Comment by droithomme | Hacker News Reader

Comment by droithomme | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

As you have already seen many times before before, here is the actual statement released by the US Prosecutor's Office.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR....

> AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million.

Key Point: According to the actual documented statement released by the federal prosecutor, a statement which is still available on www.justice.gov, Swartz faced 35 years in prison and a one million dollar fine if convicted.

These are well known, easily verifiable, and indisputable facts. When NPR stated that "Swartz faced a maximum penalty 35 years in prison and up to $1 million in fines" they were directly citing actual statements made by the federal prosecutor's office. The federal prosecutor's office stated "SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million." That is what they said. It is not false. It is not an exaggeration. NPR is citing exactly what the prosecutor actually said.

Instead of quoting my own comment, which addresses your argument directly, I'll quote former federal prosecutor Ken White directly from the article I linked to:

People reporting on federal criminal justice — whether journalists or bloggers — routinely report on the statutory maximum sentence that a defendant could hypothetically get, an oft-ridiculous figure calculated by taking all the charged crimes and adding up the maximum punishment for each. This is usually followed by some sort of pronouncement that THIS PERSON CHARGED OF MINOR CRIMES FACES MORE JAIL TIME THAN YOU'D GET IF YOU BEAT A TODDLER TO DEATH WITH AN UNCONSCIOUS NUN WHILE RAPING A BLIND LIBRARIAN, or words to that effect.

The problem is this number — the sum of the maximum sentence for all the crimes charged in a federal case — usually bears almost no relation to the sentence the defendant actually faces.

Responsibility is not a zero-sum game. The Department of Justice, and its constituent U.S. Attorney's Offices, bear responsibility for repeating statutory maximums in their press releases bragging of indictments. Journalists and bloggers bear responsibility for repeating those numbers uncritically, especially if they repeat the "THAT'S MORE THAN YOU'D GET FOR DOUBLE-MURDER" meme.

Read the rest of the article, which explains in detail how sentencing actually works. White's article is written about a whale sushi case, so I provided a link to the applicable sentencing guideline for computer fraud cases.

Later

You edited your comment to make the point that NPR was reporting what the prosecutors actually said. I addressed that in my comment too, but, more importantly: no, that's not what they did. They wrote that Swartz faced a 35 year sentence. Not that prosecutors incorrectly and dishonestly claimed that he faced such a sentence --- or even that the provenance of that number was the prosecutors at all. Any reader could (and probably does) come away from that piece with the idea that Swartz actually faced a 35 year sentence. And of course, that's preposterous.

You need to atone for your actions regarding Aaron Swartz sir. When I first arrived at Hacker News I happened upon a thread where Aaron was asking for help from his compatriots, his fellow hackers. What he got was a sharp stick in the eye. The top voted comment was by a fellow who had been an active and helpful participant in this forum wherein he called Aaron out for not covering his own expenses for his defense. We now know that Aaron had already spent his fortune defending himself from a prosecutor out of control, Stephen Heymann, and was literally broke. This is apparently standard procedure for the Justice Department: threaten defendants with financial ruin and many years in jail to get a plea. As a result they boast a rate of 90% pleading guilty in federal cases. Thus effectively removing one of the most cherished protections of our civil liberties: trial by a jury of your peers. You sir, shut down every thread in that post in which someone even suggested that Aaron might be in trouble. The fellow who posted the top comment on that thread decided to abstain from taking part this discussion forum following Aaron's suicide. You, however, did not. You carried on commenting and defending the very behavior of the Justice Department which, along with your actions, lead to Aaron's death.

I second this. It's no secret that I often find Thomas's writing and tone to be reprehensible. But his comments, then and now, with regard to Aaron are beyond the pale.

The only thing "preposterous"--to use Thomas's word--is that the debate here is a mostly semantic one about how much jail time Aaron "faced," rather than a substantive one about why he was facing any jail time at all. That's the debate that should be taking place, and it's one worth having.

It is absolutely true that Aaron was treated incredibly poorly by this community when he was most in need. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5056279. Though much has since been deleted, I saw it happen, and I've been on the receiving end of similar treatment myself.

I'm planning to revisit this topic later. But for now, shame on those whose cynicism knows no bounds. And shame on Y Combinator for allowing a useful tool for discussion to devolve so clearly into a toxic mess.

The deleted comments on that thread are about 'edw519, not Aaron Swartz. The thread you've linked to to show Aaron's mistreatment happened after his suicide and thus can't illustrate any treatment of Aaron whatsoever. So I have to ask what you believe you "saw happen" there.

Thank you. You give me hope.

He committed suicide. You had as much of a part in his death as anyone else on the forum (i.e. no part at all).

I was about to donate $50 to Swartz's donation link until I read Tptacek comment about Swartz having had sold a startup before was hardly in a bad place to defend himself. I guess instead of thinking of donating I could have called him instead, maybe that might have helped.

EDIT: It was edw519, not tptacek: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4529609

I don't think you should feel any more comfortable attributing malice to Ed than to me. In fact, you should feel less comfortable; Ed's more sincere and thoughtful than I am.

There is no malice attributed to Ed. It was a thoughtful comment that made a lot of sense at the time, enough to convince me to pursue a course of action that I otherwise wouldn't have taken. No fault doesn't mean no effect. If I was Ed and had his perspective I'm sure I'd have said the same comment. That comment did have a part in affecting other individuals (well, me at least) deciding actions they'd take, especially because Ed is a respected member of the community, who is sincere and thoughtful.

No fault != No effect.

The point is each and every action we take in this world changes it in some way. And it's simplistic to say no one in this community had any part in Swartz's death.

You have no idea how depression works

Thank you for saying this. You are brave and beautiful.

Fuck you. I'm out.

Clearly, I've offended you. But I don't know why?

The tone of your comment is fawning and is easily confused with trolling, and "brave" is a word commonly used contrarily to indicate disdain for someone's actions. That, or you're actually just trolling.

"You sir" need to spell his name right: Swartz.

Is that all you are objecting to? The spelling of Aaron's name? Fixed by the way. I fixed Heymann's spelling too.

Your scolding, scapegoating tone is pretty awful, too, but you'd have to delete the whole comment to correct it. No actions of any commenters here "lead to Aaron's death".

You call me a scold and accuse me of scapegoating. You claim that "no actions of any commenters here lead to Aaron's death" and imply that Aaron should have been able to survive the onslaught of financial ruin and the prospect of years in prison along with having his compatriots on Hacker News tell him to fuck off. Clearly, you have no compassion for Aaron's plight. But I do. You live in the same world with me and we are all in this together whether you like it or not.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Okay then. Call me crazy. I tried to reach out to you across the chasm of differing ideologies. Is this all you've got? No comprende?

Don't play like "who, me? I'm just a naive seeker-of-common-ground!"

You entered the conversation waving a bloody shirt to slur real people, present here, as being responsible for the death of another real person, who was once present here. You couldn't even spell your adoptive martyr's name right, yet you're passing judgement, and want to assign blame to commenters – commenters! – for a death.

Swartz was a principled free-speech absolutist – see http://bits.are.notabug.com/ – so you do him no honor when you suggest commenters owe penance, or silence, for expressing certain opinions.

As he states, the numbers supplied in press releases are based on a calculation which is totally disjoint from the one actually applied during a trial and sentencing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com