I may get flamed for asking this, but am I the only one that thinks the Swartz suicide has been over-reacted to by HN and the tech community at large? In no way to I mean to be disrespectful or callous, but it seems that there is way too much coverage of his suicide.
I think the real issue is that everyone (both Hacker News types and the public at large) has, up until now, been far too complacent about computer law and the justice system in general.
Computer law, absolutely. But I'd be careful about the untrained tinkering with the justice system. A lot of the "features" it now sports are due to even worse corruption in the past.
IMHO the best fix that could be done with the justice system is to simply decriminalize many existing classifications of "crime" that are essentially minor and victimless. Even what little Aaron did caused more harm than someone smoking pot in their home or consensual sexting with their 1-year-younger girlfriend.
But I can't overstress enough how all of these failings (computer crime, harsh sentences on negligible offenses) lie at the hands of the legislature at large, not the courts.
It's not really coverage of his suicide that this site and the tech community is concerned with, to be clear. It's his life and the significance of him not being around anymore that is the focus. Aaron meant a lot to this community as he stood in and stood for the ethos and practices of the community of Internet users and workers.
He was a prolific writer and practitioner on issues that concern this community very much. He was also a sheer phenomenon in himself in that he grew with the growth of the world wide web and espoused and embodied many of it's inherent virtues and values to society. There is also a pretty strong narrative going that his untimely passing is a close consequence of his beliefs, which influenced many in this sphere (and also those outside of it, who might not even have known him at all).
I don't think you're being disrespectful or callous. Perhaps you're curious, though. The outpouring of information, discussion and attention is in and of itself an indication that this is a very big deal to many here and that it is important to keep this discussion alive and it might be useful to dig into it and see what is being said of all this.
Well no, if you've been paying any attention there are plenty of people who are concerned for the amount of concern being shown by others. However, by the same token that you and others are saying people shouldn't be giving it that much attention, why should anybody care what you and they think about the level and qualities of the commentary?
That is, what good does receiving an answer to your question do?
I don't think you deserve flame at all. I agree partly that his suicide has been covered too much, but then I remember how it's not really about the suicide, more so about what every other reply to your comment mentions, which is the law. I wish there was a way for his name to not be plastered all over regarding the cruel punishment of hackers, but unfortunately his name is the only one that chimes the bell. Think Les Miserables, the bread was so small, yet changed everything; the problem was not in the man, but in the law.
Personally, I believe his death, sorry life, is way more important than any startup or ideas we have had here. It is the very nature of who we are and what we lost. Martyr.
I think its just that in certain spheres/communities, certain events or stories have precedence. It should probably be expected for this story to be covered extensively in tech-spheres among some other niches.
I think the reason for the response to Aaron's suicide is that people are finally opening their eyes to the behavior of our government. Justice is no longer the prerogative of our legal system. This has to change.
I really think for once Anonymous guys should shut up and find another cause to defend, because If they wanted to harm the currently insightful ongoing debate on the handling of the Aaron Swartz's case they wouldn't do otherwise. And btw the actions of Aaron Swartz were not even remotely comparable with the reckless behavior of Anonymous. All this can do is make Aaron Swartz guilty by association in the mind of the average person when she hear about the actions of Anonymous. It doesn't serve any meaningful purpose.
The guy killed himself for something greater then you.
No. One thousand times, no. He killed himself because he wasn't emotionally equipped to handle the situation he was in. That's why anybody does it.
What he thought he was doing when he did what got him in trouble is a separate argument. Acting like his death at his own hand somehow validates his cause -- or relates to it at all -- is only going to lead more people to senselessly "man up" by making the single biggest mistake a person can ever make.
Anonymous needs to get a better understanding of the effects of their actions. I'm all for taking illegal but morally acceptable actions on a calculated and reasonable basis. Using vigilante website-takeovers as a way to call for a more fair justice system is not reasonable. A pseudo-criminal, intellectually unsophisticated hacking collective's endorsement does not do justice to the reality that Aaron was hounded despite lacking any substantial wrongdoing, as acknowledged by JSTOR's lawyers.
Mr. Swartz was a canary in our coal mine. When tyranny encouraged his death we all became more acutely aware of it, yet another thing we owe him gratitude for no matter how much we wish he'd toughed it out so we could crack a beer with him. For very good reasons Anonymous has done something I doubt myself or most of you would have the courage to undertake and I am grateful to them. Blank is Beautiful!
20 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 55.3 ms ] threadWe should be making this much noise more often.
IMHO the best fix that could be done with the justice system is to simply decriminalize many existing classifications of "crime" that are essentially minor and victimless. Even what little Aaron did caused more harm than someone smoking pot in their home or consensual sexting with their 1-year-younger girlfriend.
But I can't overstress enough how all of these failings (computer crime, harsh sentences on negligible offenses) lie at the hands of the legislature at large, not the courts.
He was a prolific writer and practitioner on issues that concern this community very much. He was also a sheer phenomenon in himself in that he grew with the growth of the world wide web and espoused and embodied many of it's inherent virtues and values to society. There is also a pretty strong narrative going that his untimely passing is a close consequence of his beliefs, which influenced many in this sphere (and also those outside of it, who might not even have known him at all).
I don't think you're being disrespectful or callous. Perhaps you're curious, though. The outpouring of information, discussion and attention is in and of itself an indication that this is a very big deal to many here and that it is important to keep this discussion alive and it might be useful to dig into it and see what is being said of all this.
That is, what good does receiving an answer to your question do?
As far from as I see you're just saying a bunch of words instead of doing something meaningful like he did.
Man up or shut up.
This is sexist. That's why you lose.
Because, that's not what I said.
No. One thousand times, no. He killed himself because he wasn't emotionally equipped to handle the situation he was in. That's why anybody does it.
What he thought he was doing when he did what got him in trouble is a separate argument. Acting like his death at his own hand somehow validates his cause -- or relates to it at all -- is only going to lead more people to senselessly "man up" by making the single biggest mistake a person can ever make.
No, it's not. In this case, it's true but to say that it's why anybody does it is wrong. Many people throughout history killed themselves for a cause.