Discussion on:
View:
Show:
It's about power, about monopoly in information. Aaron Swartz is the first to fall, but not the last, I'm afraid. In any event, he may not be forgotten.
And those of other activists. If one follows history, it's an old struggle.
There's a difference between the word of the law and how it is enforced, especially in courts. Pick a topic and try to determine how what you see in the courts "naturally" flows from the constitution on down to whatever "decision."
If you begin asking the government where they claim their authority for activity XYZ comes from, curious and interesting things start to happen.
Aaron's case is all the more egregious, as the "injured party" was not interested in pursuing him for restitution. No injured party (with a valid complaint) = no case.
Prostitutors (as they are called in some circles) are waaay over the line in exceeding any legitimate authority. They say this is a "nation of laws," not of men... tell that to an up and coming federal judge looking to notch up any/every conviction imaginable.
Probably 80% of all "crimes" are imagined. Todays 'outrage of the day' is the grade school girl who made "terroristic threats" by pointing a pink Hello Kitty soap bubble gun at her classmates:
http://boingboing.net/2013/01/21/pennsylvania-kindergartener-us.html
It's too late for Aaron, but I implore anyone facing similar to realize you don't 'go at them' head on. Prosecutors and their hired help (the judge) make it seem as though the game is Sumo; toe to toe and the bigger mass wins. In reality the game is Aikido, the mass of officious mumbo-jumbo coming at you can't stand against a few well placed questions.
The outcome may still go wrong for you, but at least you'll know for a fact that we are a nation of men, not laws.
EDIT: this just came through my inbox: http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/did-the-government-drive-aaron-swartz-to-suicide/
To be fair, that's the first mention I've seen that MIT had not "declined to prosecute," but no mention of whether they did... it still looks like the prosecutor led the charge.
If you begin asking the government where they claim their authority for activity XYZ comes from, curious and interesting things start to happen.
Aaron's case is all the more egregious, as the "injured party" was not interested in pursuing him for restitution. No injured party (with a valid complaint) = no case.
Prostitutors (as they are called in some circles) are waaay over the line in exceeding any legitimate authority. They say this is a "nation of laws," not of men... tell that to an up and coming federal judge looking to notch up any/every conviction imaginable.
Probably 80% of all "crimes" are imagined. Todays 'outrage of the day' is the grade school girl who made "terroristic threats" by pointing a pink Hello Kitty soap bubble gun at her classmates:
http://boingboing.net/2013/01/21/pennsylvania-kindergartener-us.html
It's too late for Aaron, but I implore anyone facing similar to realize you don't 'go at them' head on. Prosecutors and their hired help (the judge) make it seem as though the game is Sumo; toe to toe and the bigger mass wins. In reality the game is Aikido, the mass of officious mumbo-jumbo coming at you can't stand against a few well placed questions.
The outcome may still go wrong for you, but at least you'll know for a fact that we are a nation of men, not laws.
EDIT: this just came through my inbox: http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/did-the-government-drive-aaron-swartz-to-suicide/
To be fair, that's the first mention I've seen that MIT had not "declined to prosecute," but no mention of whether they did... it still looks like the prosecutor led the charge.
I wanted to avoid that aspect of Aaron's life. I wanted to present what is possible when someone of Aaron's mindset went to work. We the people seem to have a voice.
Is it paranoia that leads me to question the Governments actions? Are we nave to not acknowledge that there new bills being prepared and preparations being made? Persecution, harassment are just tactics; incarceration, death the desired end result. It's just too convenient to not question a move that in Chess would be considered an end game move.
Aaron in his talk alluded to that many times.
Political leaders are motivated by power, money, and not much else. Mass media never tell you anything you need to know. They only tell you things their owners want you to know. Trusting them is utter madness.
It seems something happens after being assimilated into government.
You've heard the stories, eg an average senator has to spend 78% of his time soliciting campaign contributions and the like. They get owned pretty fast.
Your average person will also fall for any number of 'perks' offered them, which (especially) in DC is the fast track to compromises that can be blackmailed.
I can tell you from 1st hand sources that this is the case. I can't mention names, but one pol was "outed" when he wouldn't lay off a certain line of investigation involving the pinnacles of the military-industrial-congressional complex.
The media suddenly revealed all manner of embarrassments, all of which were situations instigated by a staffer whom party leadership INSISTED this person take on, one of the permanent power base that persists despite the outcome of elections.
Other words, they set the guy up, long before there was any need to have 'dirt' on the guy. They swiftly put a congress critter's bad behavior in the bank, to use if the idiot pol ever gets the idea they actually have any power and attempt to use it.
Sad but 100% the case. Probably less so at state and local levels. There I believe it's graft and corruption (sweetheart business deals with kickbacks) that compromises the average fallible human occupant of whatever office.
Your average person will also fall for any number of 'perks' offered them, which (especially) in DC is the fast track to compromises that can be blackmailed.
I can tell you from 1st hand sources that this is the case. I can't mention names, but one pol was "outed" when he wouldn't lay off a certain line of investigation involving the pinnacles of the military-industrial-congressional complex.
The media suddenly revealed all manner of embarrassments, all of which were situations instigated by a staffer whom party leadership INSISTED this person take on, one of the permanent power base that persists despite the outcome of elections.
Other words, they set the guy up, long before there was any need to have 'dirt' on the guy. They swiftly put a congress critter's bad behavior in the bank, to use if the idiot pol ever gets the idea they actually have any power and attempt to use it.
Sad but 100% the case. Probably less so at state and local levels. There I believe it's graft and corruption (sweetheart business deals with kickbacks) that compromises the average fallible human occupant of whatever office.
What would the solution be? And the solution has to be provided by the people that are involved.
There's a number of things that come to mind, all of them designed to prevent 'public service' from becoming a lucrative cash cow. For eg make congress critters subject to all the laws they foist on the rest. They do not contribute to social security, they have probably the sweetest retirement/health package on the planet.
They were allowed to vote all that for themselves. If they actually followed the foundations they claim give rise to their power (constitution) this ill gotten largess wouldn't have happened.
In fact there should be no retirement of health benefits provided to anyone in elected office. That would keep a lot of the greedy bastards away from the get-go.
So called term limits would be built into a correctly operating system. All time spent on government matters comes at the expense of your personal life, in which you are trying to make a living and save up for retirement. You'd not want to hang around the 'hallowed halls' too long lest your personal finances suffer.
Another is absolutely no contributions from outside the geographical area you serve. No corporate money either, only people, with some kind of maximum limit and full disclosure. You should be able to interview everyone financially supporting a candidate to discern whether you see this as a good thing or not.
Basically take the money, profit motive and power to vote riches for yourself out of their hands.
There's a lot more to it, but basically, given human nature and it's history, it's going to have to get a LOT worse before there's any hope of getting any better.
Fortunately, or unfortunately if one is squeamish about massive, sudden changes to their reality, the end of this corrupt ride is very near. I doubt we'll be talking about anything other than the complete tanking of the US economy (and it's 'dollar') come April or May this year.
The fundamentals are there, and obviously the govt is gearing up for massive civil unrest. (they've stocked up on billions of hollow point 'killer' rounds of amo in the last 6 months, for eg)
None of this is inevitable. But just as in Jesus' day, 80% of the people who are getting crapped on are utterly clueless to the fact, indeed actually support the regime that oppresses them.
Nothing new under the sun. There is hope this time, given the internet and the likes of anonymous.. and great minds like Aaron Swartz, fighting for the freedom of ideas.
They were allowed to vote all that for themselves. If they actually followed the foundations they claim give rise to their power (constitution) this ill gotten largess wouldn't have happened.
In fact there should be no retirement of health benefits provided to anyone in elected office. That would keep a lot of the greedy bastards away from the get-go.
So called term limits would be built into a correctly operating system. All time spent on government matters comes at the expense of your personal life, in which you are trying to make a living and save up for retirement. You'd not want to hang around the 'hallowed halls' too long lest your personal finances suffer.
Another is absolutely no contributions from outside the geographical area you serve. No corporate money either, only people, with some kind of maximum limit and full disclosure. You should be able to interview everyone financially supporting a candidate to discern whether you see this as a good thing or not.
Basically take the money, profit motive and power to vote riches for yourself out of their hands.
There's a lot more to it, but basically, given human nature and it's history, it's going to have to get a LOT worse before there's any hope of getting any better.
Fortunately, or unfortunately if one is squeamish about massive, sudden changes to their reality, the end of this corrupt ride is very near. I doubt we'll be talking about anything other than the complete tanking of the US economy (and it's 'dollar') come April or May this year.
The fundamentals are there, and obviously the govt is gearing up for massive civil unrest. (they've stocked up on billions of hollow point 'killer' rounds of amo in the last 6 months, for eg)
None of this is inevitable. But just as in Jesus' day, 80% of the people who are getting crapped on are utterly clueless to the fact, indeed actually support the regime that oppresses them.
Nothing new under the sun. There is hope this time, given the internet and the likes of anonymous.. and great minds like Aaron Swartz, fighting for the freedom of ideas.
My son told me about the ammunition hording and that was disconcerting.
"prepping" as it is called has become an industry in and of itself! Just watch "Doomsday Preppers" on NatGeo(or maybe History Channel) I can't remember which station. Many Many folks have been "hoarding" ammo for years! Most of them don't think they'll need to actually use it; it will be more valuable than gold if the economy collapses. They will barter it like money! 
When democracy, for whatever reason (disinformed and/or disinterested public, for example) doesn't work as it should, elected politicians are not really in charge. They have no power, they are just hired public faces of behind-the-scenes plutocracy, lighting rods for public anger.
If you want to find out who's really in power, you have to follow the money. The questions you have to ask are: To whom flows most of the money? Who controls the flow of money? Who gets to use the freshly printed money first?
If you want to find out who's really in power, you have to follow the money. The questions you have to ask are: To whom flows most of the money? Who controls the flow of money? Who gets to use the freshly printed money first?
Our ex-governor, Jesse Ventura, taught me "follow the money." And it has been accurate.
If it's power and money (in that order) it's oligarchy, if it's money and power, it's plutocracy.
Michael Kassner and Tech Republic. Thank you for your comments on Aaron Swartz.
Through Cory Doctorow, I learned quite a bit about Aaron -- a brilliant young man.
Why is it that we recognize the extraordinary contribution of some individuals but don't commemorate their achievements? Let's not allow his memory to die. Let's make sure his name always shows up right up there with the founders and major contributors of internet and the freedoms it brings. We should have a Aaron Swartz minute of silence on the web every year. I'm not kidding; a whole minute of silence on the net will be like eternity. Even 10 seconds is enough.
Wanted to mention that Congress is trying to pass a law related to this:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/aarons-law-violating-a-sites-terms-of-service-should-not-land-you-in-jail/267247/
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/aarons-law-violating-a-sites-terms-of-service-should-not-land-you-in-jail/267247/
could not have known about it had without you.
Aaron's video you linked is kinda long at 23 minutes but well worth the watch, let me re-supply the link now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgh2dFngFsg
Aaron's video you linked is kinda long at 23 minutes but well worth the watch, let me re-supply the link now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgh2dFngFsg
I am still trying to get myself square with what happened and what might have been.
How much do we really know about Aaron's death ? The government said that "he took his own life", but he was such a pain to them and we know the government lies most of the time.
I've learned just from specializing in network security; that you cannot be too paranoid. I've had clients who had people after them, and it turned out not to be paranoia - but fact!
One good thing out of all this, is I now see many arguments ended with the question; "remember Aaron Swartz?" This happens after a lot of discussions about online privacy and free speech. He is becoming a martyr to the cause!
One good thing out of all this, is I now see many arguments ended with the question; "remember Aaron Swartz?" This happens after a lot of discussions about online privacy and free speech. He is becoming a martyr to the cause!
You get branded as crazy conspiracy theorist before you know it. The best position to take is therefore: "I don't trust the authorities on this, and don't need a theory to justify myself".
The safest assumption to make in such situation is, that Aaron was suicided, one way or another. People, who stand against corrupt authorities often end up this way. It is most unfortunate, that criminal investigators can't provide credible evidence to the contrary. Movie cops always put their careers on the line if that's necessary to fight crime. In real life, however, there are mortgages to be paid.
The safest assumption to make in such situation is, that Aaron was suicided, one way or another. People, who stand against corrupt authorities often end up this way. It is most unfortunate, that criminal investigators can't provide credible evidence to the contrary. Movie cops always put their careers on the line if that's necessary to fight crime. In real life, however, there are mortgages to be paid.
As long as we learn from it. Aaron could have done more, but let's hope we build on what he did.
"My son told me about the ammunition hording and that was disconcerting."
Strange comment. Seems to me the 1st and 2nd Amendments are in that order because they go hand in hand. One supports the other. It all boils down to the freedom of the individual from force on the part of govenment.
Strange comment. Seems to me the 1st and 2nd Amendments are in that order because they go hand in hand. One supports the other. It all boils down to the freedom of the individual from force on the part of govenment.
The govt has bought billions of hollow point rounds of numerous calibers in the last 6 months. The comment was not about 'we the people' hoarding amo.
but comically it might be that SO MUCH civilian hoarding is going on that there isn't any left for government operations! HA! 
Uncle Sugar had to buy it because it was flying off the shelves! The stores are empty of all calibers around here. Retailers aren't being supplied because the hoarders are buying it by the pallet or even by the TON!
Uncle Sugar had to buy it because it was flying off the shelves! The stores are empty of all calibers around here. Retailers aren't being supplied because the hoarders are buying it by the pallet or even by the TON!
It's important for folks to look at the big picture. I find that many of my "tech" friends are quite liberal in most things, that is until it comes to restrictions on the internet and "freedom of speech". I would urge us all to never forget to ask the "big picture" question of WHY? Why would the government want to have censorship over the internet? And when you look beyond this one issue is there a pattern forming of a government out of control (the "Why?" of one issue + the "Why?" of many other limitations the government seeks to place on the American people should lead one to look at this possibility).
These questions and the "possibilities" of the answer to "Why?" is the very reason our founders gave us the protections from government in the first place. They understood the temptations for those in government and the inevitable corruption that follows. That is why it is so important that people like Aaron are so important! People who have the courage to stand up against those forces that seek to take away our rights. ALL of the Constitution is important as well as the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, etc All our rights are valuable, precious and should be protected. We should be just as alarmed when they come for our guns, as we are about protecting our ability to express our right to free speech, and as we are about due process, and human rights violations the list goes on and on. When the government seeks to limit or revoke ANY of our Constitutional rights we should stand up and shout "NO!".
When they came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
The question is or each of us "Do I have what it takes to stand up and fight for our rights inspire of the potential costs to me and my family?".
These questions and the "possibilities" of the answer to "Why?" is the very reason our founders gave us the protections from government in the first place. They understood the temptations for those in government and the inevitable corruption that follows. That is why it is so important that people like Aaron are so important! People who have the courage to stand up against those forces that seek to take away our rights. ALL of the Constitution is important as well as the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, etc All our rights are valuable, precious and should be protected. We should be just as alarmed when they come for our guns, as we are about protecting our ability to express our right to free speech, and as we are about due process, and human rights violations the list goes on and on. When the government seeks to limit or revoke ANY of our Constitutional rights we should stand up and shout "NO!".
When they came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
The question is or each of us "Do I have what it takes to stand up and fight for our rights inspire of the potential costs to me and my family?".
I seem to remember the prose poem you provided. Do you know the source?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came... German pastor during the Nazi regime.
I first read that from someone who was nabbed by the Nazis during the war. At least that is what I remember. I think he was a gypsy; but regardless, they would have kept going after every group until there was just one - and then as evil has it - some other characteristic would have made the survivors another target.
Aaron Swartz was an honest, brave and decent man who was destroyed by a state which is none of these things, and which disposed of him with no more compassion or pity than a malevolent child might squash a bug.
He was not the first and will not be the last. I hope we let him live on in our hearts.
John Price
He was not the first and will not be the last. I hope we let him live on in our hearts.
John Price
and I agree with it BTW. I've been saying for years, they seem to be fixated in creating as many felony crimes as they can on the books, but enforcing hardly any of them. They just seem to be interested in keeping the man down, in the gutter, and powerless.
Hopefully Aaron's sacrifice will bring awareness to the need for scholarly journals to be open repositories of science that anyone can view. By locking them down & selling papers, it reinforces a distribution-model that's 50-years out of date, and limits the ability of the public to view scientific research that they as taxpayers typically funded in the first place.
in charging a fee for maintaing the infrastructure which allows us the liberty of accessing those works from anywhere in the world.
Bet you a donut that you could walk into any university library and get a bound copy of "tax payer" funded research at no cost (except for time/transportation, right?) What you can't do is walk out the door with the hardcopy or get it copied for free.
Bet you a donut that you could walk into any university library and get a bound copy of "tax payer" funded research at no cost (except for time/transportation, right?) What you can't do is walk out the door with the hardcopy or get it copied for free.
pay a royalty to the taxpayers for all the free money they got, to develop medicine we can't afford. 
that Aaron was mainly a thief who stole something which did not belong to him. Somehow that is not that popular with the "government conspiracy" crowd...
"thief - one who takes the property of another wrongfully."
Aaron was associated with Harvard and had proper access to JSTOR through that institution.
What amazes me is that the CFAA was brought into action here. It is only supposed to apply to government systems, not any computer the DOJ points to.
I have dealt with the federal judicial system and it is anything but fair. How could it be, when the mere act of wanting a trial by jury mandates extra time at sentencing? Oh and that 6 month plea deal? A federal judge could have tossed that out the window and said "You will be serving 35 years, Mr. Swartz..."
BTW here is JSTOR's take on this, and they "deeply regret" being dragged into this SNAFU by DOJ.
http://about.jstor.org/statement-swartz
Aaron was associated with Harvard and had proper access to JSTOR through that institution.
What amazes me is that the CFAA was brought into action here. It is only supposed to apply to government systems, not any computer the DOJ points to.
I have dealt with the federal judicial system and it is anything but fair. How could it be, when the mere act of wanting a trial by jury mandates extra time at sentencing? Oh and that 6 month plea deal? A federal judge could have tossed that out the window and said "You will be serving 35 years, Mr. Swartz..."
BTW here is JSTOR's take on this, and they "deeply regret" being dragged into this SNAFU by DOJ.
http://about.jstor.org/statement-swartz
I also read the same. Can I please ask what CFAA is? I do not believe I came across that in my research.
Because JSTOR computers were in another state, thus the federal involvement. Which still doesn't answer the question of why the CFAA related charges as I'm fairly certain JSTOR systems are not part of a govt. agency. Unfortunately once the federal system get's their eye on you and assigns monetary damages in excess of five figures they don't let go. I would assume MA computer fraud law would be more understanding considering the reputation of MIT. Otherwise a majority of engineering students would find themselves facing Ortiz & Heymann.
I was curious as to how the interplay between the federal and state laws works.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
