|
|
|
| Authored by: jbb on Thursday, March 07 2013 @ 01:19 AM EST |
| First, our legal system is infused with an irrational fear/hatred of hackers.
Second, they wanted to make an example of Aaron. I believe this has already
been admitted. Third and most important, none of the plea offers or the piled on
charges were at all proportionate to the offence. This last one is the crux of
the abuse.
Look, just a few days ago President Obama ratified the
so-called radical ideals Aaron was trying to achieve. If this was a crime at
all, it was a completely victimless crime. The government itself is now pushing
for the very worst thing imaginable that Arron could have done with the
downloads. Aaron's victimless act was also a very simple hack in the middle of
hack-central USA (MIT). Were people threatened with 30+ years in jail for
putting a VW bug on top of a building? No, even though that was a far worse
offence than Aaron's civil disobedience.
In their zeal to put Arron in
his proper place and to punish him for his disrespect for corporate authority
(he put the welfare of the people of the United States above unreasonable and
immoral corporate profits) they gave him two options: have his voice muted by
becoming a felon (the plea bargain) or have his voice muted by having himself
and everyone he knows and loves become bankrupt fighting the case in court.
Aaron found a third alternative that prevented them from silencing his voice.
Holder's boss effectively admitted that what Aaron did was perfectly
reasonable. American citizens should not have to pay a corporation in order to
get access to research they already paid for.
Why were the prosecutors blind to
the utter reasonableness of his actions? That's what makes this incident so
shameful. The fact that Holder says it was fine means these persecutions of any
disrespect for utter corporate control will continue unabated. This response
was not at all unexpected but that doesn't mean it was right, it just
shows you
exactly who Holder is working for and it is certainly not the people of the
United States of America.
---
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 | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbb on Thursday, March 07 2013 @ 01:35 AM EST |
| Right after posting the previous comment I turned to the news and saw an article
with the headline above. Can there be a greater contrast? Aaron was trying to
give back to the American people what rightfully belonged to them. This give
back would also have a beneficial impact on research in American. Contrast this
with banks that due to nothing more than unbridled greed plunged our country
into a financial meltdown. How many of them were threatened with even a day in
jail? None, as far as I know.
But the real problem is moral
hazard:
a moral hazard is a situation where a party will have a
tendency to take risks because the costs that could incur will not be felt by
the party taking the risk.
IOW, you've got to catch them in the
act and really rub their nose in it or they will just keep on doing it.
Holder's lack of action on this front ensures that we will have another, far
larger, financial melt-down in the near future. This massive contrast of
persecuting heroes while letting all the true villains walk free is the real
tragedy here. It will be the ruin of us all.
---
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 | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: symbolset on Thursday, March 07 2013 @ 02:42 AM EST |
I don't know what it is you're talking about, but it ain't justice. Things have
been fairly pleasant and patient so far, waiting for the slow wheels to turn.
But if the outcome of this is "won't fix" then folks are likely to get riled up
and cause some disorder.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 07 2013 @ 08:16 AM EST |
It seems to me the government is doing something very similar to patent troll
behavior..
A patent troll threatens major money for violating the patent and is willing to
settle for very little for a license. It doesn't matter if the patent is valid
or not as the amount needed to pursue the matter is more expensive than
fighting.
Here is the government is saying that they are correct to threaten to pursue
insane amounts of jail time and money if a person tries to defend themselves.
Even if the person did nothing wrong or only committed a minor crime, they are
pushed into pleading guilty because you never know what a jury may decide.
(Please no flames for using the wrong grammar, poor punctuation, or getting a
small nuance wrong!)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: albert on Thursday, March 07 2013 @ 10:37 AM EST |
You are blinded by your faith in the system.
It was the US Attorneys office pressing the charges here, not JSTOR, and their
case was weak at best. Swartz didn't see himself as guilty, and no reasonable
jury would have done so either. No one was harmed, Swartz did not distribute
the files, nor did he make any profit from them.
It's another example or ridiculously absurd laws we have, that bring in the FBI
to investigate copyright cases. Shouldn't the FBI be fighting REAL crime?
The whole plea bargain system is corrupt. If a person is guilty of a crime, let
him serve his time, not bargain his sentence down just to get a conviction. If
you can't get a conviction without a plea bargain, perhaps you're just not good
enough. Eliminate plea bargains and watch the conviction rates plummet.
That's why it's sad that Swartz never got a trial. Holder and his minions are
simply using the power they have to get convictions and seize property. That's
all they're interested in, convictions. Their success is measured in conviction
rates. Enforcing the law is just an excuse.
Don't defend the Holders of the system, they are part of the problem, not part
of the solution. I don't expect things to change, but they need their feet held
to the fire just on general principles.
I'm glad about the blowback, and I'm glad it ruined Ortiz political aspirations,
and it put Holder in the hot seat.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of folks.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 07 2013 @ 12:30 PM EST |
Posting anonymously.
I wouldn't have read past the first paragraph. But webster has experience on his
side. We may not like his experience in this case, but it reflects what is
really happening in the legal system. I have appreciated that in the past, and I
am not likely to ignore it because the message is unpalatable.
First, webster talks about the "usual perspective". What happened to
Aaron is what is happening to thousands of people charged with federal crimes. I
have seen a few of these dramas play out as I have sat in federal courtrooms
watching other people's charges develop.
Federal prosecutors have always seemed blood-thirsty to me. Federal judges can
be the same way. Why bother with human flotsam when you have a prison to send
them to? If they are in court, they must be guilty. And, I keep hearing
"They will not learn until they get sufficiently strong consequences for
their actions." And once you are in the system, they have total control of
your life. If you sneeze wrong, you can be sent back to prison and your sentence
extended.
So my limited view agrees with what webster is saying.
What I also have heard, from people with personal experience, is that federal
prisons -- past the minimum prisons that white collar criminals go to -- are
seriously dangerous. People die there, are enslaved there, are left to rot
there, are maimed and beaten and left to die. Rumors are enough to get someone
killed. Gangs are a reality. Join one and be a slave, or die on your own.
Federal prisons should be wiped out as being unconstitutionally cruel and
unusual punishment.
Why do we put up with the justice system as it is? Why do we put up with the
prison system as it is? Do you know how easy it would be for one of us to end up
there? Some drug residue and a bullet will get you in federal prison, along with
a thousand other trivial offenses. Once there, all it takes is resisting orders,
and getting tagged as incorrigible. That will get you into higher security
prisons.
Why do we allow federal prosecutors to do this to people? Aaron is only the
touchstone that sparked off this publicity. The atrocities have been happening
for decades. How have we let our liberties become so eroded that this situation
is the "usual perspective"?
How did we get this way?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 07 2013 @ 03:03 PM EST |
Interesting quote from one of the articles:
cuts to the FBI, ATF,
U.S. Marshalls, & U.S. Attorneys will limit the department’s capacity to
investigate and solve crimes
Which would explain why it's more
important to go after someone who:
a) Had authorized access to the
network
b) Had authorized access to the materials
c) Had
authorization to download (copy) the materials for consumption
d) Did
not have explicit authorization to consume as much material as he did in the
short time that he did - in short, did not have explicit authorization for
"bandwidth"
then someone who:
embezzled 40 million dollars
After
all - with less money, one needs to avoid those situations likely to contain
high cost defense lawyers.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: albert on Saturday, March 09 2013 @ 12:46 PM EST |
1. Plea bargains - enough said on this.
2. Prison privatization - encourages operators to keep prisons at 100% capacity.
Increases demand for new prisons. This is done by drafting draconian drug laws,
(like prison sentences for marijuana _users_), nebulous or weasel-worded laws
that allow prosecutors wide latitude. Bad law increases demand for lawyers.
Complicated law is bad law.
3. No accountability for prosecutors, judges, and juries.
4. Criminalization of civil offenses.
5. FUD. Drug abuse is a public health issue, like alcohol abuse (a very serious
problem, even now)
The concept of deterrent is misunderstood. Deterrent is like a lock on a door.
It keeps honest folks honest. Death or life sentences no longer deter.
Sociopaths aren't deterred. The young, poor folks have nothing to live for,
they are not deterred. The growing inequality between rich and poor erodes the
system, and will eventually lead to revolution.
I understand why Swartz did what he did. Denied liberty, he chose death.
"...Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of
chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may
take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry,
1775?
How long before the whole criminal justice system is privatized? You think
things are bad now? Just wait.
Sincerely (if somewhat cynically) yours,
albert
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
