congressional districts for Aaron's hometown and current
residence?)

~~~
tptacek
Even in Nate Silver's analysis, Obama is at his apex coming out of the
convention. There are 6 weeks to go, the election turns on 3-4 states, and
Romney has tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to spend.

But the Internet told you that Obama's going to win, so as far as you're
concerned, the election is over, and it's time to start playing games with it
to make stupid points.

~~~
adastra
Well that's not very nice.

------
thejerz
What are we defending Aaron Swartz against? (Sorry for being a boob)

~~~
sciurus
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/21/aaron-
swart...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/21/aaron-swartz-
indicted-hacking-charges)

------
tptacek
Is Aaron incarcerated?

~~~
sciurus
I don't believe so; the "free" in the URL seems a bit cheeky. The trial is
scheduled for February 4, 2013.

------
additive
From the indictment: JSTOR is a not-for-profit (=no tax liability?). JSTOR
charges universities annual subscription fees as high as $50,000.

Are we told anywhere what JSTOR's actual costs are for scanning documents and
serving PDF's? Yes. Someone provided a link to details of JSTOR's budget in
the other Swartz thread. Very interesting. They appear to be some very well
paid "librarians" (archivists). And lo and behold, they are trying to figure
out how to make Google bucks. Seed the Google index with links to JSTOR
articles that sit behind a paywall, then charge $10 or more for a la carte
access. (Can you feel the desperation?)

Sounds great, they can piggyback on Google, maybe run some SEO, do some
behavioural tracking and all that. But there's just one problem: this is
library material. Library as in the kind that is funded by grants, taxes,
tuition or endowments. Non-commercial. And even more, does Google Scholar show
ads? Do they charge anyone for access?

I'd put my money on projects like archive.org or publicresource.org, who
charge nothing, before I'd bet on these guys. Sadly, this criminal case may
really be all for nothing. Because businesses like JSTOR will likely fail, not
because of kids like Swartz, but because they simply are not as smart about
technology as the folks who run sites like archive and publicresource.

------
adrianwaj
He would've got more donations had he put the papers he downloaded online
sooner, rather than get busted with 4 million. A journalleaks site would be
much more useful than wikileaks.

------
leed25d
I think that he's an arrogant little bastard and a few years in the slammer is
just what he needs to teach him about the consequences of hubris.

------
5xz41s0P8T5N
You forgot to accept Bitcoin.

~~~
kylebrown
The guy that uploaded the JSTOR papers last year after Swartz was indicted,
Greg Maxwell, accepted bitcoin donations.

[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110721/11122615195/aaron-...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110721/11122615195/aaron-
swartz-indictment-leading-people-to-upload-jstor-research-to-file-sharing-
sites.shtml)

------
godisdad
See also <http://thecostofknowledge.com/>

I feel the state of academic publishing is essentially, a hustle. People being
divorsed from community feedback and their own rights as authors is farcical.

------
mikeklaas
What? No kickstarter?

------
jhrobert
They could not get Assange, hence...

