Pepper sprayed for public safety.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Part II of Orin Kerr article out.


Is it wise for a defense attorney to write an article publicly trying and sentencing a defendent based on presumptions every fact in the indictment was true and complete and by making inferences from half digested old web postings? Wouldn't a defense attorney reading that manifesto focus on Aaron's language saying they should "buy" databases and post things out of copyright? I kind of think this one may come back to bite him.

That having been said, his discussion of Aaron's law is absolutely fascinating.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Part II of Orin Kerr article out.


Is it wise for a defense attorney to write an article publicly trying and sentencing a defendent based on presumptions every fact in the indictment was true and complete and by making inferences from half digested old web postings? Wouldn't a defense attorney reading that manifesto focus on Aaron's language saying they should "buy" databases and post things out of copyright? I kind of think this one may come back to bite him.

That having been said, his discussion of Aaron's law is absolutely fascinating.

I am automatically suspicious about any law that is given someone's first name.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

I am automatically suspicious about any law that is given someone's first name.

I am automatically suspicious about any law.

I am automatically suspicious about any lawyer.

The rest is quibbling.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Part II of Orin Kerr article out.


Is it wise for a defense attorney to write an article publicly trying and sentencing a defendent based on presumptions every fact in the indictment was true and complete and by making inferences from half digested old web postings? Wouldn't a defense attorney reading that manifesto focus on Aaron's language saying they should "buy" databases and post things out of copyright? I kind of think this one may come back to bite him.

That having been said, his discussion of Aaron's law is absolutely fascinating.

Excellent. Except his assumption the rage derives from a need to understand a suicide is a stretch. The rage I've read seems to develop from a sense of disgust at the waste of resources and mercilessness employed in prosecuting a minor crime.

Kerr's right that Swartz needed to be punished. A deferred prosecution under which he'd be jailed if he pulled another stunt like this one would have cost taxpayers nothing and effected the result sought. The question no one can answer in this case, which Oritz and Heymann are going to stammer on is, Why did he have to go to jail? He didn't. It served no purpose. It wasted taxpayer money. It was a pure grudge play. I will put you in a cell. Because I can. Because you will learn. You will follow the rules, kid. We will break you. We'll get the perp walk photos in the media. We'll have your 'hacker' community see you in orange, in cuffs. You'll learn, Do not fuck with us.

Kerr also errs in suggesting the laws at issue are a product of democracy. They are not. They are written at the behest of lobbying interests (corporations), dense and confusing and so never read by any more than 3% of the public, and enshrined into the criminal code by a Congress long ago bought and paid for by corporations. These are laws crafted by the powerful to protect an archaic business model that can't survive in a digital, interconnected age. There is no democracy in any of this.

The more I consider this stuff, the more I think we need to rethink the notion of corporations generally. They have too much power, are impossible to prosecute, encourage group criminality which can never be punished on an individual basis, and are turning into independent nations.

Am I nuts, or is this country beginning to show the signs of classical fascism? Govt and monster corporations, sometimes at odds, but more often working together, are more and more infecting almost every aspect of our lives. And they seem to want to control us more than they did in the past. I doubt anyone's grandparents feared GM, or GE. But we're damn suspicious of everything from our banks, to our cellphone makers, to, yes, even our car makers today (many of them are installing devices that record drivers' behaviors, and could be accessed by law enforcement, in their vehicles). It's creepy. Seriously fucking creepy.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The more I consider this stuff, the more I think we need to rethink the notion of corporations generally. They have too much power, are impossible to prosecute, encourage group criminality which can never be punished on an individual basis, and are turning into independent nations.

It's funny, because in some contexts, they aren't so hard to prosecute. Fix prices and being among the largest corporations in the world isn't going to keep you from getting prosecuted, along with some of your executives (assuming you didn't snitch first to avoid those consequences).

But we don't have that attitude toward financial crimes. Perhaps in part because it's hard to tell the difference between financial mistakes and financial crimes. Rarely does someone fix prices on accident.

Am I nuts, or is this country beginning to show the signs of classical fascism?

You are nuts.

Hey, you asked.

I think there is a difference, though, between government in which big business might have too much influence and business essentially driven by government in the government (i.e., party) interest.

And they seem to want to control us more than they did in the past.

Like what?

But we're damn suspicious of everything from our banks, to our cellphone makers, to, yes, even our car makers today (many of them are installing devices that record drivers' behaviors, and could be accessed by law enforcement, in their vehicles). It's creepy. Seriously fucking creepy.

We are still struggling through the death throws of privacy and working out the balance between the benefits and costs of new applications of information technology.

A few more decades of your car being able to help you be a better driver and avoid accidents, or the car maker being able to make better cars based on collected data and we as a society will likely stop seeing it as so creepy.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Like what?

Businesses want you to "engage" with them. They want to track you. I use a blocker called Ghostery that shows all tracking cookies and frustrates them. It's disturbing how much data they seek. Marketers want to get info on you, the govt wants to digitize your medical records for easier search. Perhaps it's all honest and for good purposes, but the risk seems awfully high. I think I'll keep my privacy, thank you. (My primary doctor is a friend. A specialist I see is family. My charts will show nothing I don't want in them. You learn the value of this quickly dealing with disability insurers seeking to avoid coverage.)

A few more decades of your car being able to help you be a better driver and avoid accidents, or the car maker being able to make better cars based on collected data and we as a society will likely stop seeing it as so creepy.

Again, thanks, but I'll stay the Savage. (With a closet full of black market Soma, of course.)

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Businesses want you to "engage" with them. They want to track you. I use a blocker called Ghostery that shows all tracking cookies and frustrates them. It's disturbing how much data they seek. Marketers want to get info on you, the govt wants to digitize your medical records for easier search. Perhaps it's all honest and for good purposes, but the risk seems awfully high. I think I'll keep my privacy, thank you. (My primary doctor is a friend. A specialist I see is family. My charts will show nothing I don't want in them. You learn the value of this quickly dealing with disability insurers seeking to avoid coverage.)

Oh, yes, there is no question that the hunger for data is enormous. People want to learn all they can to sell you stuff.

But where is the "wants to control you?"

Also, medical records in this country are a disgrace. You should have access to all of your records securely and electronically, and they should be instantly portable. That they are stuck on 19th century technology significantly impedes the quality and increases the cost of care.

Again, thanks, but I'll stay the Savage.

Good luck with that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I think you can be a dick.

Let's use the Wayback Machine to visit yesterday, when you said:

first of all, what's interesting to you is immaterial to me, and I'm sure, most of the world.

But I can be a dick? I think you can dish it out better than you can take it.

I have not written that many posts here on this issue. I said I take no position on the decision to push towards trial, and his defenses may well have not truly been evaluated prior to the suicide. Then I said what he did was not trivial. Do you have blacked out portions on your computer screen or are they in your brain?

You didn't say that "what he did was not trivial." Not sure I disagree with that. What you said was:

As alleged the guy stole ten's of thousands of dollars worth of property.

And you compared what he did to stealing a car.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

When Ty was just a little boy (Ty @ 5) he went into a small store with his father. The shop had a "take a penny, leave a penny" jar. Just before the two Slothrop's had walked in a customer had left a pocketful of pennies, around 50 cents. Lil' Ty asked, "daddy can I take these 50 pennies? I mean the sign says they are free for the taking." The father knew he should explain to Ty that the sign said "take A penny, not 50", but he was distracted by an issue at work and didn't take advantage of the teaching moment. Ty took the $.5 and has never looked back. It was all free!!!!


edit- or better, the father did tell him. Ty then walked in and out 50 times.

I know it's hard for people in Old Economy places to understand digital goods and all, but sheesh.

eta: The conversation I was trying to have with you was about how you value things like JSTOR articles. Either because you're an asshole or because you're being obtuse, you are completely missing the point, which is why you've substituted a penny -- something with a very clear value -- for the JSTOR articles in your little story here. Your story does make a point, but not the one you thought you were making.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You didn't say that "what he did was not trivial." Not sure I disagree with that. What you said was:



And you compared what he did to stealing a car.

You don't get it, Ty. He's litigating, man, and he's the best litigator ever, so don't even try to talk about his silly analogies, because doing so just means you think Swartz was innocent.

You know, this whole thing would make a lot more sense if Hank's online persona was a drug addict of some sort.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Kerr's right that Swartz needed to be punished.

He needed to be convicted before he could be punished. Note that Kerr has to accept the prosecution's facts to get to his conclusions.

Give Aaron more credit for sheer cleverness. Look at the PACER Hack:

PACER was provided free at certain libraries.
No limits were put on means or method of download.
Everything in PACER is in the public domain; there is nothing copyrighted.

He was given a license. Their problem, and why the FBI got involved, was not that it was illegal in any way. It was just unexpected.

The great irony is that it turns out PACERs own fee system may be illegal. Hey, FBI, Secret Service, can we get some attention over here?

Orin cites a manifesto Aaron wrote that advocates COPYING THINGS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN and BUYING DATABASES. Read it. He doesn't say steal stuff, even though he's writing a guerilla manifesto. But Orin cites it that he intended to publish copyrighted material in violation of law. He's a defense guy?

Aaron didn't do his hack at Harvard, which has closed IP policies. He didn't hack Lexis, which has secure software. He didn't download documents in high volume, all at once, but in low volume, over time - so he wouldn't interfere with anyone's system. And he did it with institutions who define the most liberal side of licensing and IP policies.

Was he skating closer to the line than the average (just average, not aggressive) executive on his tax return? Or the average lawyer dealing with a conflicts issue in a big firm. Or any number of other people who do their best to be aggressive but not illegal.

Here's the irony: I think the defense had a damn good case in trying to defend a kind of squirrelly client. Not as squirrelly or potentially criminal as Zuckerberg when he violated copyights, stole personal data, crashed Harvards system and used Harvards resources to publish it all in an on-line pigbook that ultimately made him a billionaire. But squirrelly none-the-less.

Part of the prosecutors problem, and why they might have lost the case -- a vague statute.

Everyone would have been better off if MIT had locked their damn door and Aaron had been convicted of breaking and entering or trespassing in state court.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Let's use the Wayback Machine to visit yesterday, when you said:



But I can be a dick? I think you can dish it out better than you can take it.



You didn't say that "what he did was not trivial." Not sure I disagree with that. What you said was:



And you compared what he did to stealing a car.

you forgot the quote where the license fee to institutions is $50K and the point of capturing a free copy may well be to offer to other institutions for free. And I understand the value of digital goods quite well. I've actually been involved in litigation on the value.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

You don't get it, Ty. He's litigating, man, and he's the best litigator ever, so don't even try to talk about his silly analogies, because doing so just means you think Swartz was innocent.

You know, this whole thing would make a lot more sense if Hank's online persona was a drug addict of some sort.

and with this, you are done.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I know it's hard for people in Old Economy places to understand digital goods and all, but sheesh.

eta: The conversation I was trying to have with you was about how you value things like JSTOR articles. Either because you're an asshole or because you're being obtuse, you are completely missing the point, which is why you've substituted a penny -- something with a very clear value -- for the JSTOR articles in your little story here. Your story does make a point, but not the one you thought you were making.

This is what I've learned from Hank's post.

The thing here is, JSTOR doesn't own or create any intellectual property (outside of a few modest delivery mechanisms - they don't even have interesting data structures). They provide a service, and some (only some) of what they provide is access to other's IP.

But, Hank, like the prosecutor and like many, many other intelligent people, are rushing to find property somewhere in cyberspace. That is what everyone's instinct is. In reality, what Aaron was saying was, don't let the guy with the tools claim ownership to everything we use the tools for.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

and with this, you are done.

I assure you I am not.