1. People are upset that Aaron Swartz faced losing the right to vote, hold public office, serve on a jury, or own a firearm, penalties entirely unrelated and disproportionate to the crime.
2. Your analogy fails because MIT IT certainly know what they could do to secure their systems more robustly, and chose not to do so. This debate has gone on long enough; most of HN disagrees with your position. Let it drop.
> People are upset that Aaron Swartz faced losing the right to vote, hold public office, serve on a jury, or own a firearm, penalties entirely unrelated and disproportionate to the crime.
The "Felony" idea comes from the maximum possible sentence for a crime. CFAA has been on the books since like 1986 so as soon as Aaron decided to run afoul of its provisions that was a done deal.
As it turns out many states have provisions to restore voting rights to felons, firearm rights, etc. But this type of case is one of the few things prosecutors don't have discretion on, except by dropping charges completely (which I understand is what you think should happen, but that's not going to match what most of the rest of the country thinks, where fairness of justice and due process are at least theoretically the ideal).
> This debate has gone on long enough; most of HN disagrees with your position.
Oh! Is HN the decider now? I browse this site and I wasn't aware my opinion had been pre-determined for me. Are there any other HN-mandated opinions I should adopt now that this question has been raised? Am I still allowed to like Microsoft products? Are iPhones mandatory or can I keep my Android?
I bet you know how you could secure your home more robustly. That has no bearing on whether someone who breaks in to steal your laptop is committing a crime.
1. I think ex-felons should be able to discharge their sentences totally, regain the right to vote, and earn back their various legal privileges. But right now, they can't, and I don't see what distinguishes Aaron Swartz from any other ex-felon.
2. You're essentially saying that the victim was asking for it. As for most of HN disagreeing, neither of us knows what the proportions are. There has been some vocal opposition to my arguments, but a lot of it comes from the same small number of people and I've also received a fair degree of support from other quarters. If you don't like it, don't read it.
>Your analogy fails because MIT IT certainly know what they could do to secure their systems more robustly, and chose not to do so.
While I am pro Aaron and anti-MIT this is argument is weak sause.
So what? I also know what I could do to secure my house more robustly (put an electric fence, more cameras, a steel door with secure locks etc), and I don't do it. Does that give you the right to enter into it against my will, much less to a robbery?
>This debate has gone on long enough; most of HN disagrees with your position. Let it drop.
And most of US citizens disagree with you (maybe), and say that abortions should remain illegal. Should you just let it drop? One should not abandon his views because of what a majority (or minority) says. And neither is what the majority agrees with always right.
2. Your analogy fails because MIT IT certainly know what they could do to secure their systems more robustly, and chose not to do so. This debate has gone on long enough; most of HN disagrees with your position. Let it drop.