Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

Does anyone here who has paid any attention to Ed whatsoever believe he would have written that comment had he known that Aaron had already been financially ruined by an overzealous prosecution that had confronted him with a dilemma of pleading guilty to 13 felonies and spending 6 months in prison or taking a crap-shot at 6-7 years in prison?

NOBODY KNEW THESE DETAILS AT THE TIME. Aaron was apparently prevented from sharing them. They are shocking. It is not reasonable to get angry at people for reasoning through questions and failing to account for secret information.

View on HN

No, but he did assume he was asking for funds simply because he wasn't manning up. How many hundreds read/upvoted and made the same assumption? He should've held his judgment, especially with the weight he carries around here. I've been reading his comments for years. I know he's a good guy, but I still think it was a stupid comment to make.

    No, but he did assume he was asking for funds simply because he 
    wasn't manning up

How can any comment ever be made on the internet about something happening then if every commenter is expected to a) assume they know very little of the situation b) not make judgement c) later be held accountable for what they've said based on information not known at the time?

Do people need to start including disclaimers when they comment? "This comment is based on my understanding of the situation as presented by the article and would be revised if new things come to light that are not included in this article"?

I don't understand this sentiment at all. What's wrong with simply not commenting? HN isn't a semi-private coffee shop; this whole post illustrates quite nicely that what is said here is public and long-lasting.

Let's try this on for a little more discomfort: what do you think the odds are that Aaron himself read the comments of a few threads posted here about his case?

Your entire argument here seems predicated upon people absolutely needing to comment on things that they have no special knowledge of. I don't think that's very defensible.

> what do you think the odds are that Aaron himself read the comments of a few threads posted here about his case?

About 100% or so. That's the bit that hurts the most.

The simple solution is this: If you're going to say something positive, absent information feel free to do so.

On the other hand, if you're going to say something negative you'd better make damn sure you know what it is that you're talking about. If you don't those words might take on a life of their own at some unspecified point in the future.

Jacques, incidentally, I think you deserve some praise for being a real stand-up guy here. Aside from being generally a heck of a decent person, you're one of the few here who seems to have taken some actual action throughout this -- reaching out to Aaron to offer assistance, and, later, contacting Lessig to follow up on the EFF's involvement.

I don't think I deserve any praise at all. I had my eyes firmly closed when it mattered (and I really should have known better) and nothing came of the things I did.

"Not commenting" means no discussion.

No discussion mean no learning.

I'm sure you're smarter than to argue that all comments lead to learning, so I'm not sure what you mean here.

Assertive and risky comments are more likely to lead to learning than watered down versions.

I got the impression he just thought Aaron was guilty of a crime, and consciously committed it to make a difference, so Aaron should accept the legal consequences that go with that.

Hindsight is 20/20, and perhaps knowing Aaron was the type who would do something like this would prevent someone from commenting entirely, but it wasn't necessarily a stupid comment to make.

The most important lesson that I have learned from this whole incident is that defending yourself from a federal lawsuit AVERAGES $1.5 million.

I had no idea it was that high. I think few of us did.

If I had seen that conversation (I missed it) and known that fact back then (I didn't), I'd have definitely corrected Ed at that point.

Also shocking is that the purported punishment is so far out of line with what people have gotten in the past. Based on previous examples like Robert Morris (accidentally shut down most of the Internet) and Randal Schwartz (cracked passwords for many accounts at Intel - yes I'm aware of the extenuating circumstances) I would not have expected any jail time to be involved for this "crime".

That shocking discrepancy is why I was so fast to sign the petition to fire this particular prosecutor.

So, instead of saying nothing, why did he feel compelled to tell Aaron to 'man up'?

I have no idea why you're making excuses for him based on his not understanding the situation. Can't he speak for himself?

No, but it's reasonable to assume those details, while secret, were plausible in a system that has time and again proved itself irrational and unfair.

You are asking people to not jump to conclusions about people who jumped to conclusions.

I think that's part of the point, as someone else said; that we should reserve such stark judgment with the expectation that we don't know all the facts. Ed was pretty clear in his opinion, but probably would have held a different one had he known all the facts. To be honest, that supports the idea that he (and I; I agreed quietly) was wrong at the time.

I've taken that lesson to heart personally, just from this thread alone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com