tcuk

EDIT: found the second article, comment redundant.

Chuck could you provide an analysis of how this article ends up on the front page of here, specifically what value it adds to the situation and how relevant it is.

To me I'm struggling to figure out how it relates to Aaron's case , is it purposefully being obtuse? Is it not obvious to everyone who's ever read anything to do with the case that the only reason spoofing his MAC address mattered was his intent to circumvent blocks placed on his connection?

Actions by themselves are mostly meaningless it's the context and intent that matters...

Honestly read the comments in the submission.. It was insane the amount of misinformation being thrown around. I'm sorry if my comment was exaggerated, I was just trying to highlight the issue.

I'd expect more intelligent people, which this community claims to consist of, to not react the way it has to the events, with nothing but hyperbole and sensationalism.

The only clear concise analysis I have seen in the myriad of submissions was an analysis by Prof Orin Kerr, which was full of comments containing more hyperbole, that disappeared to no where instantly.

Speaks volumes IMO, and it's really deterring to some of us who prefer learning and discussing the facts in a more well thought concise, clear, and logical manner.

If I proposed that perhaps in an age where cyber crime is not only misunderstood but increasingly high (see anon et al), that perhaps the prosecution wanted to deter Aaron who by all accounts was an activist, from committing further more serious crimes.

What would you think of the above? Is it a plausible reality to the alternative one where the prosecutors are merely evil?

politician, with respect I think you need to be more concise with your questions, I would hope Aaron would also say 'no' to the vague:

'Should you always plead guilty to crimes the Government accuses you of?'

Did you perhaps mean to ask:

'Should you always plead guilty to crimes the Government accuses you of, even when you believe you are right?'

Which is still a red herring because it doesn't address the issue:

Did Aaron truly believe he broke no current laws, or did he believe so strongly the laws were bullshit, so he shouldn't be prosecuted at all? (which means he still actually broke them)

I'm not sure how or why you fail to see or accept any grey area in this. I'm not sure how else to explain my view.

I think the consensus here right now is that because people believe the laws he broke shouldn't exist in the capacity they do, he shouldn't have been punished, and that his case is a cause for reform in things that perhaps don't deserve to be reformed on this merit alone.

It may very well be that there is need for reform in these laws, but does that give Aaron the right to break them? And if so, does this lead precedence for others to behave similarly without consequence? If so, where do we draw the line in what constitutes which laws are allowed to be bypassed? How does this not lead to massive abuse?

I do not believe that no matter how wrong we think the laws are, in a democratic society, we must act in appropriate ways to cause reform. This is because edge cases like this where laws are broken that perhaps shouldn't exist, are never real reasons to change how we prosecute people.

There is so much confusion within this whole situation:

1) Reform on the laws 2) Reform on how we prosecute people 3) Termination of prosecutors involved

Each of the above needs to be clearly defined, and a case made against each one. I don't believe this case by itself causes for reform in prosecution, or termination of prosecutors.

I only believe this case should cause reform in specific laws, and that it's said a man felt his only option to cause reform was to break the law, which ultimately ended in him taking his whole life.

I see similarities between this and the Anders Breveik case in equal but opposite ways, where 20 years life sentence was said by many to be absurd for his crime, and many called for reform, when in fact the Norwegian system is extremely effective, and this was just an edge case.

I think the answer is obviously 'no'.

But I also believe that your question is exactly what is bad about the situation. It is a total red herring to the issue at hand. Let me expand:

He should have pleaded guilty to the crimes, because it is in my opinion, that he did infact break current laws, and that 6 months + felony, is not life ending sentence, far from it.

Consider this:

I also believe the laws in which he broke shouldn't exist in the capacity as they do.

You can hold both the above beliefs, and when you do, it gives you power to make reform in an appropriate capacity.

Agreed 100%, your reasoning is sound. I think this is a fair assessment of the situation, and that if more people could hold this opinion, more reform against the laws that so many disagree with would actually happen.

It's a sad day when the mob campaigns to end the career of someone who's simply doing there job, rather than causing change to the actual law that defines how they do the job.

But this particular prosecutor was just a bully, right? Who had it out for Aaron out of personal hate, perhaps the Illuminati are involved also?

The only other reasoning is she was just doing her job and prosecuting a man who broke the actual law, and showed traits of an activist who could be a repeat offender, and was trying to deter him from getting into more serious trouble in the future.

A suspended sentence and a felony doesn't seem too bad if she was deterring him from something that could see him in jail 10 years with a plea bargain.

Without getting into a philosophical debate, you can read 'objective opinion' as 'it is my un-biased opinion in a neutrally emotional state, to believe the facts to be..' if it helps.

I agree the law is perhaps wrong, but who could have known he was being bullied past breaking point and would lead to suicide but himself? Do you believe that if someone disagrees with a law they can break it to cause reform, and if so which laws do you draw the line at? Is this the best way to act? Do you not think regardless of whether we agree with it or not, if we break it we should be punished? He clearly broke the current law, is 6 months imprisonment, a felon, and a highly likely suspended sentence really such a grave punishment? Do you honestly believe Aaron if convicted felon would struggle for work? Do you think he was emotionally sound and compos mentis at the time of taking his life? Do you believe this man did not show traits that he could possibly go on to further break other laws he didn't agree with in the name of his version of liberation?

I don't think Aaron went about his goal in an amicable way, and I don't think he believed he was either, he knew what he was doing, and unfortunately if you break laws, whether or not you agree with them, you ought to be punished. If you don't like the laws, cause reform without breaking them,there are other ways.

Whats the minimum requirements to be considered part of this community?

You do realize it's perfectly plausible that they did want to bully him into a plea bargain and that they also didn't want him to commit suicide, and do feel empathetic towards the situation?

It read to me as if you were accusing the prosecutors of not having any empathy to Aaron in this case. I believe the default human reaction is to feel said emotion, and such I think it's reasonable to assume they did feel empathy unless we have evidence that directly contradicts that. Sorry for any confusion.

Can you explain how his personal wealth, is related to his emotional distress over this case?

Ok a felony on his record... I'm sorry I don't think that, 6 month jail time, and a felony on his record === no option but suicide.

In contrast given the facts of the case, I honestly believe this is a fair deal. From what I've read of Aaron, and the case, I would assume this wouldn't of been his last fight of freeing information, if prosecuting I would also have wanted to try and deter Aaron from taking steps further on his next conquest, which I think the above deal does without ruining his life.

How many people here would not employ Aaron once out of jail? It was no where near the end of the road, or his only option, it was far from it. The man was quite clearly mentally ill, that's the main thing being clouded here by trying to scapegoat everyone.

Did you actually just post this? I'm assuming your a grown adult, so it's weird that I'm having to explain this:

Everyone else refers to the average person, or more so if you want to be technical, the average emotional response..

Hi Shock,

Basically we operate in a society (thankfully in my opinion), where actually the onus is on the accuser to prove the accusations, with evidence, beyond reasonable doubt.

The above humans outlined unless have some emotional deficiencies, I believe are like the rest of us, and it's safe to assume when anyone kills themselves it's a sad situation, and can empathise with said person.

So in fact I turn your statement back on to you, please provide solid evidence that would make me to believe they WOULD NOT be upset at the situation.

I believe it's because for most people who read the case, there's so much mud in the water, the first impression one receives of the case, is that Aaron was facing 35 years in prison, and 1 million dollar fine.

Especially non USA-natives who have no idea how the juridical system there works, for the first few days, I actually believed the above, that if found guilty he would face that sentence, I had no idea how plea bargains works there, it's been a frustrating experience to say the least.

I'm sorry, but if you are arguing that Aaron Swartz did absolutely not break any current laws (whether you agree with them or not), then you are delusional, I urge you to read Orin Kerr's analysis of the situation, and refute anything he has stated, in a logical coherent manner, with solid evidence.

I'm sorry but I'm sure this man, his wife, or any of the prosecution team did not expect Aaron to commit suicide or was their intention. I'm sure they are just as upset as everyone else.

Try and put your emotions aside, and let your logic take control again.

This whole Aaron Swartz episode, has really shown how un-objective this community is. The last few days I've never seen such hyperbole and sensationalism plague a community. It's the exact same you'd expect from the comments section from any mainstream media comment section.

Even within this submission, the comments here still talk and insinuate Aaron was facing life imprisonment, danger to being raped daily, and suicide was his only option.

The more I sift through the crap most of the community is posting, and actually find more objective facts (why is Orin Kerr's objective analysis of the law no where to be found after a day?! Does this not speak volumes of the community?).

I actually feel sorry the Tom Dolan, and his wife and everyone else involved (isn't it weird how you can empathise with multiple polarizing parties??).

I don't actually think from the facts I've observed that 6 months (his lawyer actually suspected a suspended sentence), is actually a bad deal in this case, given all the facts, but this is my personal objective opinion.

I would like to see people be more objective, and communicate with less emotion and more reason, but it's something I've observed happening over the past few years, and I think this just highlights what type of community it's mutated into.