|
|
|
| Authored by: wharris on Wednesday, January 16 2013 @ 02:44 PM EST |
I am unaware that Mr. Swartz had a fiduciary relationship to anyone in this
case. If he did, please enlighten me as to whose trust he allegedly betrayed.
As far as whether he "acted illegally" to obtain the documents, the
claim is that Mr. Swartz exceeded his authorization to use MIT computers to
download JTOR articles by using excessive bandwidth (note that he *was*
authorized to use MITs network, and he *was* authorized to download JTOR
argicles). The two problems: First, it is not clear that Mr. Swartz ever agreed
to bandwith or other access limits. Second, even if he did agree to a EULA, many
people think EULA violations should be treated as policy violations possibly
giving rise to a civil suit rather than criminal violations. And third, even
people who are OK with EULA violations being treated as criminal activities do
not think this case deserved 17 felony charges or a 35-year prison term.
I know people are sick of analogies, but here are two more. One: If I sign an
agreement to purchase a car, and then don't pay for it, the car company can
repossess the car and/or sue me for money. They don't get to report me for Grand
Theft Auto.
Two: Suppose someone goes to a library, which will allow anyone to check out up
to 6 books without an ID. That same person goes back an hour later to check out
six more books. That same person goes back an hour later, to be told he can't
have any more books. He puts on a disguise (still no ID) to check out 6 more
books. It may be reasonable to suspect that this person is up to no good. This
person has definitely broken library policy. A zealous prosecutor can try to
make the case that he has stolen the books (though that is difficult to prove
until/unless the loan period expires). But 35 years in prison???
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 16 2013 @ 03:54 PM EST |
What? You mean... I actually have to produce evidence that you killed
someone first?
I don't understand, aren't you guilty until proven
innocent?
Please excuse my extreme
roleplay.
Unfortunately, some people actually believe in "Guilty until
proven innocent" in real life.
You asked a question:
Didn't Mr.
Swartz act illegally to obtain the documents?
I'm going to ask a question
in return based on the spirit of "innocent until proven guilty":
What
evidence do you have that Mr. Swartz did act illegally?
Under the principle
of "innocent till proven guilty" if you can not produce evidence of Mr. Swartz'
guilt, then he is by default innocent and requires no evidence to prove
innocence.
So please:
Present your evidence of Mr. Swartz
guilt.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, January 16 2013 @ 04:59 PM EST |
No. You enlighten us instead. Go
ahead.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbb on Friday, January 18 2013 @ 12:55 AM EST |
[...] Didn't Mr. Swartz act illegally to obtain the
documents?
If the answers to the above questions are yes, why Mr. Heymann
should be fired?
I wish the world really were as simple as you
make it seem but your gross over-simplification glosses over the heart of the
problem. As Paul
Craig Roberts explains:
The criminal justice (sic) system today
consists of a process whereby a defendant is coerced into admitting to a crime
in order to escape more severe punishment for maintaining his innocence. Many of
the crimes for which people are imprisoned never occurred. They are made up
crimes created by the process of negotiation to close a case.
[...]
Prosecutors have lost sight of innocence and guilt. What we have today is a
conveyor belt that convicts almost everyone who is charged. [...] A defendant
that incurs the prosecutor's ire is certain to be framed on far more serious
charges than a negotiated plea.
Harvey Silverglate estimates
that the average American commits three felonies per
day:
Silverglate believes that we are in danger of becoming a
society in which prosecutors alone become judges, juries and executioners
because the threat of high sentences make it too costly for even innocent people
to resist the prosecutorial pressure.
If this is true, then
perhaps by your over-simplified logic everyone in America should be locked up
behind bars. The legal system relies entirely on the discretion of the
prosecutors. In a land with far too many over-broad laws, the prosecutors are
responsible for deciding which tiny percentage of lawbreakers face criminal
proceedings and which lawbreakers stay free.
People are complaining because
the prosecutors abused their discretion by throwing the book at Aaron. If he
actually did commit a crime, it was a victimless crime. Even JSTOR said that
Aaron should not be punished for his actions. The over-zealous prosecutors
tried to force Aaron to choose between a) giving up his principles and
confessing to crimes he did not commit or b) going to trial and
bankrupting himself and his loved ones in the process. Aaron chose a solution
where he didn't have to give up his principle nor did he have to bankrupt his
family and friends. It is shameful that the prosecutors used their vast power
and discretion to put this honorable man in such an untenable position.
We
as a society have given prosecutors enormous power. For 95% of their cases
(plea bargains) they act as judge and jury. We rely on their discretion to
choose wisely which cases warrant bringing to bear the full power of their
office. The prosecutors in this case badly betrayed our trust in them and
abused the power we bestowed on them. The only reasonable avenue forward is for
them to lose the powers they so shamefully abused.
---
Our job is
to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
