Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DOJ, MIT, JSTOR Seek Anonymity In Swartz Case

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the nothing-to-see-here-move-along dept.

Crime 236

theodp writes "Responding to an earlier request by the estate of Aaron Swartz to disclose the names of those involved in the events leading to Aaron's suicide, counsel for MIT snippily told the Court, "The Swartz Estate was not a party to the criminal case, and therefore it is unclear how it has standing, or any legally cognizable interest, to petition for the modification of the Protective Order concerning others' documents." In motions filed on slow-news-day Good Friday (MIT's on spring break), the DOJ, MIT, and JSTOR all insisted on anonymity for those involved in the Swartz case, arguing that redacting of names was a must, citing threats posed by Anonymous and LulzSec, a badly-photoshopped postcard sent to Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Heymann and another sent to his Harvard Prof father, cake frosting, a gun hoax, and e-mail sent to MIT. From the DOJ filing: 'I also informed him [Swartz estate lawyer] that whatever additional public benefit might exist by disclosing certain names was, in this case, outweighed by the risk to those individuals of becoming targets of threats, harassment and abuse.' From the MIT filing: 'The publication of MIT's documents in unredacted form could lead to further, more targeted, and more dangerous threats and attacks...The death of Mr. Swartz has created a very volatile atmosphere.' From the JSTOR filing: 'The supercharged nature of the public debate about this case, including hacking incidents, gun hoaxes and threatening messages, gives JSTOR and its employees legitimate concern for their safety and privacy.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Translation: (5, Insightful)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year ago | (#43319631)

Only we are allowed to name names and ruin lives.

Re:Translation: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319695)

Nobody's life was ruined in this. A scumbag that committed multiple felonies killed himself making the world a better place for all mankind.

Re:Translation: (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#43319739)

A scumbag? I'll wager he accomplished more in his brief lifetime than a pointless AC like you ever will.

Re:Translation: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319775)

Stalin accomplished a lot too. That doesn't mean they were good accomplishments.

Re:Translation: (0)

stanlyb (1839382) | about a year ago | (#43319897)

So did the dinos. Do you wanna more pointless comments???

Re:Translation: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319833)

Aaron Swartz is not a hero, he will not be remembered in the coming years, decades, etc.

Re:Translation: (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#43320311)

You're kind of wrong about that. He will be remembered. He will be remembered as a symbol of free information and as a symbol of government gone wrong. He is one of the many examples of what is wrong and what will continue to go wrong. As they continue their behavior, they are increasingly more guilty. They and the public have seen the harm this type of action causes. That they do not pause or apologize shows they believe what they have done and are doing is right. They are broken and need to be disassembled.

Re:Translation: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43320465)

He is already forgotten. I didn't even remember this until slashdot posted another article reminding me.

You want better proof ask any random person on the street who he was and they won't know or care.

Re:Translation: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43320467)

I thought a spokesperson for MIT already stated they had no issue with Aaron Swartz releasing the documents. The real bad actor in this saga is JSTOR; they need to be shut down and all their "intellectual property" seized and publicly released. I have encountered their pricing model during some of my research, only to find a free, as in beer, copy of the original paper available from the originating university. I downloaded the straight-from-the-source copy of the research paper and read it without paying JSTOR a single penny.

Re:Translation: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319903)

What a stupid fucking post. Like having an account or not on here matters anywhere in life.

Re:Translation: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319971)

A stupid post for a stupid fucking loser like yourself. Go shag yourself you pathetic twat.

Re:Translation: (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319761)

A person that allegedly committed multiple fellonies...

Nothing has been proven in a court of law. Trumped up charges made sure that at least something would stick, even if he plead to a lesser charge. He quite likely didn't see any remotely positive outcome and found it necessary to take his own life. While I certainly don't agree with that decisiion, I sure understand his mental anguish.

Re:Translation: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319993)

Nothing proven in a court of law because he killed himself before trial. Make no mistake, there wasn't a one-armed man out there that actually did the crimes Swartz was alleged to have done. He was caught red handed on video doing what it is claimed he did.

Re:Translation: (4, Insightful)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year ago | (#43320207)

And what he did was not anything that reasonably should be considered a crime. A stern talking to was about all he deserved, and it's basically what state prosecutors were seeking before federal prosecutors went batshit crazy on this case.

Re:Translation: (4, Insightful)

Aris Katsaris (939578) | about a year ago | (#43319959)

Which person did he ever harm? No one.

That what he did is called "felonies" is much more of an indictment against the system that prosecuted him than against him.

And that you feel entitled to call him a scumbag, despite the fact he harmed nobody, just because of that same "felonies" tag, is an indictment against you.

Re:Translation: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43320197)

Which person did he ever harm? No one.

Himself... His family... His friends... His affiliated organizations

The old line from Beretta comes to mind..
"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

By committing suicide all he did was show that he lacked the courage of his convictions.

Re:Translation: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43320491)

Which person did he ever harm? No one.

All the personnel at MIT,
All the personnel at JSTOR

But that's besides the point. Why do you think someone needs to harmed for it to be a felony?

felony
noun
1. A crime, typically one involving violence, regarded as more serious than a misdemeanor, and usually punishable by imprisonment for more than one year or by death

Re:Translation: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319979)

Yes, because doing something in favor of the public interest, against corporate interests and the interests of powerful institutions, makes someone a felon and a scumbag.

IP makes things worse for mankind. Oh, by mankind you mean meritless government established monopolists that want to get paid for doing essentially nothing productive for mankind. Everyone else doesn't matter. No, I define IP, and those who benefit from it, scumbags, including politicians that push for these laws. The true scumbags are the RIAA/MPAA, the publishers that push for stricter IP laws, etc... We are better off without them.

Re:Translation: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43320101)

You simply disgust me.

Re:Translation: (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43319751)

Exactly.

They are quick to name persons of interest, slow to retract any such announcements, but now want to hide behind the Judges robes for over prosecuting a nothing case. The corruption of this DOJ exceeds anything under Bush.

Re:Translation: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319773)

What the fuck do you have against JSTOR?

Re:Translation: (4, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year ago | (#43319853)

Or more accurately, what does the GP have against JSTOR's low-ranking IT admin who found the access log when requested? Or the teenage daughter of the manager at JSTOR who passed on the request for that log? Or the MIT janitor who was supposed to lock that storage closet?

Those are the people whose names are going to be named, and whose lives will be ruined when Anonymous lets loose their unbridled vigilante mayhem. Of course, the dear Common Man will loudly praise Anonymous' "justice", and when that IT admin can't get a job, or that teenager's fake nude picture is plastered across her college's website, or that janitor's door is knocked down by a SWAT team responding to a tip about a bombmaker... those are just minor incidents, nowhere near as tragic as putting valid accusations before our dear Saint Swartz.

Re:Translation: (0)

stanlyb (1839382) | about a year ago | (#43319909)

Who said that evil does come when the little people close their eyes for the little injustice here and there. Actually, i know, but i wonder if you do know your history?

Re:Translation: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43320003)

Except that in this instance with what has become known it is hard to see any injustice at all. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Re:Translation: (1)

JustOK (667959) | about a year ago | (#43320177)

Don't make it a crime just to make a dime.

Re:Translation: (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43320215)

No kidding, when I read:

    "outweighed by the risk to those individuals of becoming targets of threats, harassment and abuse"

My first though was double standards much? They must be afraid of getting the same treatment they gave Swartz?

Re:Translation: (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#43320221)

Are you justifying threats?

Re:Translation: (3, Funny)

stanlyb (1839382) | about a year ago | (#43320391)

Actually, i have to ask you the same question: Are you justifying threats?

Did they pull the trigger? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319635)

No? Then, not guilty. Anyone that offs themselves is solely responsibly for that act. Nobody else should be held culpable of feel responsible.

Re:Did they pull the trigger? (1, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year ago | (#43319717)

Yeah, that'd be nice.

Unfortunately, far too many people think they have an absolute right to whatever they feel "justice" might be. If that means torching someone's house because they handed over an access log, then someone will likely do it. Maybe some investigator's family will have their whole social calendar thrown up on 4chan for public discussion, or a JSTOR programmer suddenly finds he owes $5,000,000 on a resort home in Dubai. This is the sad world we live in today, where people believe that it's not only feasible, but indeed desirable to seek vigilante justice.

It's ironic that today, just and fair trials are so common that they don't make the news, but the injustices and scandals reported in the media are what shape people's opinions of the government.

Re:Did they pull the trigger? (5, Insightful)

mpthompson (457482) | about a year ago | (#43319805)

It's ironic that today, just and fair trials are so common that they don't make the news, but the injustices and scandals reported in the media are what shape people's opinions of the government.

Given how powerful the government is against the individual, shouldn't it be the concern of everyone when the government commits injustices? Or, should it only be a big deal when the boot is on your own throat?

I'm not arguing for vigilante justice, rather I'm arguing for full disclosure of who is involved in acts of injustice. Such disclosure is the only effective way of discouraging such abuses in the future. Perhaps if the government was seen as being transparent in such cases and effectively policing itself there were be much less risk of vigilante justice occurring in the first place.

Re:Did they pull the trigger? (0)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year ago | (#43319925)

"Full disclosure" is incredibly dangerous, especially in a case as emotionally-charged as this one. The major names in the case are already known and pretty well-publicized [wikipedia.org] . There's plenty of blame for injustices here, but there's already plenty of targets to receive that blame legitimately. We do not need a list of every person trivially involved with the case, readily organized into a hit list for Anonymous' wrath.

Perhaps if the government was seen as being transparent...

Perhaps, indeed... but note it's the perception that matters, not the facts. As I mentioned above, I blame the media. We never see front-page headlines of "overwhelming evidence convicts murderer who confesses in closing arguments", because that's just boring. Instead we see "underdog hero accused of hot-topic crime by big bad government".

Re:Did they pull the trigger? (5, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#43319871)

Just and fair trials are actually exceptionally rare, in part because actual trials are quite rare. The system is entirely based on pressuring defendants into plea-bargains, regardless of their innocence.

In 1990, around 85% of federal prosecutions resulted in a plea-bargain, while 15% went to trial. Today, about 97% of federal prosecutions result in a plea-bargain, and only 3% go to trial. It's not because 97% of people charged are guilty, but because prosecutors make it abundantly clear that you had better take their plea-bargain if you know what's good for you.

Re:Did they pull the trigger? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43320047)

He had the best lawyers money could buy. Can we knock off the poor sob story stuff?

Re:Did they pull the trigger? (5, Insightful)

sideslash (1865434) | about a year ago | (#43319757)

No? Then, not guilty. Anyone that offs themselves is solely responsibly for that act.

So if I lock you in my basement and threaten to torture you for the next ten years, and you find a way to kill yourself, nobody should ask me any questions. Your death was your own fault in that instance, right? I grant it's an exaggerated analogy, but it refutes your fallacy concisely. Somebody contributed to threatening an American citizen with decade(s) of prison time over essentially mild internet mischief, and I for one would like to know who is to be held accountable for that.

Re:Did they pull the trigger? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319825)

So if I lock you in my basement and threaten to torture you for the next ten years, and you find a way to kill yourself, nobody should ask me any questions. Your death was your own fault in that instance, right?

In that case then no because multiple laws were broken by you.

In the swartz case, by contrast, multiple laws were broken by swartz and prosecutors did nothing wrong so the cause of swartz death is his and his alone.

Re:Did they pull the trigger? (5, Insightful)

Aris Katsaris (939578) | about a year ago | (#43320029)

Really? No wrong committed? The same people who threatened with 35 years something that alternately could be convicted with only 6 months, if only he assuaded their pride by proclaiming himself guilty?

They threatened a man with 70 times the supposedly appropriate punishment -- he'd have to go to jail WITHOUT a trial, if he didn't want that threat against him.

So either they were willing to help a man escape 34.5 years of a just punishment, or they were willing to penalize a man with an additional 34.5 years that he didn't deserve. Which one is it?

FUCK your plea-bargaining system, and anyone who defends it. You put to jail people who never had a trial, by merely SCARING them with a hundredfold vengeance if they dare proclaim their innocence. Anyone who doesn't DEMAND that your horrid and villainous plea-bargain system changes is complicit to such crimes.

Re:Did they pull the trigger? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43320205)

So either they were willing to help a man escape 34.5 years of a just punishment, or they were willing to penalize a man with an additional 34.5 years that he didn't deserve.

He committed multiple felonies. He deserved all 34.5 years he could have gotten.

If he was innocent then he should have proved it in court but he knew he was guilty. Luckily he decided on a self punishment.

Re:Did they pull the trigger? (3, Insightful)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year ago | (#43320375)

He was accused of multiple felonies, but he didn't commit a single act that was deserving of felony punishment. Fuckheads like you that hide behind the letter of the law without exercising the critical thinking of what the purpose of the law and what would be just are the lifeblood of tyranny.

Re:Did they pull the trigger? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43320439)

Yeah because having to pay for a copy of a journal article or needing to get off your ass to go to the library to get a free copy of a journal article is road to tyranny.

Re:Did they pull the trigger? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319829)

You would be guilty of a whole slew of crimes, such as false imprisonment and kidnapping. Throw in torture, and you'll be in jail so long you'll never see the light of day. The justice system we have is built precisely to prevent such situations from ever happening, and punishing severely when they do. There is no conceivable situation in my mind that you could legally persuade me to terminate my life. That is my choice, and mine alone.

Re:Did they pull the trigger? (3, Insightful)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year ago | (#43320091)

Not being criminally responsible for Swartz's suicide doesn't mean that there weren't inappropriate actions taken that, at the very least, are of public interest.

Okay (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319641)

Seems okay here.

When you kill a man (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319649)

Expect some consequences.

Cowards. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319661)

If they're innocent they have nothing to fear, right?

Fuck em (4, Insightful)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year ago | (#43319663)

Lets have every name, every detail, all of it. Beaurocrats like to hide behind their organisations, which enables every manner of abuse. Haul these insects out into the light, overturn the rocks. A man is dead, there must be accountability. They need to learn that they are personally responsible for their own decisions.

An eye for an eye (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319697)

Leaves the whole world blind.

Re:An eye for an eye (4, Insightful)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year ago | (#43319727)

Not as blind as a world without accountability. It's always the same story, whole organisations mess up or turn on lone individuals, then when the smoke clears there's mysteriously nobody to blame. That manager moved to another department, this clerk is not available for comment. Bring the beaurocrats to heel, I say.

Re:An eye for an eye (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319741)

Not as blind as a world without accountability. It's always the same story, whole organisations mess up or turn on lone individuals, then when the smoke clears there's mysteriously nobody to blame.

Nobody messed up anything in this case. We should be rewarding these people for a job well down.

Re:An eye for an eye (4, Insightful)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year ago | (#43319743)

Good, let's have their names and we'll reward them.

Re:Fuck em (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319795)

You're going to create personal responsibility by holding people responsible for...someone else's suicide? Your an Internet nerd, not a revolutionary. Get over yourself and let the adults run the real world.

Re:Fuck em (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319923)

Is it really suicide if he committed it to prevent the prosecutor from ruining his girlfriend's life and putting her child into the foster system?

If somebody blackmailed me with the wrongful jailing of my spouse and threatened that my children would spend their childhood in a state getting molested, I'd off myself too.

Although I'd probably try to kill the guy first for being such an asshole, but then I'm not such a nice guy.

Re:Fuck em (2)

sir-gold (949031) | about a year ago | (#43320001)

There was an earlier case (I don't remember specifics) where someone committed suicide after being teased on facebook for being gay, and the people who did the teasing were charged with a crime

Re:Fuck em (3, Insightful)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year ago | (#43320141)

I don't remember any such charges holding up. If they did, they probably weren't in the US. The suicide isn't what they should be held responsible for. They should be responsible for the overreach that contributed to Swartz's suicide.

Taxes paid for this persecution... prosecution. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319669)

We have a right to know who decided to do that. It's our money being shot out of their legal gun.

Re:Taxes paid for this persecution... prosecution. (2)

skywire (469351) | about a year ago | (#43320049)

Your money? You're not serious!

Time for a.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319675)

Dox Party!

Irony (5, Insightful)

rbrander (73222) | about a year ago | (#43319687)

"...become targets of threats, harassment and abuse..."

God God, is somebody dragging them into police stations, questioning them for hours, threatening them with 30 years in jail?

Because those actions would be threats, harassment, and abuse indeed.

Re:Irony (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year ago | (#43320155)

Ah, but that's not nearly as bad as some 14 year old calling their daughter, asking her to bare her breasts, and saying that over 9000 dicks will be going in her pooper.

What's wrong with naming names and ruining lives? (3, Interesting)

benjfowler (239527) | about a year ago | (#43319693)

I say, put their names out there for all to see, and let Anonymous make a bonfire out of their pathetic lives.

It'll serve as a warning to others who believe it's right to unfairly destroy other peoples lives.

"Destroy peoples' lives; and have your life destroyed in turn." It would be a powerful message in poetic justice.

Re:What's wrong with naming names and ruining live (4, Insightful)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year ago | (#43319857)

Sure, why don't we just abandon our laws and due process and solve every problem by lynch mobs.

Re:What's wrong with naming names and ruining live (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319913)

I'm usually against lynch mobs in theory although something tells me that in practice we already have them. There legalized lynch mobs. If we legalize the lynch mob it would probably cut down own taxes provided we also cut funding to the DOJ and other law enforcement entities. I'm all for that. We shouldn't be paying the actors of the lynch mob.

Sanctioned lynch mobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319927)

You think our laws and due process are anything more than sanctioned lynch mobs? How cute.

Re:What's wrong with naming names and ruining live (1)

Urkki (668283) | about a year ago | (#43319935)

Sure, why don't we just abandon our laws and due process and solve every problem by lynch mobs.

There are some, who believe this has already happened, except it's autocratic instead of democratic mob doing the lynchings.

Anyway, your "let's solve everything by lynch mobs" is kinda bad argument. "If being obese is so bad, then let's starve everyone to death!"

And to be clear about it, I don't approve any kind of lynch mobs. People should be held accountable, tried and acquitted or punished, by due process. If this does not work in some country, mere lynch mob isn't going to solve anything.

Re:What's wrong with naming names and ruining live (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year ago | (#43320251)

Mobs are uncontrollable. Once they start to rage, you won't be able to constrain them to a select few cases.

Re:What's wrong with naming names and ruining live (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319973)

When our laws only serve the rich and are used to beat down everyone else, a lynch mob is a preferable option.

Let's see, if you are a bank that intentionally helps terrorists circumvent our laws, a bank that committed massive fraud, or a telecom company that illegally spied on millions of people, you will get immunity. If you are a hacker that wants to see free access to a journal, you will get hit with a hammer.

There is no Rule of Law anymore. It is simply the powerful using and making the law to hurt the weak. When the revolution comes, the people who committed these abuses are going to be put against the wall.

Re:What's wrong with naming names and ruining live (4, Insightful)

Aris Katsaris (939578) | about a year ago | (#43320045)

Lynch mobs are about as much "due process" as plea-bargains are. "Hey, let's threaten you with 35 years in jail, so you'll be willing to forfeit your right to a trial and go to jail without one!"

Re:What's wrong with naming names and ruining live (2)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year ago | (#43320213)

And we already know who did that. Anonymity would only protect the victims of Swartz from getting caught in the crossfire.

Re:What's wrong with naming names and ruining live (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43320519)

Vigilante justice act as a very rough, messy, and far from ideal solution and should be avoided when possible. However while it is a bad solution it is a solution to a lack of accountability that in very extreme cases may be a lesser evil. Preventing this is the whole point of having a justice system, equal accountability ensures that revenge feels redundant and disproportionate. If people feel they aren't remotely being served by it then it loses legitimacy. If it loses legitimacy bad blood builds up to critical levels and things get messy.

So really, what the fuck do they think will happen when they put themselves above justice, bypassing the mechanism that defuses retribution? It is no surprise then that people get mad enough to go below justice to get to them in kind. A justice system isn't just to protect the victims....

Re:What's wrong with naming names and ruining live (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319905)

I say, put their names out there for all to see, and let Anonymous make a bonfire out of their pathetic lives.

The very fact that this kind of idiotic thinking is out there justifies the request for anonymity.

My only comment... (0)

Shoten (260439) | about a year ago | (#43319699)

FUCK.

Them.

If there are so many people who are so hate-filled towards them, you'd think those assholes would take that as a hint.

Re:My only comment... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319951)

Just like the abortion doctors who hide their names and addresses so their houses don't get blown up, right?

Government does not deserve anonymity (5, Insightful)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a year ago | (#43319721)

The moment you give government anonymity, it turns around and gives you tyranny, because it is no longer accountable.

Re:Government does not deserve anonymity (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#43319777)

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Would that more people be like libertarians or founding fathers more often.

Re:Government does not deserve anonymity (3, Interesting)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year ago | (#43319865)

This isn't the government fearing the people. This is people fearing the people, and the government trying to step between them. Stopping vigilantism is why we have a rigid justice system in the first place.

Re:Government does not deserve anonymity (2)

n3tm0nk (2725243) | about a year ago | (#43320271)

Maybe to begin with, but our system of justice has deviated from what it was intended to be and become a tool by which the middle and lower classes of the financial ladder become victims to vigilante style justice perpetrated by the govt. and those with money and the right connections are relatively free to do what they want to.

Re:Government does not deserve anonymity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319911)

When governments fear the people, there is appeasement. When the people fear the government, there is tyrrany.
FTFY

Also, both while both are practically mutually exclusive, that doesn't mean that they are the only options -- mutual respect and confidence, for example.
Although, in practice, every system seems to degenerate to one of those situations, which is sad.

Re:Government does not deserve anonymity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43320069)

They weren't granted anonymity. Swartz was the party to the case, not his estate. During trial he would have been able to face his accusers.

Fucking cowards (1)

jellyfoo (2865315) | about a year ago | (#43319725)

Fucking cowards

Re:Fucking cowards (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43319781)

They are anonymous cowards...

Re:Fucking cowards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319811)

They are anonymous cowards...

Given that, how could one know if they are still fucking or past their active sexual life?

Is wikileaks out of business? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43319821)

Their last update (outside a useless editorial) was last October, and this is the very type of issue they should be pursuing.

Re:Is wikileaks out of business? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319917)

They've neutralised by the US-led but globally aided campaign of internal sabotage, public psyops, financial sanctions and targetting of their leadership. They put up a good fight, but never really stood a chance in the long run.

Re:Is wikileaks out of business? (2)

sexconker (1179573) | about a year ago | (#43319933)

Key people from Wikileaks got visited by spooks and quickly changed their tune about how they felt about the leaks, and blamed everything on Assange and said they didn't agree with releasing thigs that could "harm" people, even though nothing ever released by Wikileaks has actually harmed anyone. They then started OpenLeaks, which is basically a useless copy of WikiLeaks that the government has control over.

Assange is still trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy. Until he dies, gets out, or they come and grab him, nothing of importance will happen with WikiLeaks.

Actions have consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319851)

You hounded him to death now it's time to pay for the crime

Hiding in Darkness (2)

skywire (469351) | about a year ago | (#43319883)

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
John 3:19

Re:Hiding in Darkness (1)

Col Bat Guano (633857) | about a year ago | (#43320131)

Did John reconsider his position at 3:30? Or 4pm?

And who is this John fellow anyway?

It is funny, aint so? (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | about a year ago | (#43319887)

I am not religious, but i do remember something from the bible: Who pulls a knife, from a knife dies.
No pun intended.

Cowards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43319931)

When it comes down to it the government consists of nothing big cowards. They're like bullies, they prey on the weak but are quick to run and hide when faced with a threat against them. The government abuses their military might to prey on those who do nothing wrong, in defense of corporate interests and their ability to benefit without any merit, but when things get tough they are quick to run and hide. They don't want the citizens to have any anonymity but they want to anonymously go after the weak.

Very volatile atmosphere? (1)

caffiend666 (598633) | about a year ago | (#43319985)

It was a "very volatile atmosphere" before Shwartz killed himself. These people were destroying a life in order to justify their egos, further their careers, avoid suffering through cognitive dissonance, and avoid treating a person as anything other than a thing. Everyone here should come forward and face the music, not to mention lose their jobs. False secrecy like this will only bait the hacktivists.

Re:Very volatile atmosphere? (2, Interesting)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year ago | (#43320151)

Um no. Most of these people had nothing to do with the decisions made by the DOJ in the processing of this case.

Accountability (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43320217)

Aaron Schwartz paid a very heavy penalty for what he did. His deeds were illegal in an abstract way: public money paid for the information, and he tried to keep it in the public. For this he was arrested, interrogated at length, threatened, and offered 30 years in prison. Quite a long time for publishing information, and not even information that is a threat to the state: no national security violations or missile codes here. He took his life under this intense pressure. He was *never* convicted in a court of law. Nothing was ever proved. Now those doing the harrassment, enticing those threats, threatening his civil liberties are desperate to not have their civil liberties threatened. They are desperate to not be 'named and shamed'. Why not? Sunlight is always the best disinfectant. If they are not ashamed of their actions, certainly they should be willing to step out into the light of day and stand by them. If their conduct was honorable and upstanding, then they should feel absolutely no shame at all in what they did. On the other hand, if they are weasily little cowards, backstabing rat bastards hiding in the shadows, then they would want to hide in dark places like slimy little worms, afraid to have their deeds exposed to public scrutiny. Fess up! Stand and be counted. Be accountable for your actions! Quit being the slimy worm!

What's the problem with that? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43320299)

They deserve threats, harassment, and abuse. God knows de facto power structures and corruption will prevent any of the individuals involved from being brought to adequate justice within the bounds of the law. If people could trust that the right thing will be done, they wouldn't feel so compelled to do it themselves.

One word (0)

no-body (127863) | about a year ago | (#43320339)

Cowards!

MIT students should go on strike (2)

erroneus (253617) | about a year ago | (#43320397)

Every last MIT student should stop and protest the school. It should shut down until the people who helped to create the situation are called onto the carpet. It is my understanding that MIT wanted to stop things but were unable to stop things. But they did make a rash choice of calling in the authorities. They could have handled it differently. Some people have grown completely insensitive to the prospect of ruining the lives of others with police involvement. I blame entertainment/media saturation for turning the entire population into people as in touch with the depth of reality as "The Cable Guy."

Life is longer than 30 minutes with commercial breaks. Ruining a life is a life ruined. But with our reduced attention span, our consciences have been reduced as well.

They were all culpible in the murder of Swartz (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43320493)

Therefor, all of their names must be part of the public record when they go on trial for the conspiracy to murder Mr. Swartz - as that is what it was - a conspiracy that ended in the murder (harassed and bullied until suicide is the only option left to the victim per definition of anti-online bullying laws)...

So let the murder trials begin...

I for one will bring my own bullets for the firing squad duty which I hereby volunteer for.

USA #1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43320495)

Sorry I meant to write USA sucks. Things will get better when you move to China for your new manufacturing jobs.

A brilliant light extinguished (1)

Beeftopia (1846720) | about a year ago | (#43320499)

A brilliant light extinguished itself when faced with the very credible possibility of several decades in prison.

In order to avoid repeating this kind of tragedy, it would be beneficial for society to know all of the details of the case, understand the thinking of the individuals involved, and examine their actions, so we can fully understand why the tragedy occurred, and work to avoid it in the future.

It's very simple really. Our society should be encouraging its Aaron Swartzes, not hounding them to death. This benefits all of us.

Dear DOJ, MIT, and JSTOR. (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | about a year ago | (#43320533)

Fuck You, you cowardly pack of assholes.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?