Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by potatolicious 4901 days ago
The witch hunt angle has been bothering me a lot, and should be ample evidence that the people of Hacker News are no better than the reactionaries of Reddit or even 4chan. No sooner had the man's death hit the news that people started foaming at the mouth, writing long manifestos and diatribes, and calling for the head of everyone and anyone related to the prosecution.

We are better than this.

Actually, evidently, no we're not. We will take a single piece of news, and then fly off the handle, careening into supposition after rumor, and proceed to label people whose actions (or inactions) are far from certain, with the most heinous crimes our society knows - up to and including murder.

We will take the news of one man's death and twist that into character attacks against people and groups we don't know, and make blanket statements galore: whether it's about the staff of MIT, all lawyers, all prosecutors, all investigators, all Federal employees, etc, ad nauseum.

We will write posts filled with hyperbole after hyperbole, followed by insinuations, emotion-appealing analogies, and mindless rhetoric.

So no, we are evidently just as knee-jerky reactionary as every other stupid online community.

But we should be better than this.

9 comments

That is a fine display of histrionics; but, the specifics of this case DO merit removing Ms. Ortiz and her assistant Mr. Heymann from office.

Those of us who were following the case before Aaron's tragic episode knew that a great injustice was being perpetrated, but that it could not realistically be undone until after the damage had happened.

Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Heymann should be held accountable for their decision to use charges far out of proportion to the damage done. And the correct way to hold them accountable is to remove them from an office they have proven themselves incapable of using appropriately. They do not deserve to have the full power of the law behind their petty vendettas.

A Federal District Attorney in this country, at this time, has almost no checks on her power to prosecute. Petitioning the Whitehouse and the congress to remove one who has clearly overstepped the bounds of propriety is the only recourse we have.

You should sign the petition, because it is the only way that Ms. Ortiz's power will even be questioned officially. Like most online petitions it will accomplish little without a sustained campaign from many directions.

I intended to up vote this (downvoted by accident as I am reading on my phone)
I up voted it to cancel your accidental down vote. I have never understood why HN does not let people change a mistaken vote.
Stackoverflow comes close to the same thing, with big warnings if you change your vote that you can only do it once. Maybe it's to prevent us from saying "I liked your comment" and then realizing tomorrow you said something offensive and going back and downvoting all your comments out of spite.

I guess. Doesn't seem worth it, but it's the best I got.

Amen. Especially in a world with small touchscreens.
If a great injustice really was being committed, the EFF and the ACLU would have fallen over themselves to represent Aaron pro bnono (for free). The fact they did not suggests otherwise.
So, EFF and ACLU defend you if you're not guilty and if they don't defend you you're guilty?

Do you realize that Aarons case had yet to go to trial? And that there is a good chance the EFF would have stepped in if it had? And that even if they didn't that would have said nothing about Aarons guilt or lack thereof?

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/farewell-aaron-swartz

Swartz's trial was scheduled, approaching rapidly, and he had already apparently spent an enormous amount of money on at least two different firms. The trial was not something hovering nebulously in the future; Swartz's need for assistance was immediate.

I don't believe EFF's involvement or lack thereof speaks in any way to Swartz's guilt. I would say that this is the kind of thing you'd hope EFF would be right in the middle of. Were they?

Not openly afaik, which probably translates into not at all. Maybe someone should go and ask them if they were and if not why not.

I offered to contribute to Aarons defense a while ago but he declined. That may have been because he knew that any help he needed was outside of my ability to render.

Be careful, you're associating yourself with a 'known troll'.

"Legal defense fund" is a fairly standard thing to have. And lawyers usually are happy to extend credit to people like Aaron and wait to be repaid later.

This doesn't eliminate the fact that trials are extremely expensive, guilty or innocent, but it slightly ameliorates it.

New method for determining guilt:

  if (respectedOrganization(lawyer.getOrganization())) {
          return INNOCENT;
  } else {
          return GUILTY;
  }
True or False: a federal prosecutor decided to charge Aaron Swartz with 35 years in federal prison for downloading pdfs from JSTOR [1].

True or False: Lawrence Lessig, Alex Stamos (an expert witness) and Swartz's own family said that the overzealous and vastly disproportionate prosecution was the principal factor in his suicide.

The real witch-hunt was led by Carmen Ortiz and Steve Heymann and ended in Swartz's death. Witches don't exist, and the evil hacker of their imagination did not exist. Your proposal to be "better than this" seems to mean remaining silent, averting our eyes, and pretending that this was some act of nature like a mudslide. As for whether we should have done something beforehand: how could we have? Lessig himself said that the government had effectively muzzled Swartz to prevent him from defending himself online or alerting others to the severity of his situation.

There were specific people here to blame. If you believe the US Attorney's charges were merited, that they should not face discipline, that seeing a sitting US prosecutor forced to resign would not have the requisite "deterrent effect", or that we should all remain silent and accept this -- just say so. Otherwise your critique is contentless, and a recommendation for Aaron's death to be meaningless.

[1] http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/17393320412/us-gov...

EDIT:

  http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5052033

  And a court would have no choice but to find him guilty, as 
  that is the purpose of the judiciary. A court cannot let 
  someone walk after a crime simply because the law itself is 
  unjust.
OK, pretty clear where you stand. You are not really arguing against "overreaction", you actually think he should have been found guilty. What you are not taking into account is the direct personal responsibility of the prosecutor for the disproportionality of the charges.
I believe this is a per se example of what potatolicious was referring to.

Lessig, Stamos, and Swartz are what is legally known as "biased" toward Aaron's case. Naturally, MIT, JSTOR, and various persons in the federal government have differing opinions.

Aaron wasn't the target of a witch hunt; that would imply that he wasn't guilty of anything. He was--he admits to what he did. His defense was an MLK/Ghandi defense (i.e., civil disobedience).

Lessig himself said that the government had effectively muzzled Swartz to prevent him from defending himself online or alerting others to the severity of his situation.

Which clearly isn't true, since HN, reddit, and the interweb in general has been discussing this case nearly non-stop since the charges were dropped.

that seeing a sitting US prosecutor forced to resign would not have the requisite "deterrent effect"

This is a fantasy, both in the likelihood of occuring and its desired effect. People outside of the tech world simply don't think that way.

  This is a fantasy, both in the likelihood of occuring
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-aaron-...

  Hacktivist's suicide intensifies criticism of U.S. attorney, MIT

  But his suicide by hanging Friday has also stoked a 
  politically malignant aftermath for the prosecutors 
  pursuing 13 felony charges against him in a trial that was 
  set to begin in a month. Some said his death could be a 
  watershed moment in the ongoing intellectual property 
  debate over the things people share and create, and how 
  they share and create them. 
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/13/the-brilliant-mind-righteous-...

  You should know his death is a good reason to revisit the 
  1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the law under which he 
  was prosecuted, since it is far too broad, and to take a 
  hard look at Massachusetts U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz, 
  whose office prosecuted Aaron with such recklessly 
  disproportionate vigor, and who is reportedly considering a 
  run for governor.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732458150457823...

  To some in the Internet community, it was a Robin Hood-like 
  stunt.Prosecutors disagreed and threatened to put him in 
  prison for more than three decades.

  Mr. Swartz's lawyer, Elliot Peters, first discussed a 
  possible plea bargain with Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen 
  Heymann last fall. In an interview Sunday, he said he was 
  told at the time that Mr. Swartz would need to plead guilty 
  to every count, and the government would insist on prison 
  time. Mr. Peters said he spoke to Mr. Heymann again last 
  Wednesday in another attempt to find a compromise. The 
  prosecutor, he said, didn't budge.

  Mr. Heymann didn't reply to requests for comment Sunday.

  The Massachusetts U.S. attorney's office declined to 
  comment Sunday, saying it wanted to respect the family's 
  privacy. But in a press release from July 2011 when the 
  charges in the case were announced, U.S. Attorney Carmen 
  Ortiz said, "Stealing is stealing, whether you use a 
  computer command or a crowbar."
No comment from Heymann. A "hard look" at Ortiz. Politically malignant aftermath. Doesn't sound good.

This is a CAT-4 shitstorm. Getting phone calls from the Wall Street Journal about why your aggressive prosecution caused the death of a young computer genius is not what Heymann and Ortiz signed up for. They were gunning for Bostonian of the Year, stuff like that. So already there is a deterrent effect. If and when the politicians get involved and call for an investigation into disproportionate sentencing, it will kick up to CAT-5. Moreover, there are 2300 articles like that on Google News now. Go check. The more calls for resignation, the more she becomes a public embarrassment to Obama, the more likely she is to be put on leave.

Now, pretty much everything else you've posted in these threads has been either trivially wrong ("federal prosecutors have no discretion") or a naked argument in favor of unlimited state power. But this is at least a prediction about a future outcome.

So let's make a bet. Prediction: Carmen Ortiz will be at a minimum put on administrative leave and will likely be forced to resign by the end of February. If I win, you never darken Hacker News' doorstep again. If you win, I in turn stop posting and you can push HN towards what appears to be your ideal venue: a space for lawyers rather than hackers, a space for people who sympathize with the federal prosecutor who hounded a hacker to his death.

Deal?

PS:

1) JSTOR is not on the same side as MIT. And MIT by their recent statement is not on the same side as the prosecutor.

2) Aaron never admitted guilt/plead guilty.

3) The charges weren't "dropped", they were rendered moot by his death.

Better in what way? Less caring? More apathetic?

I think we should have been better than this too... I think we should have been up in arms while Aaron was still alive. It was wrong then too, but easier to dismiss because it was someone else' fight.

I agree, and it's why I find the witch hunt angle all the more troubling. Half of the people making angry diatribes right now on HN couldn't write a cogent paragraph about the failings of the American prosecutorial system, two days ago.

And now they're busy tripping over each other with hyperbole-filled condemnations, and casting all members of the justice system as something subhuman.

And in all of this noise we've only heard a few whimpers about the systemic failings that have brought about this tragedy, with vastly more voices calling for specific heads to roll. This is a classic pitchfork-wielding mob - less concerned with the future prevention of the injustice, and much more concerned with blame and vengeance.

There is justice, and there is mob justice. HN has seen vastly more of the latter than the former in the past couple of days.

> And in all of this noise we've only heard a few whimpers about the systemic failings that have brought about this tragedy, with vastly more voices calling for specific heads to roll.

"Calling for specific heads" is a perfectly reasonable response to systemic failings. The system is fucked up and it's not even as if they can say "I was just doing my job". There is a large amount of discretion involved here. Even hypothetically conceding that some crime was committed and that this is just how the game is played to get people to plea doesn't justify ruining someone's life.

Hold these specific people accountable and the message will be sent that these tactics are no longer accepted. It's just a band-aid but it's a start.

>There is justice, and there is mob justice.

Which one is this? http://www.forbes.com/sites/harveysilverglate/2013/01/03/bla...

Coincidentally the Whitey's case was by the same Carmen Ortiz, according to news sources.

Don't despair; HN will return to its usual NorCal Celebrity News in several days.
Did you read the recent discussion of article Black and Whitey?

It's fun to be a contrarian, but try to find a sensible angle.

There was plenty of outrage (and lack of it) on other sites (and I assume here too), when the charges were made known.

It's really hard to say if punishment fits the crime when the evidence isn't available (so we can't really say what the crimes were) and what the punishment is; we only know the statutory maximums. Without a trial, verdict and sentencing we don't what the punishment is aside from the conditions of release which I don't think were unreasonable http://ia600504.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.mad.137... )

Indeed there's a lot of emotions involved, but that's because people know Aaron well and what he did wasn't worth 35 year jail intimidation. I think you inverted the meaning of reactionaries, this is not a conservative movement, it's actually about changing the state of justice.

Hate to repeat myself but this information is important:

Aaron's "crime" - http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartz...

Strategies to disable legal defense - http://www.forbes.com/sites/harveysilverglate/2013/01/03/bla... Whithey's case seems to be related the same attorney(Ortiz)

Anger is one stage many will go through in the process of coping with such an immense loss.

It may be irrational, but it's only human. Humans aren't logical all the time.

Furthermore, on HN at least, your "we" seems to actually be "a vocal minority of us", and by no means represents the pervasive sentiment. I think overall, we're angry at the machine, not the cogs in it. Certainly I am.

In time those of us who mourn Aaron's passing will hopefully channel that anger into productive change. But until then, judging a community's reasonableness in the wake of a tragedy like this is setting a really, really high bar. Emotions. We've all got 'em, even hackers.

>But we should be better than this.

I am ashamed to be a part of the same community that you claim to embody.

>calling for the head of everyone and anyone related to the prosecution

Not everyone. I think Lawrence clearly named ONE name. An appointed office. Not an elected representative. Her superior can politely ask her if she'd like to step down.

This is not supposed to be the most difficult part, people.

The sanest comment I've read regarding HN's reaction to this tragic story.
Say that to Aaron's family, who themselves blamed MIT and the prosecutors.
Families aren't unerring. Taking a person's family reaction as the ideal course of action post tragedy is a hornet's nest of problems.
Thanks for saying that.