> I dare to say Aaron might still be around if that was what he was facing too.
Probably. But, and this is a very big but: Aaron was encouraged by every victory (and the coverage of those victories) to shoot for an even bigger target.
In spite of being very sympathetic to Aaron, the goals he fought for and what he stood for, sooner or later that was going to lead to a confrontation. And he was encouraged by the public response to his deeds as well.
So even if everything in this particular case is as bad as it looks Aaron definitely was not one to say 'that one is in the bag' and call it quits. If he had stopped after the PACER incident it would have been a very worthy achievement. Serially taking on entrenched interests of this magnitude will sooner or later have consequences, it is as far as I can see unavoidable. The fact that he did that makes me admire him even more but I fear that for someone of his self evidenced emotional make-up this was not a long term sustainable recipe.
With a goal of "increasing freedom," there is no line to be drawn, and the confrontations you predict are a signal of decreased freedom. One can call it a perverse incentive, but to the point he had reached, the confrontation was way out of proportion to the acts. You can call this unsustainable, but what other choice is there? "Welp, the interests of less-freedom don't want this, so I guess I shouldn't do it."
However, that the hammer was brought down so heavily tells me that on the part of the status quo there is a real weakness and a real fear that people might go in the directions he did.
Like the Boston Massacre, we will soon find ourselves in a propaganda battle. Ortiz' husband's mockery of Aaron Swartz's supporters, and her hardening of her stance (while parrying responsibility) is just the first step in circling the wagons.
Sen. John Cornyn is now asking questions of the Attorney General about all this, so now we know the people at the top have heard the call. Prepare for additions to this story.
> With a goal of "increasing freedom," there is no line to be drawn, and the confrontations you predict are a signal of decreased freedom.
Agreed. But you should never lift more than your back can handle.
> One can call it a perverse incentive, but to the point he had reached, the confrontation was way out of proportion to the acts.
We're fully in agreement here. But there are many examples of such extreme overreaches, recall the music sharing verdict and a bunch of other examples in the hacking / media sphere. This is not an isolated case at all. The differentiating factors are: (1) the defendant was for a change an exceptionally nice person, (2) the defendant knew a lot of people and was known by a lot of people and (3) he was clearly acting in what he thought was the best interest of all of us.
> You can call this unsustainable, but what other choice is there?
Unsustainable for Aaron in particular.
> "Welp, the interests of less-freedom don't want this, so I guess I shouldn't do it."
No, that's definitely not where I'm heading. I do want this and it is worth something, maybe even worth a lot.
> However, that the hammer was brought down so heavily tells me that on the part of the status quo there is a real weakness and a real fear that people might go in the directions he did.
Yes, I agree, and this overreach has exposed another weakness all by itself. A just justice system doesn't need scare tactics.
> Like the Boston Massacre, we will soon find ourselves in a propaganda battle. Ortiz' husband's mockery of Aaron Swartz's supporters, and her hardening of her stance (while parrying responsibility) is just the first step in circling the wagons.
Consider the battle joined. I will not forget about this and it will shape my actions for a long time to come.
> Sen. John Cornyn is now asking questions of the Attorney General about all this, so now we know the people at the top have heard the call. Prepare for additions to this story.
sentenced to three years of probation, 400 hours of community service, a fine of $10,050
I dare to say Aaron might still be around if that was what he was facing too.
Or, y'know you could listen to charities who work with suicide and do what they request and avoid blaming a suicide on one external cause? Often it's more complicated than that.
Exactly! We don't know what Aaron would have been sentenced to, and it would probably have been a mere fraction of the maximum penalty. There was something else going on in his life that we don't and most probably won't know or ever understand that lead him to take his own life. Regardless the world would have been a better place with him around, and it's a sad state of affairs that the rules and laws regarding computer crimes are so out of context and maybe even unjust. That being said, it was Aaron who took his own life, not the justice system regardless of how fucked up we believe it to be.
Re: (1): Grieving friends and family, while the best sources on some topics, may not have a completely accurate understanding of the suicidal mind. In their desire to make the loss "count for something", and work through their own "survivor's guilt", they may be especially likely to ascribe to acute tangible external reasons something that was equally or mainly caused by chronic non-specific internal reasons.
From timing it's likely that the lawsuit pressure was central in Aaron's reasoning. But in suicidal depression, accurate reasoning breaks down. Survivable, tolerable, and temporary things can seem permanent and intolerable. Without one apparent trigger (the prosecution), a depressive mind could latch instead onto other rationales... even rationales that seem to outsiders like personal triumphs. Inside the depressive mind those triumphs might not deliver the expected satisfaction, or may seem to represent a peak that can never be matched again and just wasn't enough.
I know it seems pat to say, "it was depression, period". There should be more consideration of the particulars than that. But it's equally pat to say, "a smart guy killed himself, he must have had logical reasons, let's rank all the potential logical reasons from public information, and conclude the top item on that list is 'the' reason". Without severe depression, all the publicly-known logical reasons aren't enough to explain this suicide.... but severe depression, or other stresses not publicly known, might explain it.
Perhaps, you misunderstand my original intentions. I'm not trying to stop the propagation of things I believe to be wrong. I have no idea if it was the trial or not.
However other suicidal people reading us all saying "Oh it was definitely the trail, that's why he killed himself", they might just think that if there is a lot of external pressure they are justified in killing themselves. This might lead to people killing themselves. Please try to discourage that.
It's like security research. We follow Responsible Disclosure for vulnerablities where you don't tell the public first. When there is a big bug (e.g. the recent Ruby on Rails bug), we don't all post links to proofs of concepts. Why? Because doing these things tends to result in innocent people getting hurt. The same thinking should be at play with suicide.
But suicide never stops being a problem. So your plan is to.. lie to people forever? In security research terms, let them keep buying onity locks, because we don't want people to know how to break onity locks and steal/hurt?
It's not the only factor but as jlgreco said it's the "sack of bricks that broke the camels back"
It's very true that you can't be sure. But it's definitely a notable factor. People don't make important decisions based on a single reason. Suicide isn't special here.
And your argument is completely unrelated to what I was objecting to, which is the idea that admitting influences on suicide must be stopped because it's badthink and could cause more suicide.
The problem is not admitting influences, of course there always are triggers, be them external or internal. The problem is quoting a single influence as the only or primary cause, especially if it's an external trigger, as that can motivate other depressed people to go over the line.
And that's why suicide is indeed special here, but in a different sense: it's special because random careless talk on a forum can be such a trigger, or be the seed of a future trigger.
Of course one cannot be held accountable for such an event, but given it's simple and free to avoid simplifying the causes of suicide, why not avoid it?
>given it's simple and free to avoid simplifying the causes of suicide, why not avoid it?
It isn't free though. It's de facto censorship.
Aaron Swartz is dead. People want to know why. People want to make sure something like this doesn't happen again to someone else. To do that on a rational basis, you have to understand the cause. It appears quite likely that the cause, or at least a very large contributing factor, was this prosecution by the DoJ. What they did was unacceptable. If nothing is done they will do it again, and again, and again. How can we do anything about it if we can't even talk about it?
I get what you're trying to say. It isn't sensible to commit suicide just because you're in a bad place. But you're arguing like all people have to do is shut up and everything will be fine. Not talking about it doesn't get it fixed.
I'm not at all arguing that shutting up will make everything be fine.
I'm arguing that mentioning the most logical trigger as a sure main/only cause for the suicide, besides being fallacious, can potentially cause more harm than good.
We sure must not accept what is regularly being done in prosecutions, but not because someone died, rather because it's a policy of terror instead of application of justice.
>We sure must not accept what is regularly being done in prosecutions, but not because someone died, rather because it's a policy of terror instead of application of justice.
I understand. I just don't think it's that simple. A major part of making normal people understand the severity of this policy of terror is to understand what its victims feel. You can't just separate the two so easily and say "excessive prosecutions are bad, go fight them" -- to do that we still have to convince people why they're so bad, to make them understand what the victims of the justice system feel, and "they're so egregious they're capable of driving good people to suicide" is a very powerful fact if you can show it. It's the kind of thing that can make the difference in whether it gets fixed or not.
Yes, by all means use his death for something useful like fighting this system. But you can do that in different ways, some more potentially harmful than others.
It'd be interesting to know how many people commit suicide on prosecution.
If nothing is done they will do it again, and again, and again. How can we do anything about it if we can't even talk about it?
Yes, we should try to stop suicide. So why not listen to the professionals & experienced? Why not listen to what they say helps and hinders? The people who work full time trying to stop suicide tell us that this sort of 'blame one thing' hinders that goal!
>Yes, we should try to stop suicide. So why not listen to the professionals & experienced?
Because general-purpose advice doesn't always fit specific circumstances. I look at it as taking the long view or the short view: If we talk about this now we may increase the risk of copycats in the short term, but fix it and indefinitely on from that point the justice system is no longer putting so much pressure on its victims that so many become a suicide risk, to say nothing of rectifying the real injustices against the accused who are only pushed up to the line but not over it. It's cold math but that's the way it is.
I think you will find that most people are aware of that. But it very well could have been the factor that drove him over the edge and you're going to have to allow for that.
Who is saying that the case was the only factor? I've only seen it as a strawman by those arguing it away. I see these people as protecting the prosecution's perspective on the case. "Hey, don't look at us."
> There was something else going on in his life that we don't and most probably won't know or ever understand that lead him to take his own life.
Facing prison for even 6 months is reason enough to kill yourself. Facing that plus rapes/AIDS/beatings/overcrowding in prison, plus a large fine, plus multiple years of probation, all for a victimless crime, is even more reason to kill yourself.
Are you actually recommending suicide to all would be inmates,
or just to the depressive HN readers who might be on a tight spot right now?
Your comment strikes me as absolutely irresponsible and out of touch with reality. Prison is not a joke, but there's a reason the capital punishment is death.
Suicide is a viable option to what Aaron was facing, no depression needed. His life was all but ruined anyway. Plenty of people chose suicide on 9/11 rather than face something worse. Doubtful they were all irresponsible, depressed, or out of touch with reality. More likely they just made the best choice as they saw it.
Yet you are confident you can predict his future, it seems. I have an opinion about which of two options is better. Of course I could be wrong. Maybe Aaron would sell another piece of a company, enough to pay off the fine/penalties/interest and not be homeless. If it were me I'd jump off a bridge before I'd endure repeated anal rape, let alone everything else Aaron was facing.
On the contrary, I don't even know if he would have actually ended up in prison, let alone anally raped. But you are sure he would - before his trial started!
Anyway, the main point that has totally gone over your head, is that one should never, ever, encourage suicide. There are people out there with the right type of wrong mood that might get influenced by careless talk.
Before you tell me you don't care and it's not your responsibility, please think harder. Thanks.
Trial wasn't a good choice. He could've ended up in prison for 10+ years that way, and probably didn't have the $1+ million for legal fees to have a decent chance of avoiding that outcome. A plea bargain or fleeing to one of the few corners of the world where the US can't grab you were the only realistic choices other than suicide.
> Anyway, the main point that has totally gone over your head, is that one should never, ever, encourage suicide.
I'm not encouraging suicide in general. I'm saying it can be a viable option, no depression necessary. By being realistic about suicide being a viable option we might better save people on the brink by better understanding their thinking, rather than assume that the choice of suicide is always bad and taboo to discuss.
Suicide is a good choice, but trial wasn't because you might get a 10 year sentence. Pray tell, what prevents suicide during trial or after conviction?
Suicide can be an option without depression, but when you have the fire at your toes and it's either death in 30 seconds by fire or in 5 minutes by free fall (and even then it's arguable.)
It's certainly NOT a viable option when you are months or years away of the feared problems, and even LESS so when they are not life or death.
Suicide can be talked about but not like you stated it: "He had no choice, yeah, suicide made sense." Especially when you are not being realistic, you are blinded by a weird combination of prescience and intimate knowledge of the happenings inside of prisons.
Which leads to my final point (this is what led me to answer your nonsense for a final time): Going to jail IS an option, an option that millions go through every year. Some of them are rich white kids that continue their lives afterward. And I can tell for a fact not all of them are raped.
It's harder to kill yourself post-conviction. He wasn't a wealthy CEO or like that, so presumably he'd have been in handcuffs within minutes of a guilty verdict. Some of the perhaps-innocent people indefinitely detained in Gitmo are trying to starve themselves. They get strapped down daily and calories are forced into them.
What's worse, burned alive or prison/huge fine/felony conviction/good chance of rapes/beatings/poverty/homelessness? For many people including me, either may be a fate worse then death.
His odds of being raped were over 20% according to studies. It's a safe bet that the young and handsome are more at risk.
I've said elsewhere I wish he had fled to another country. But I can see how being on the run, especially from the nearly worldwide reach of the US, could be a life too hard to bear for many people.
While I disagree that jail and the other hardships Aaron faced are a viable alternative to suicide, for me at least, I respect your opinion on that and understand that yours is the opinion of the vast majority.
They had a business selling blue boxes, which allow people to make long-distance calls for free (among other things). At the time national long distance calls cost roughly $4 (in today's money) per minute, with international calls being even more costly. Woz and Jobs made about $30k (in today's dollars) off of this illicit business and perhaps cost the phone company many many times more than that in potential lost revenue (possibly millions).
Compare that sort of "youthful indiscretion" to Aaron Swartz's far more selfless and far less damaging JSTOR hijinx.
On the flip side of this, consider that had Jobs and Woz never experimented with phone phreaking and never built those blue boxes they may never have had the guts to build Apple. Being a disruptor is about pushing limits, and sometimes the law runs right through those limits.
Who really knows what he would have gotten. rtm could have faced jail time, and the prosecutors apparently wanted it according to this contemporaneous essay:
Key point regarding Aaron: "It is hard to imagine Morris doing anything like the Internet worm again, so the need to lock him up is anything but pressing."
I am a bit surprised Richard Feynman does not figure in this discussion possibly because he existed "before PC". Paul Graham in his essay "The Word 'hacker'" writes [0]
Believe it or not, the two senses of "hack" are also
connected. Ugly and imaginative solutions have something
in common: they both break the rules. And there is a
gradual continuum between rule breaking that's merely
ugly (using duct tape to attach something to your bike)
and rule breaking that is brilliantly imaginative
(discarding Euclidean space).
Hacking predates computers. When he was working on the
Manhattan Project, Richard Feynman used to amuse himself
by breaking into safes containing secret documents. This
tradition continues today. When we were in grad school, a
hacker friend of mine who spent too much time around MIT
had his own lock picking kit. (He now runs a hedge fund,
a not unrelated enterprise.)
Or more likely because the situation, context and Feynman's actions were highly dissimilar. If you haven't had a chance, take a look at the story in the original source, it's a lot more detailed than an aside in a PG essay.
Locks in themselves are quite interesting mechanisms, and I'm not surprised that people find breaking them exciting. I bought a lockpicking set a few years ago, and the first thing I do whenever I move into a new house/apartment is pick my own locks.
Keys are able to open tumbler locks almost because of the imperfection of the lock itself, and lock picks just exploit that fact. I don't know - I think the whole concept is very beautiful.
As for usefulness, I've saved several friends a couple hundred dollars by opening their doors when they're locked out. :)
The law has tried to keep pace with the technological changes since then. This has resulted in the laws being reflective of the economic impact of networks and computing, rather than of the social impact of the various crimes and the punishments are accordingly severe. The real problem is how to make sure that actual crime can be punished hard enough that the punishments serve as a deterrent while at the same time allowing for activism and other reasonably benign (or even positive) transgressions of those same laws without allowing prosecutors to nail those same activists to a tree as an example using laws intended for the former group.
This is a hard problem to solve.
Woz, Gates, Jobs (and me too...) all profited from being born when this stuff was not as much on the political and social radar as it is today.
It really is a great read, and it shows the other side of the story: When there was very little, if any, idea of computer crime enforcement in the Federal government.
Back then there was an a hacker running amok on the Berkeley (yes, that Berkeley) network. Even when they managed to prove that the hacker was coming from overseas (definitely making it a Federal case) they were met with a big giant MEH from everyone they talked to. FBI didn't handle it. USSS didn't care. And on and on it went, until they managed to drag the government (and other parties besides) kicking and screaming into helping them out.
He crashed significant parts of the Internet, causing considerable alarm amongst sysadmins. His father was working for NSA at the time. I seem to remember he went to his father and was persuaded to own up, but maybe I misremember.
> However. at a recent meeting, Professor Rick Rashid of Carnegie-Mellon
University was heard to claim that Robert T. Morris, the alleged author of the Wann, had
revealed the jingerd bug to system administmtivc staff at eMU well over a year ago.
> These notes describe how the design of TCP/IP and the 4.2BSD implementation allow users on untrusted and possibly very distant hosts to masquerade as users on trusted hosts. [Robert T. Morris, "A Weakness in the 4.2BSD Unix TCP/IP Software"]
This shocking new revelation no doubt completely undermines the integrity of Y Combinator. I for one am off to update Sendmail accordingly in disgust ;)
back then, making a worm was way different than it is today. Today, most of them are intended to do damage today, back then, it was a technical feat to be able to write something like that. Look for the good part as well, like his the son of a UNIX co-founder.
when i was younger we did the same thing, and everyone I knew did as well. It wasn't ever intended to do damage.
the incredible level of trouble that I could have gotten into would have dwarfed my imagination. thankfully this was before anyone significantly cared.
I'm not even old. Then again, now there are tons of outlets to learn and play with things. breaking bbs's and other random things was a lot of my childhood simply because I lacked real outlets to learn. although a lot of that time seems wasted as being particularly good at taking efnet channels doesn't really translate into much but problem solving technique.
today i imagine i'd be working on yet another javascript framework.
If robert dint do what he has done, then microsoft wouldn't be what it is today. Hackers fine holes that needs to be filled. Companies patch those and then they file a complaint against hackers.
So, unacceptable.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5078351
Far less noble crimes than what Aaron was trying to do though.
sentenced to three years of probation, 400 hours of community service, a fine of $10,050
I dare to say Aaron might still be around if that was what he was facing too.