Reddit Cofounder kills himself.

I'm just saying that it doesn't make sense. You cannot be trying to maximise your chances of laying a charge and charging somebody with a more serious charge than it should be at the same time. Unless the courts will find people guilty of charges more serious than it should be, in which case the US legal system has a much bigger problem.

Yep.

I'm quite surprised the DOJ hasn't been demanded to be dismantled after this and the fact that they had falsified information to shut down Megaupload.

Oh, and apparently Aaron was supposed to be sent for six months in jail...

edited 16th Jan '13 6:08:11 PM by Psyga315

I think the issue is we have a difference of definition for "overcharging". Here's what I mean:

Let's say you break into a house, and steal some thing. If he DA decides to charge you, they can(and will) hit you with every charge possible. Burglary, theft, criminal trespass, and vandalism(assuming you actually broke something to get in). The latter three overlap with initial crime, and are redundant for the case(if they prove burglary, they'll have proven the other three). But you still committed them, and can be charge with them at the same time.

When the DA offers you a plea, you would probably just plead guilty to the burglary charge(or the theft/trespass charges, depending on the case, and your lawyer), with the low end of the sentence being the recommendation to the judge. If you turn down the plea you will go to trail for every charge.

Now, there's another version of overcharging in which the DA adds elements that can't really be proven to strengthen the DA's case(ie adding a weapons violation charge to the burglary above because a gun was found in the house, even though the DA doesn't know who the gun belongs to)... I find that to be unethical... But there's nothing to indicate such a thing occurring with regards to the Swartz case.

Yea, Remember how the went after Dot Com???

This is a systematic thing. Hackers and online activists and independent devolopers are seen as the biggest threat to the system so they are treated almost like terrorists in that they get dealed with a lot of strenght and are subjected to very long sentences.

Of course acutal terrorist nowdays are not even within the legal system anyhow but brutalized by the military.

America´s legal system is old, outdated, and draconian by world standards.

There are no watchdogs within the goverment with credible authority, the prosecutor general is appointed, and the system has few and in some cases no effective mechanism to protect human rights.

edited 16th Jan '13 6:48:10 PM by Baff

If you knowingly do illegal shit, you really don't have any right to bitch about being punished for it. Regardless of how "harsh" the punishment is.

Even MLK and Gandhi believed that...

edited 16th Jan '13 6:56:31 PM by Swish

Then MLK and Ghandi were wrong. And I highly doubt that they even said that.

Ghandi once said "we didnt use guns, because we didnt had guns" so maybe you should re-examine your understanding of him.

Even then those 2 men went all their lifes getting arrested for breaking the law. Under your logic they deserved the punishment they got. And we shouldnt feel symphaty for them. Same for the jews... Hitler acted legally after all. As your picture says, the king can do as he likes...Reminds me of Carl Schmitt...

And you know who inspire them both? Thoreau. A men who isnt too diferent from Aaron himself.

edited 16th Jan '13 7:14:06 PM by Baff

Thoreau hated reformers, FWI. He was a...Classical Liberal/Libertarian who distrusted government on a fundamental level. The sort of person who goes to a good college, lived a good, well-educated, safe life, and conveniently ignored the system that allowed all that.

"He wasnt a reformer"...but yet he was subversive and his ideas influenced reformers.

Besides... the internet pretty much embraces libertarian ideals to a great extend so it shouldnt be incompatible.

Even wonder why Ron Paul gets so much love online?

to quote Wikipedia:

edited 16th Jan '13 7:21:38 PM by Baff

Because people take photoshops pictures enhanced with Adobe® Photoshop® Elements softwa®e of him and add doomsayer text to his demonic face?

edited 16th Jan '13 7:23:33 PM by Psyga315

nevermind, fair enough.

edited 16th Jan '13 7:27:12 PM by Baff

This offtopicness is strong with this thread... (Hint: it shouldn't be.)

First, the internet is in no way an anarchy. It's a system of micro-dictatorships. Second, you have a lot less power to hurt people over the internet than you do IRL. Anyway, that's a little off topic (Though it might be an interesting topic for another thread.)

I do think anyone who's out to contentiously object to a law should be fully prepared to face the consequences of breaking it. Certainly, it might be an unjust law, but if you break a law to prove a point, just or unjust, you better be prepared to follow through. To expect some sort of special objective because of your motive is naive.

I have great sympathy for his suicide, and I think the copyright law is unjust and draconian, however.

No one is saying we should be surprised he got treated that way.

But saying that he deserved to be prosecuted and jail for life for a petty petty crimne is like saying that African Americans deserved to be segregated because thats what the law said.

edited 16th Jan '13 7:29:10 PM by Baff

I don't think anyone is saying he deserved it. But the law is rarely about what people deserve on an individual level.

Also, did he deserve to be locked away in the context of the law? Yes.

Did he deserve to be locked away in the context of a sane and reasonably justice system? I think nearly everyone would reply "No."

I think deserve is a rather....loose word.

"you have a lot less power to hurt people over the internet than you do IRL"

It's besides the point of the topic, but I'd have to disagree with this, arguing that it's the other way around in many ways. This is especially with regard to the fact that so many people have had their professional and personal lives ruined by content about them found on the internet; content that's often more difficult to collate and verify offline in many cases. But there are enough exceptions to my argument that we could debate the ins and outs of this all day, and it's off-topic, so I'll lay off.

I think the final sentence of your post is the lesson we need take away from this incident. Our current copyright laws and the way our courts handle those laws is in serious need of repairs.

That's a good way of explaining the situation.

edited 16th Jan '13 7:36:23 PM by Aprilla

@Baff: You know how long Thoreau's stand on Civil Disobedience lasted? Look it up.

It's funny, actually, he was pretty similar to his online supporters. When the going got tough, he got out.

Seriously. MLK and Gandhi were both clear on this. You want to make Civil Disobedience happen? Good on you. But take your punishment like a man.

Edit: Yeah, the law is clearly unfair here. And that prosecutor should be severely reprimanded, if not disbarred. Just wanted to state the obvious.

edited 16th Jan '13 7:37:41 PM by Ultrayellow

MLK, Letter from Birmingham Jail:

Gandhi explained Satyagraha as such:

If Swartz was took his action in some misguided form of civil disobedience(and because he went to MIT rather than staying in Harvard to do it, it doesn't look like it), then he should have just accepted his punishment, regardless of what it is.

If he did it just to break the law, then he does deserve to be punished to the max for having the gall to do so.

Everyone is focusing on the "theft" and saying that he didn't deserve to be punished harshly for it. I agree. The problem is that he didn't just commit "theft". He committed Computer fraud and wire fraud. And that doing shit does deserve the harsh punishment.

edited 16th Jan '13 7:50:06 PM by Swish

But punishment that's more harsh than if you were a murderer *

edited 16th Jan '13 7:53:58 PM by Psyga315

your missing the point. We arent defending breaking the law, we are criticising the law. So we say he got treated unfairly and you say, "he broke the law I feel no symphaty for him". Alright then, but then I argue about how the law is immoral and then you go back to saying that if you break the law you should accept the punishment, so your argument is circular.

Yea, you dont like Thoreau, I get it.

Thats very debatable.

What he did is hardly fraud in the classic sense.

You know that to claim to be a Woman online is fraud? Or to use a fake facebook username?

The law is so broad almost anything that isnt 100% factual could be constructed as fraud.

edited 16th Jan '13 8:01:46 PM by Baff

Is it?

If you define "murderer" as someone who accidentally kills someone, then you'd be right(as that sentence is roughly 7 years, on average). But the sentence for computer fraud(which requires you to have done it intentionally) is less than the sentence for intentional murder(no more than 10 years versus 25 to life)...

So why then has the sentence been for thirty-five years? Unless other sentences apply. What's the sentence usually for wire fraud?

edited 16th Jan '13 7:59:20 PM by Psyga315

@Baff: First off, how on earth was that a response to my post?

Secondly, yes. If you break the law, accept the punishment. Even if it's unjust. That's how civil disobedience works. Look at MLK, look at Gandhi, look at Thoreau if it makes you happy, even if he didn't live up to his ideals. Civil disobedience is an intellectually respectable position.

The thing about fraud. You have to gain something tangible(or do harm to someone) for it to be considered such. Regardless of the lie. So claiming to be a woman is only computer fraud if you do so in order to get money/property. And if you do such a thing, you deserve the sentence.

Wire fraud is a max of 20 years. He had 3 counts of computer fraud, at 10, 5, and 5 respectively.

Swartz was only hit with wire fraud because he was stupid enough to connect to the MIT networks using a hardline in a "restricted" room on the MIT campus...

Fair enough. Hows this: I agree that the "theft of property" bit isn't a just law. But I think the laws concerning computer/wire fraud are just laws, and aren't immoral at all...

The problem is you haven't really argued that wire/computer fraud is a moral thing to do(or rather, that the laws against them are "immoral")...

edited 16th Jan '13 8:12:12 PM by Swish

It sounds like the basis for this legal/moral dilemma is what information was obtained in the first place by means of theft and fraud. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the items taken were academic research papers. I think this is the reason why people are having a hard time seeing the moral legitimacy and proportional retribution in this particular case. If he obtained sensitive information pertaining to national security, kiddie porn, or personal bank account information, it'd make more sense on moral grounds, but that sort of legal retribution doesn't seem to apply very well here.

edited 16th Jan '13 8:17:32 PM by Aprilla