Those mentors are mentors because they treat people regardless of age as equals. Yes, Aaron had his troubles. But he wasn't guided by those mentors as much as that he was guiding them. There was more give-and-take there than you give credit for, you are reducing Aaron to the level of an incompetent, he was anything but. You are also making the assumption that anybody could have stopped Aaron from doing what he felt and thought was right, I think Taren's address at the end of the linked post has few things to say about that.
> Why don't you make your pointed comment and risk a ban?
Because well over 3 decades ago I decided that there had been enough undirected anger in my life and I figured out I should put that energy to constructive uses. The whole JSTOR affair and the very unfortunate conclusion (to put it extremely mildly) has taught me something about myself, that the lid on the volcano is not as solid as those 30 years have made me believe. Dumb, insensitive and uninformed remarks about this upset me and I have to work just a little harder to stay on the right side of the line.
So I won't be taunted by you. The last time someone successfully taunted me (highschool bully, he ended in hospital and I got a 3 month suspension) it was a disaster. I learned my lesson, and chose to develop in a different direction.
> Please, I can take it and it would be refreshing to see instead of all this crap directed at law enforcement.
Have you been paying attention at all? That 'crap' is grounded in a deep dissatisfaction with the way this case has been handled, by people at varying levels of power, including some in government. It has already led to an amendment proposal of the law.
> And if you are not creeper out by some of Aaron's mentors fondly recalling his cuteness, you are not paying attention to what was going on there. And now his corpse is being repurposed for several agendas.
I think you are entirely missing the point here. Aaron killing himself has woken up a large number of people to the fact that this has gone too far.
> I'll go first and welcome a ban: fuck that.
Too bad because I'd be happy to open your eyes a bit more, I think that's more productive.
Off topic, but ftr the record "the way this case has been handled" is what has me angry. This "crap" has been happening for thirty years, but no one in the tech community (except perhaps Aaron Swartz) cared when it has happening to poor, mostly minority folks.
Have you been paying attention at all?
Yes. For a very long time.
edit: fixed error pointed out by jacquesm
You probably meant 'cared' not 'didn't care'.
I think lots of people care, but they are not capable of marshalling a significant amount of noise in the press. The press doesn't really do its job as the fourth estate when it comes to issues like these.
> Yes. For a very long time.
So have I, but I was stupid enough to get side-tracked somewhere along the line. I'm re-visiting that now, whatever it was that I did it resulted in me throwing my principles overboard thinking that I wasn't able to change things so I had better go with the flow. Worst mistake of my life, but not too late to fix.
Right now they have created a significant amount of noise in the press. And what we're mostly hearing is "fire Ortiz," "fire Heymann," "punish MIT," "punish JSTOR, and "reform CFAA" with "reform prosecutions for all" a distance sixth, if mentioned at all. Taren spoke about reforming the justice system, but only after the above list. And the press (at least NPR) has been talking about plea bargains in the context of drug and inner city crime and the leverage prosecutors have on defendants life.
I'm fully on board with trying to fix the problem for all. I'm not down with trying to only fix the problems for friends of Lessig, Tufte and O'Reilly.
That I agree with, this is a symptom of a much larger issue and that's what needs fixing. I don't even think you can fix the one without the other.
But, even if it isn't the main push everybody involved in this saga needs to introspect and determine their part in it and whether or not they were acting properly. Categoric denial is simply stupid and invites endless repetition without ever touching on reform or responsibility.
Perhaps, then, you should reconsider the people (like me) who are saying that the application of copyright to academic publications must be ended. The reason, as far as I am concerned, is simple: expanding access to knowledge and to education is crucial for maintaining a just legal system in any democratic society. The better educated the general public is, the better able they are to keep politicians in check, to fix problems like overreaching prosecutors, to reform laws that make no sense, and to ensure that minor crimes do not bring overly harsh punishments.
We cannot claim that everyone has equal access to education if academic publications are prohibitively expensive. At one time, that was a situation that simply could not be changed, because the publishing industry was the best way to disseminate knowledge and we were better off monetizing that system. In the 1970s, that changed when global computer networks that could connect low-cost personal computers became a reality; today, we can rapidly disseminate textbooks, scientific journals, course notes, and recordings of lectures and discussions at low cost. Even the poorest schools and libraries in America have computers with Internet access, and could theoretically gain access to what would be the largest library in human history if we took the time to build it. It is just one piece of the puzzle, of course, but it is an important piece.
The only thing holding us back now is, ironically, copyright law -- the very legal system that was originally meant to ensure that knowledge could be spread far and wide has transformed into a system that cripples our ability to spread our knowledge. Instead of the Internet becoming home to the world's most expansive library, it has become a system for further restricting access to information. Instead of being able to read whatever published research we want, we are forced to navigate a maze of paywalls. Textbook publishers are now using their copyrights and the Internet to kill the used book market, and are experimenting with ways to create books that students can only read for a limited time before they must pay again.
If JSTOR does indeed provide a necessary service, if they are not just leeches taking advantageous of our anachronistic approach to academic publishing, let them prove it: end the copyrights on academic publications, and let JSTOR show us how important their search service truly is by charging for access to it. I have my doubts that a peer-to-peer search service would not be equally useful and much cheaper, but right now there is no way to test that theory. If you can name something important that academic publishers and companies like JSTOR do with the money they bring in that could not be done equally well or better using today's technology, please do so (note that, at least in the case of scientific articles, the writing, formatting, reviewing, and often even editing are not paid for by the publisher, and so you should not bother naming any of the above).
So if you want to fix a problem that affects everyone, perhaps you should be thinking about that problem.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5025852
I've been on board for some time now. However...
expanding access to knowledge and to education is crucial for maintaining a just legal system in any democratic society
Yeah, that sounds good, but realistically an open JSTOR doesn't stop five poor black kids in NYC or a shitload of poor kids in Chicago from facing jail time forced on them by aggressive prosecutors via coerced confessions.
I personally would say (based on decades of trade union membership and action), 'don't go alone, random, but instead organise and take it one collective action at a time'.
The young man in question may never have experienced collective action. It can be powerful.
I feel as if the tech community is still trying to figure out the collective action thing. Maybe it's because we don't have the history of unions* like many workers in hollywood/entertainment industry do. But when the tech community did act collectively to stop SOPA, it made a big difference. I hope we can do more of that.
(* which is fine -- I don't think you can make the economic case for having them in the highly competitive tech job market. Unionization is more strongly justified in cases of bad working conditions, or a single employer with an effective monopoly on that type of job in the region)