They really should include some sort of background or link on this page. For anyone else that has little idea who he is or why he needs money: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#JSTOR
I don't necessarily disagree with the motives behind Aaron's actions, but if you're going to break the law in what may be perceived as "civil disobedience," you need to be willing to "do the time," too.[1]
I'm neither encouraging nor discouraging people from donating, but I do think that it's a little off-putting that Aaron's taking what could have been a selfless, martyrdom-filled act of civil disobedience and then changing it into "silly mistake," from which he's asking for help recovering.
[1]: 'Doing the time' as a turn of speech. I doubt Aaron would get actual jail time for this. Then again, I am not a lawyer.
I totally agree with your point that he should be willing to "do the time" and that he shouldn't be calling it a "silly mistake". Civil disobedience is noble BECAUSE it comes with a cost.
That said, the legal system is setup in a way where it costs a lot of money to get a truly fair trial. A lawyer will tell his side of the story; without a good one he won't be properly heard by the legal system. Aaron would be a disservice to his cause by putting up a poor defense.
This was not civil disobedience, which involves publicly breaking a law in order to demonstrate that it is unjust. Swartz, lacking the courage of his convictions, tried to commit a crime in secret. Now he wants us to help him pay the piper! Despicable.
If you want people to donate to your cause you need to do a couple things:
1. Include some background on why I should care.
2. Provide some level of assurance that this page is actually linked to the issue at hand and isn't just a phishing scheme.
1. Brilliant programmer gets chance of a lifetime.
2. Turns that into lots of money early in life.
3. Decides to change the world in his own way.
4. Consciously & purposefully breaks the law.
5. Has a webpage to get others to pay his legal bills.
I've never met Aaron but I've always enjoyed his writing and looked forward to meeting him one day. But there is something seriously wrong about this.
Aaron should man up, take responsibility for his actions, and pay his own bills.
And if this is his idea of changing the world, perhaps he should reconsider his choices and find a better way of paying it forward to other brilliant programmers who never got the breaks he did.
1) I don't think Aaron made more than six figures from Reddit. Soon after acquisition, he went on walkabout, and then he got canned. He probably got some money, but did not vest most of his share.
So, don't worry - he's poor enough for your pity and support.
2) As to your second line of thought, that we should punish him because he consciously broke the law... I disagree with anyone on this forum who says that Aaron didn't know the potential consequences of his actions, and therefore should not be punished. But I also disagree with you.
This was a victimless crime, and the only ones pursuing it are some relentless G-men. Where is the corporation or person that has been wronged? Who, in the public, wants to pillory Aaron? What did Aaron gain? Do we really need to make an example of him, so this doesn't happen again? Is this really good a use of taxes?
My reaction is just shame and disgust... I mean, really? This brilliant kid is going to jail because of civil disobedience? Just so we can show there is still a book than can be thrown?
He did it to, as far as I know, set the information free from the paywall. To release that information so anyone and everyone can access the research we'd already paid for.
A noble cause? yeah I think so.
I don't want to compare it to Ghandi's salt works but the comparison could be made. A stand against artificial restrictions on something that should be free or cheap for all.
Maybe he can't. Maybe he is broke already. Maybe his fortune from previous enterprised wasn't that much. Who knows .. there must be a good reason. I'll support him.
Exactly. Mr. "Demand Progress" needs to understand that we are a nation of laws, and that those who knowingly break those laws will be -- and should be -- punished.
And, no, this is not a case of civil disobedience. If it was, Swartz would have publicly violated the law (rather than attempting to conceal the crime) in order to draw attention to its putative unfairness.
Aaron Swartz is a spoiled brat. I hope that they throw the book at him.
I think the most interesting aspect of this case is that JSTOR is not pressing any sort of civil charges. In fact, they said Aaron's actions urged them to expedite something they were planning on doing anyways.
If the consequences were in line with his actions this logic would work, but life in prison is an extraordinarily oppressive response to this type of disobedience.
Further, using the legal system to extract a huge penalty before any jury has decided on guilt is the worst type of bullying by the big against the small.
Lastly, many of us relate to what Aaron is going through, and simple compassion compels us to help. Saying Aaron should "man up, take responsibility for his actions, and pay his own bills" belittles him and those of us who have chosen to support him.
What the fuck is meant by "man up" in these kind of circumstances?
Is your average man supposed to take 30 years+ on the chin for trying to release academic papers?
If he didn't have a penis would you feel more compassion? As I have never heard it be suggested that a woman in desperate circumstances has a need to man up.
As for what could he do to give more breaks to other programmers, he was trying to give out academic papers for fuck's sake. On the scale of things, that is giving more breaks to others, than most people accomplish in a lifetime.
Why are they prosecuting a man for publicly making available beneficial scientific knowledge that the public have effectively paid for? Is personal gain of a few companies really more important than education, and should it really be enshrined in law?
Part of legitimate civil disobedience (which may be a stretch of terminology in this case) is facing the consequences. A legal defense fund could be viewed as a part of that (allowing those donating to join in), or as an attempt to avoid the consequences.
So much depends on specifics of the situation that I'm not really comfortable making any type of judgement on anyone involved.
Concur. This case reminds me of another public case: Randal Schwartz's case. Randal's case was fairly black and white since he did not deny running the password-cracking scripts. He also had a harder time since Intel decided to twist the knife and make an example out of him.
Is it just me, or does that payment box look kind of dodgy? I think there's a reason that so many people use PayPal and services like it—people trust a familiar face. But this one doesn't really have any padlocks or any details like address or zip code or anything, and just looks out of character for a checkout page.
As a person that knows about Aaron, I know it can be trusted, but it might not be the same for others. Just a reaction that the folks supporting Aaron might want to be aware of.
One company who got around this hurdle was App.net(piggybacking on the Stripe/Visa/Mastercard brand). I'm assuming this is another implementation of Stripe.
I wish someone would make a KickStarter for legal stuff.
I've seen enough of these that it could be a real business. (Ex: help pay for a defense against some government intrusion, or RIAA overreaching, or to bring a case to challenge an unconstitutional statute, or to overturn a dumb pantent, or whatever).
It could even evolve into a platform for the political moneybomb we've seen before. (A bounty for the first person to introduce some bill, for example: patent reform.)
If people want to help Aaron, I'd recommend a political strategy as well as a legal one. I'm not a lawyer and certainly no expert on this case, but my sense is that there is something political going on or one of the prosecutors sees this as a big career boost. For someone without a criminal background like Aaron it would seem very much out of the norm to continue escalating the charges as they've done, rather than move toward a plea bargain.
These prosecutors work for the Obama Administration, and ultimately the President. The President has certainly courted the tech/internet vote, and I think some internet activism in this case is worth a shot. But it would need to be done basically right now (i.e. before the election). Are the prosecutors going to drop the charges? No. But some political pressure could improve whatever the terms of a plea deal are.
Disclosure: Aaron and I briefly worked at the same non-profit organization many years ago. But we were essentially in different departments, so while we met once or twice I wouldn't say I know him personally.
From the indictment: JSTOR is a not-for-profit (=no tax liability?). JSTOR charges universities annual subscription fees as high as $50,000.
Are we told anywhere what JSTOR's actual costs are for scanning documents and serving PDF's? Yes. Someone provided a link to details of JSTOR's budget in the other Swartz thread. Very interesting. They appear to be some very well paid "librarians" (archivists). And lo and behold, they are trying to figure out how to make Google bucks. Seed the Google index with links to JSTOR articles that sit behind a paywall, then charge $10 or more for a la carte access. (Can you feel the desperation?)
Sounds great, they can piggyback on Google, maybe run some SEO, do some behavioural tracking and all that. But there's just one problem: this is library material. Library as in the kind that is funded by grants, taxes, tuition or endowments. Non-commercial. And even more, does Google Scholar show ads? Do they charge anyone for access?
I'd put my money on projects like archive.org or publicresource.org, who charge nothing, before I'd bet on these guys. Sadly, this criminal case may really be all for nothing. Because businesses like JSTOR will likely fail, not because of kids like Swartz, but because they simply are not as smart about technology as the folks who run sites like archive and publicresource.
He would've got more donations had he put the papers he downloaded online sooner, rather than get busted with 4 million. A journalleaks site would be much more useful than wikileaks.
I feel the state of academic publishing is essentially, a hustle. People being divorsed from community feedback and their own rights as authors is farcical.
[+] [-] citricsquid|13 years ago|reply
More complete background: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/07/reddit-founder-ar...
[+] [-] david_shaw|13 years ago|reply
I'm neither encouraging nor discouraging people from donating, but I do think that it's a little off-putting that Aaron's taking what could have been a selfless, martyrdom-filled act of civil disobedience and then changing it into "silly mistake," from which he's asking for help recovering.
[1]: 'Doing the time' as a turn of speech. I doubt Aaron would get actual jail time for this. Then again, I am not a lawyer.
[+] [-] rm999|13 years ago|reply
That said, the legal system is setup in a way where it costs a lot of money to get a truly fair trial. A lawyer will tell his side of the story; without a good one he won't be properly heard by the legal system. Aaron would be a disservice to his cause by putting up a poor defense.
[+] [-] shmulkey18|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bcl|13 years ago|reply
1. Include some background on why I should care. 2. Provide some level of assurance that this page is actually linked to the issue at hand and isn't just a phishing scheme.
[+] [-] _delirium|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hollerith|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edw519|13 years ago|reply
Aaron should man up, take responsibility for his actions, and pay his own bills.
And if this is his idea of changing the world, perhaps he should reconsider his choices and find a better way of paying it forward to other brilliant programmers who never got the breaks he did.
[+] [-] andrewljohnson|13 years ago|reply
So, don't worry - he's poor enough for your pity and support.
2) As to your second line of thought, that we should punish him because he consciously broke the law... I disagree with anyone on this forum who says that Aaron didn't know the potential consequences of his actions, and therefore should not be punished. But I also disagree with you.
This was a victimless crime, and the only ones pursuing it are some relentless G-men. Where is the corporation or person that has been wronged? Who, in the public, wants to pillory Aaron? What did Aaron gain? Do we really need to make an example of him, so this doesn't happen again? Is this really good a use of taxes?
My reaction is just shame and disgust... I mean, really? This brilliant kid is going to jail because of civil disobedience? Just so we can show there is still a book than can be thrown?
[+] [-] brador|13 years ago|reply
He did it to, as far as I know, set the information free from the paywall. To release that information so anyone and everyone can access the research we'd already paid for.
A noble cause? yeah I think so.
I don't want to compare it to Ghandi's salt works but the comparison could be made. A stand against artificial restrictions on something that should be free or cheap for all.
[+] [-] st3fan|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shmulkey18|13 years ago|reply
And, no, this is not a case of civil disobedience. If it was, Swartz would have publicly violated the law (rather than attempting to conceal the crime) in order to draw attention to its putative unfairness.
Aaron Swartz is a spoiled brat. I hope that they throw the book at him.
[+] [-] sharkweek|13 years ago|reply
For this reason I am happy to help how I can
[+] [-] freemanindia|13 years ago|reply
Further, using the legal system to extract a huge penalty before any jury has decided on guilt is the worst type of bullying by the big against the small.
Lastly, many of us relate to what Aaron is going through, and simple compassion compels us to help. Saying Aaron should "man up, take responsibility for his actions, and pay his own bills" belittles him and those of us who have chosen to support him.
[+] [-] Randgalt|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guelo|13 years ago|reply
If the feds get their way you'll know exactly where to find him for the next 35 years.
[+] [-] ktizo|13 years ago|reply
Is your average man supposed to take 30 years+ on the chin for trying to release academic papers?
If he didn't have a penis would you feel more compassion? As I have never heard it be suggested that a woman in desperate circumstances has a need to man up.
As for what could he do to give more breaks to other programmers, he was trying to give out academic papers for fuck's sake. On the scale of things, that is giving more breaks to others, than most people accomplish in a lifetime.
What is your idea of changing the world?
[+] [-] lhnz|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gnu8|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sciurus|13 years ago|reply
[0] http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/21/aaron-swart...
[+] [-] j_s|13 years ago|reply
So much depends on specifics of the situation that I'm not really comfortable making any type of judgement on anyone involved.
[+] [-] mibbitier|13 years ago|reply
Also didn't he make a ton of money selling Reddit?! :/
[+] [-] adharmad|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tptacek|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] markbao|13 years ago|reply
As a person that knows about Aaron, I know it can be trusted, but it might not be the same for others. Just a reaction that the folks supporting Aaron might want to be aware of.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mrkmcknz|13 years ago|reply
One company who got around this hurdle was App.net(piggybacking on the Stripe/Visa/Mastercard brand). I'm assuming this is another implementation of Stripe.
[+] [-] nostromo|13 years ago|reply
I've seen enough of these that it could be a real business. (Ex: help pay for a defense against some government intrusion, or RIAA overreaching, or to bring a case to challenge an unconstitutional statute, or to overturn a dumb pantent, or whatever).
It could even evolve into a platform for the political moneybomb we've seen before. (A bounty for the first person to introduce some bill, for example: patent reform.)
[+] [-] kunle|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sillysaurus|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adastra|13 years ago|reply
These prosecutors work for the Obama Administration, and ultimately the President. The President has certainly courted the tech/internet vote, and I think some internet activism in this case is worth a shot. But it would need to be done basically right now (i.e. before the election). Are the prosecutors going to drop the charges? No. But some political pressure could improve whatever the terms of a plea deal are.
Disclosure: Aaron and I briefly worked at the same non-profit organization many years ago. But we were essentially in different departments, so while we met once or twice I wouldn't say I know him personally.
[+] [-] tptacek|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thejerz|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sciurus|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tptacek|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sciurus|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] additive|13 years ago|reply
Are we told anywhere what JSTOR's actual costs are for scanning documents and serving PDF's? Yes. Someone provided a link to details of JSTOR's budget in the other Swartz thread. Very interesting. They appear to be some very well paid "librarians" (archivists). And lo and behold, they are trying to figure out how to make Google bucks. Seed the Google index with links to JSTOR articles that sit behind a paywall, then charge $10 or more for a la carte access. (Can you feel the desperation?)
Sounds great, they can piggyback on Google, maybe run some SEO, do some behavioural tracking and all that. But there's just one problem: this is library material. Library as in the kind that is funded by grants, taxes, tuition or endowments. Non-commercial. And even more, does Google Scholar show ads? Do they charge anyone for access?
I'd put my money on projects like archive.org or publicresource.org, who charge nothing, before I'd bet on these guys. Sadly, this criminal case may really be all for nothing. Because businesses like JSTOR will likely fail, not because of kids like Swartz, but because they simply are not as smart about technology as the folks who run sites like archive and publicresource.
[+] [-] adrianwaj|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leed25d|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 5xz41s0P8T5N|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kylebrown|13 years ago|reply
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110721/11122615195/aaron-...
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] godisdad|13 years ago|reply
I feel the state of academic publishing is essentially, a hustle. People being divorsed from community feedback and their own rights as authors is farcical.
[+] [-] mikeklaas|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jhrobert|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brackishlake|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]