|
|
|
|
|
|
by supervacuo
4865 days ago
|
|
|
> Sure, but we shouldn't be outraged over Swartz being prosecuted. WTH not? It was pretty outrageous. I'd be interested to hear your argument that he deserved even 6 months in prison for copyright violation. > If a crime is not reported it can't be followed up on by law enforcement. ... which is not to say that if a crime is reported, it will be followed up by law enforcement. Many reported crimes are not acted upon at all; some of them get a huge overreaction (like Swartz's) and some get an under-reaction (like HSBC). That's the link: that justice is only just if the rules are the same for everyone, and they clearly are not. |
|
|
Outrageous to whom? You?
I feel the punishment doesn't fit the crime, however, that's the punishment. I wouldn't want that punishment so I do not steal copyrighted material. That's Atwood's point in it's entirety: Swartz knew there were strict penalties and wasn't willing to accept the consequences if caught.
... which is not to say that if a crime is reported, it will be followed up by law enforcement.
This depends on a lot of factors and you know that. But there isn't some Illuminati deciding whether every case is important enough to prosecute.
That's the link: that justice is only just if the rules are the same for everyone, and they clearly are not.
Prosecutors prosecute what they think they can win. Swartz was a win for obvious reasons, HSBC wasn't for reasons unbeknownst to me. Our system is what it is. If you can't accept losing, don't play ball.