If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   JSTOR itself believed that Aaron Swartz had "the right" to download from the site, and was not doing anything illegal   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 162
    More: Followup, Aaron Swartz, Computer Crime, JSTOR, force of law, internet freedom, MIT  
•       •       •

4389 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Jan 2013 at 9:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



162 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-14 01:11:57 PM

BullBearMS: HotWingConspiracy: I always thought a major component of civil disobedience is going to trial for it.

They didn't charge him with his real crime, which was trespassing in an unlocked closet.

The plutocrats had their politicians drum up false charges to throw a political activist who had thwarted their will into prison for decades.


So uh, which plutocrats and politicians were in on this? And what was their motivation?

Really, that's all the more reason to go to trial.
 
2013-01-14 01:22:14 PM

HotWingConspiracy: So uh, which plutocrats and politicians were in on this? And what was their motivation?


Asks one of the biggest Obama shills on the Politics tab?

Which politician controls the Department of Justice?

Which plutocrats agenda did the dead kid shut down?
 
2013-01-14 01:24:42 PM

BullBearMS: HotWingConspiracy: So uh, which plutocrats and politicians were in on this? And what was their motivation?

Asks one of the biggest Obama shills on the Politics tab?

Which politician controls the Department of Justice?

Which plutocrats agenda did the dead kid shut down?


Oh I was hoping you had some sort of evidence.
 
2013-01-14 01:25:57 PM

SpiderQueenDemon: Had I been in charge of overseeing the case, considering Swartz's motive and what he actually did, I would have recommended he receive community service in the form of setting up a really big open-source alternative to JSTOR suitable for use by impoverished public school districts. It should take about 1200-1500 hours and the end result should be something the offended parties, MIT and JSTOR, are able to get back something like a reasonable value of the material taken with via charitable tax deductions for licensing it free to broke schools. Swartz would've been awesome at that, the punishment would've fit the crime and the end result would've been the world's being a better place.

Some nonviolent crimes are really best handled with a rehabilitative and publically beneficial sentence. Someone shoplifts, make them sweep the whole parking lot clean and bring the store's employees coffee for a week. It saves the company the value of the item taken and the criminal makes amends in a way that teaches them and benefits the victims. Someone tries to download eleventy bazillion articles for the purpose of making knowledge more widely available, make that person help with a knowledge database for the poor and deserving so the victims can get the value back via charity. It's so difficult to put a meaningful price on information, it seems to me that this "omg! hackers and pirates must die!!!11!" RIAA-style bullshiat is hurting the world more than the criminals possibly could.

It's like how our library gives some people the choice of either paying late-book fines in cashy money or reading aloud to at-risk children until the fines are satisfied. So long as life gets better, why bother to be a hard-ass about a crime that doesn't cause any particular harm?


The only problem with that approach, in this case, is that it would not have deterred similar crimes by the same perpetrator.  Swarz didn't think he needed "rehabilitation."

The heavy prosecution wasn't for the JSTOR incident alone, any more than Al Capone's tax evasion was the sole reason for his prosecution.

Swarz would not have gone to jail for anywhere near 35 years.  A plea deal would have been struck including minimal or even no  prison time.  But he would definitely have gotten lengthy probation including restrictions on computer and Internet access.  I wager that is what he could not face.
 
2013-01-14 01:27:49 PM
Are Millennials the biggest bunch of wimps we have ever had the miss fortune to call humans? Seriously, some of these assholes are saying this bozo is a martyr. A martyr? You know who farking murderer this shiat head? Himself. That is not a martyr that is farking coward.

If he had gone to prison, then he would have been a martyr, but as it is he is just another farking loser who would not stand up for his principals.
 
2013-01-14 01:29:10 PM

BarkingUnicorn: SpiderQueenDemon: Had I been in charge of overseeing the case, considering Swartz's motive and what he actually did, I would have recommended he receive community service in the form of setting up a really big open-source alternative to JSTOR suitable for use by impoverished public school districts. It should take about 1200-1500 hours and the end result should be something the offended parties, MIT and JSTOR, are able to get back something like a reasonable value of the material taken with via charitable tax deductions for licensing it free to broke schools. Swartz would've been awesome at that, the punishment would've fit the crime and the end result would've been the world's being a better place.

Some nonviolent crimes are really best handled with a rehabilitative and publically beneficial sentence. Someone shoplifts, make them sweep the whole parking lot clean and bring the store's employees coffee for a week. It saves the company the value of the item taken and the criminal makes amends in a way that teaches them and benefits the victims. Someone tries to download eleventy bazillion articles for the purpose of making knowledge more widely available, make that person help with a knowledge database for the poor and deserving so the victims can get the value back via charity. It's so difficult to put a meaningful price on information, it seems to me that this "omg! hackers and pirates must die!!!11!" RIAA-style bullshiat is hurting the world more than the criminals possibly could.

It's like how our library gives some people the choice of either paying late-book fines in cashy money or reading aloud to at-risk children until the fines are satisfied. So long as life gets better, why bother to be a hard-ass about a crime that doesn't cause any particular harm?

The only problem with that approach, in this case, is that it would not have deterred similar crimes by the same perpetrator.  Swarz didn't think he needed "rehabilitation."

The heavy prosecution wasn't for ...


Dip shiat should have said no farking deals. He should have pleaded not guilty, gone to trial and dared them to send him to prison.
 
2013-01-14 01:30:31 PM

BullBearMS: He was quite successful at shutting down the MPAA and RIAA's attempt to censor the internet through the SOPA/PIPA legislation. If you recall, FARK and many other websites joined in the political protest he and others organized.


I thought Drew was in favor of SOPA or something?
 
2013-01-14 01:31:19 PM

China White Tea: Wait, when the fark did we get back to the idiotic notion that violating TOS = a criminal offense? I could swear that idea had previously received a thorough bludgeoning.


 It's the TOS that spells out what's "authorized access" and what isn't.  So yes, violating the TOS can be the crime of "unauthorized access."

/where is your bludgeon now?
 
2013-01-14 01:32:23 PM

HotWingConspiracy: I always thought a major component of civil disobedience is going to trial for it.


That is my understanding of how it is supposed to work........disobey the law/rules, take your lumps and get charged, then fight the charges all the way up to the Supreme Court.
 
2013-01-14 01:33:15 PM

HotWingConspiracy: So uh, which plutocrats and politicians were in on this?


The Just Us system.
 
2013-01-14 01:33:48 PM

BullBearMS: AdamK: BullBearMS: AdamK: ya know fighting for your rights is kind of a moot point when you kill yourself, and not even in a martyr-way

He was quite successful at shutting down the MPAA and RIAA's attempt to censor the internet through the SOPA/PIPA legislation. If you recall, FARK and many other websites joined in the political protest he and others organized.

Let's imagine Kennedy deciding to destroy the life of a political activist like Rosa Parks despite the Montgomery Bus Line begging him to drop all charges.

still pointless to kill yourself in this situation

The plutocrats and their politicians decide to ruin you financially and put you into prison for decades, even though your crime's "victim" begs them to drop all charges? This, despite widespread knowledge that you have always suffered from debilitating depression?

This wasn't an accidental death.


those chemtrails at it again
 
2013-01-14 01:38:48 PM

AdamK: BullBearMS: AdamK: BullBearMS: AdamK: ya know fighting for your rights is kind of a moot point when you kill yourself, and not even in a martyr-way

He was quite successful at shutting down the MPAA and RIAA's attempt to censor the internet through the SOPA/PIPA legislation. If you recall, FARK and many other websites joined in the political protest he and others organized.

Let's imagine Kennedy deciding to destroy the life of a political activist like Rosa Parks despite the Montgomery Bus Line begging him to drop all charges.

still pointless to kill yourself in this situation

The plutocrats and their politicians decide to ruin you financially and put you into prison for decades, even though your crime's "victim" begs them to drop all charges? This, despite widespread knowledge that you have always suffered from debilitating depression?

This wasn't an accidental death.

those chemtrails at it again


It was probably made to look like an accident, just like John Noveskes death.
 
2013-01-14 01:46:40 PM

Bartleby the Scrivener: i'm sure there's someone alot more tech and/or legal saavy than me who can talk more knowledgeably about the specs of this case, but my reading of this yahoo article (and some other articles ) about this stuff leaves me on the fence.

On the one i hand, i do believe, in general, knowledge should be free. this is the idealist side of me. research funded by federal dollars? everything is open, no subscription, no institutional affliation required. need to learn how to wire your house? safe, practical, usable information should be at your fingertips. whether you burn your house down or not is on you.

On the other hand, the realist side of me, which is old and cynical, knows all to well there is no such thing as a free lunch. maybe this kid was trying to move the needle some, fighting the powers that be, but if it comes down to it and you're trying to take food from someone else's bowl, i don't think you should be surprised when they bite. not all dogs, so to speak, share the same values.

\two cents


The JStor stuff aside, MIT was pissed due to the fact he snuck into their switch rooms and physically attached stuff to it. The whole JStor thing aside, that kind of network intrusion is always going to result in severe legal problems.
 
2013-01-14 01:48:16 PM
Look, I think it's tragic that this guy found himself in an environment that made him decide the only way out was to take his own life.

But Holy Jebus people! If you intend to "Fight the System"tm don't get upset that the system fights back. If you can't handle the consequences don't start the fight.
 
2013-01-14 01:50:04 PM

Teiritzamna: I say puppies and kittens are both fluffy. This is NOT false equivalence. You say "hey that means puppies and kitties are the same animal!" that IS false equivalence.


Right, it's not false equivalence. However, it is a subversive appeal to emotion. It's the difference between saying "fraud is a crime, just as petty theft is a crime!" and "fraud is a crime, just as rape is a crime!" Intentional or not, it serves to invoke an emotional appeal from the non-equivalent aspects of the two things rather than the aspects that ARE equivalent.
 
2013-01-14 01:51:27 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Oh I was hoping you had some sort of evidence.


Evidence that the RIAA owned the Obama administration right from the start? That's certainly easy to come by.

Let's turn the clock back to only a few weeks after his inauguration back in 2009.

Nearly two dozen public interest groups, trade pacts and library groups urged President Barack Obama on Thursday to quit filling his administration with insiders plucked from the Recording Industry Association of America.

The demands came a week after the Justice Department, fresh with two RIAA attorneys in its No. 2 and No. 3 positions.


Of course, the Obama administration's response to criticism from public interest groups was to keep on appointing RIAA officials to leadership positions in the Justice Department.

Then there was the Administration's first attempt to allow his weathy donor friends to censor the internet, ACTA. The most open administration EVAR's response to a freedom of information act request for the ACTA treaty text went like this:

When the Obama administration took over, there was a public stance that this administration was going to be more transparent -- especially with regards to things like Freedom of Information Act requests. The nonprofit group Knowledge Ecology International took that to heart and filed an FOIA request to get more info on ACTA. The US Trade Representative's Office responded denying the request, saying that the information was "classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958." This is a treaty about changing copyright law, not sending missiles somewhere. To claim that it's a national security matter is just downright scary. As KEI points out, the text of the documents requested have been available to tons of people, including more than 30 governments around the world and lobbyists from the entertainment industry, pharma industry and publishing industry.

But when the public asks for them, we're told they're state secrets? This is transparency? This is openness?


Thankfully, ACTA was shut down by the EU where the politicians weren't as owned as the RIAA thought they were..

Then, when a Federal judge found that a $675,000 dollar fine for a penniless college student downloading a few 99 cent music track was was Unconstitutionally excessive, and that a $67,000 fine was more than sufficient, the Obama administration to leap into action to screw over another young kid's life.

Do federal judges have the power to reduce jury awards in copyright-infringement cases?

The Obama administration and the Recording Industry Association of America don't think so. They argued that point Monday before a three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston


It's pretty hard to ignore that the Obama administration has been doing the RIAA and MPAA's bidding right from the start.
 
2013-01-14 01:54:49 PM

BullBearMS: HotWingConspiracy: Oh I was hoping you had some sort of evidence.

Evidence that the RIAA owned the Obama administration right from the start? That's certainly easy to come by.

Let's turn the clock back to only a few weeks after his inauguration back in 2009.

Nearly two dozen public interest groups, trade pacts and library groups urged President Barack Obama on Thursday to quit filling his administration with insiders plucked from the Recording Industry Association of America.

The demands came a week after the Justice Department, fresh with two RIAA attorneys in its No. 2 and No. 3 positions.

Of course, the Obama administration's response to criticism from public interest groups was to keep on appointing RIAA officials to leadership positions in the Justice Department.

Then there was the Administration's first attempt to allow his weathy donor friends to censor the internet, ACTA. The most open administration EVAR's response to a freedom of information act request for the ACTA treaty text went like this:

When the Obama administration took over, there was a public stance that this administration was going to be more transparent -- especially with regards to things like Freedom of Information Act requests. The nonprofit group Knowledge Ecology International took that to heart and filed an FOIA request to get more info on ACTA. The US Trade Representative's Office responded denying the request, saying that the information was "classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958." This is a treaty about changing copyright law, not sending missiles somewhere. To claim that it's a national security matter is just downright scary. As KEI points out, the text of the documents requested have been available to tons of people, including more than 30 governments around the world and lobbyists from the entertainment industry, pharma industry and publishing industry.

But when the public asks for them, we're told they're state secrets? This i ...


So when does this nexus of evil personally get involved with this case?

I'm sorry, as one of the biggest Obama shills on the Politics tab, I was recruited to help organize the Israeli commando hit on Sandy Hook Elementary.

This low level stuff was farmed out to smaller shills than I.
 
2013-01-14 02:00:11 PM

HotWingConspiracy: So when does this nexus of evil personally get involved with this case?


At the point where the same Justice Department that refused to charge any of the fraudulent bankers who destroyed our economy with fraud, and refused to charge any of the politicians who ordered torture with a crime, and refused to charge any of the telecoms who illegally wiretapped American's phones with a crime... suddenly decided that trespassing in an unlocked closet deserved decades in prison despite the "victim" of the "crime" directly asking for all charges to be dropped.
 
2013-01-14 02:03:13 PM

ProfessorOhki: Right, it's not false equivalence. However, it is a subversive appeal to emotion. It's the difference between saying "fraud is a crime, just as petty theft is a crime!" and "fraud is a crime, just as rape is a crime!" Intentional or not, it serves to invoke an emotional appeal from the non-equivalent aspects of the two things rather than the aspects that ARE equivalent.


i think it is more fair to say that it can evoke an emotion. Let us assume we are discussing a crime which rises or falls on the consent of the victim. Say, for example that Alice is charged with trespass on Bob's land. Alice wants to argue that Bob gave her permission, which vitiates any crime.

Let us then assume that Carol and Dave are debating this. Carol says that Alice is full of shiat, as there is no crime where the consent of the victim matters. Dave says, "aha! what about rape. In that case the consent of the victim is the crux of the crime!" Carol responds: how dare you compare simple trespass with rape.

Note that in this scenario Dave is not comparing the severity, reprehensibility, or social opprobrium of the two crimes. Dave is in fact comparing the actus rea requirements of the crime and suggesting that there are in fact crimes where victim consent is part of that actus. Carol is in fact the one who is (either honestly, or as part of an argumentative tactic) conflating the severity, reprehensibility, etc. of the crimes.

This can be seen in a different scenario. Carol argues "of course victim consent is important, that is an element of every crime!" Dave responds "well, no. Homicide cannot be excused by consent." Would you say "how dare Dave bring up murder!?" Likely no.

On one level this reminds me of the old debate that over whether there are certain subjects that cannot be used for comedy. Rape is often discussed there as well. Here, the discussion seems to be that unless crimes are of exactly the same severity, the legal facets that they have in common cannot be discussed, as someone may get a case of the vapors. I disagree.

This is not to say that actual real cases of false equivalence are deeply irritating and bad. See any drug discussion where people compare pot to crack or whathaveyou. Here, however there was an argument made that the state shouldn't prosecute when the victim doesn't want to press charges. A counter argument was made using an example of another crime - a crime famous for the reticence of the victim to want the state to proceed. This was then declared emotionally manipulative, in a fashion that itself was emotionally manipulative. That is at least how i see it.
 
2013-01-14 02:03:30 PM
All I want to know is this:

If cyber-bullies can be held responsible (civilly, if not criminally) for harassing a teen girl to the point of suicide, why is this motherfarker of a prosecutor any different? If I were his parents, in my grief, I might not be able to resist the temptation to sue him to death. Since I'm not his parents, I have enough clarity left to note how bad an idea it is to sue anybody at the DOJ, just on general principal, but you see my point...
 
2013-01-14 02:07:20 PM

Giltric: BullBearMS: He was quite successful at shutting down the MPAA and RIAA's attempt to censor the internet through the SOPA/PIPA legislation. If you recall, FARK and many other websites joined in the political protest he and others organized.

I thought Drew was in favor of SOPA or something?


If he was, then I'm not sure how his website joined the protest against it.
 
2013-01-14 02:11:41 PM

TheOtherGuy: If cyber-bullies can be held responsible (civilly, if not criminally) for harassing a teen girl to the point of suicide, why is this motherfarker of a prosecutor any different? If I were his parents, in my grief, I might not be able to resist the temptation to sue him to death. Since I'm not his parents, I have enough clarity left to note how bad an idea it is to sue anybody at the DOJ, just on general principal, but you see my point...


You really cannot have a cause of action against a prosecutor based on the fact that they prosecuted someone for a crime that they colorably committed. Even if they prosecuted you for less than savory reasons. If it is abuse of process (i.e. there is no colorable claim that you committed the crime), sure fine - 1983 will have your back. Otherwise prosecutorial immunity would be pretty ironclad.
 
2013-01-14 02:13:15 PM

TheOtherGuy: All I want to know is this:

If cyber-bullies can be held responsible (civilly, if not criminally) for harassing a teen girl to the point of suicide, why is this motherfarker of a prosecutor any different? If I were his parents, in my grief, I might not be able to resist the temptation to sue him to death. Since I'm not his parents, I have enough clarity left to note how bad an idea it is to sue anybody at the DOJ, just on general principal, but you see my point...


Amusingly enough, we were just discussing the case that created those laws. Well, I was at least.
 
2013-01-14 02:18:00 PM

Teiritzamna: Note that in this scenario Dave is not comparing the severity, reprehensibility, or social opprobrium of the two crimes. Dave is in fact comparing the actus rea requirements of the crime and suggesting that there are in fact crimes where victim consent is part of that actus. Carol is in fact the one who is (either honestly, or as part of an argumentative tactic) conflating the severity, reprehensibility, etc. of the crimes.


Sure, but you obviously have the knowledge of the differences in types of comparison and how they could be interpreted by someone not adhering strictly to your argument. I'm sure there's more than one analogy for prosecution where the victim doesn't want to bring charges; you're also smart enough to know exactly what you were doing when you did it. Now, I'm not going to say there's some, "rational man's burden," where it's solely up to you to keep the other party from responding emotionally, but you're also not going to convince me that you weren't aware of the potential for derailing the argument.
 
2013-01-14 02:25:09 PM

ProfessorOhki: Teiritzamna: Note that in this scenario Dave is not comparing the severity, reprehensibility, or social opprobrium of the two crimes. Dave is in fact comparing the actus rea requirements of the crime and suggesting that there are in fact crimes where victim consent is part of that actus. Carol is in fact the one who is (either honestly, or as part of an argumentative tactic) conflating the severity, reprehensibility, etc. of the crimes.

Sure, but you obviously have the knowledge of the differences in types of comparison and how they could be interpreted by someone not adhering strictly to your argument. I'm sure there's more than one analogy for prosecution where the victim doesn't want to bring charges; you're also smart enough to know exactly what you were doing when you did it. Now, I'm not going to say there's some, "rational man's burden," where it's solely up to you to keep the other party from responding emotionally, but you're also not going to convince me that you weren't aware of the potential for derailing the argument.


It was Thaeteus, the other patent lawyer who made the comparison. But yes, bringing up domestic abuse rather than, I dunno. Saying; "There are mandatory prosecution laws for hacking under X, Y, and Z." Is definitely made as an emotional appeal.

Tell me Tez. If I went into the court and made the comparison in front of a Jury, would the prosecution raise an objection?
 
2013-01-14 02:28:04 PM

ProfessorOhki: Sure, but you obviously have the knowledge of the differences in types of comparison and how they could be interpreted by someone not adhering strictly to your argument. I'm sure there's more than one analogy for prosecution where the victim doesn't want to bring charges; you're also smart enough to know exactly what you were doing when you did it. Now, I'm not going to say there's some, "rational man's burden," where it's solely up to you to keep the other party from responding emotionally, but you're also not going to convince me that you weren't aware of the potential for derailing the argument.


Well three things -
1) I didn't make the argument in the first place - just commenting along about it ^_^

2) as discussed above - more than anything else i think this is one of the big communicative differences between lawyers and non-lawyers. Amongst the people i know from law school and my job - no one would bat an eye at such a comparison because this is what we do and are trained to do. So when discussing the law, i will find an analogy that is on point and use it. The trick is that i try not to do it as much in my normal life for exactly the reasons you noted. The one place i wont dumb down is when discussing the law. Because if people feel like they want to get their GED-in-law on, then they are gonna deal with the way the game is played at the pro level.

3) If this were a one off scenario, i think your point would have more oomph. True, here, we have a set arguers who are accusing another of being emotionally manipulative. Yet when the actual basis of the agrument is explained, the offended parties have responded: "nope, you compared wife beating to fraud and trespass! thus you are teh evuls, Q.E.D.!"

At that point i feel even a reasonable rational man's burden as you call it (which i like and may steal) has transformed into situation where one side is pulling a "oh my stars and garters!" act as a way of neutering what is a fairly good substantive point.
 
2013-01-14 02:30:03 PM

Kinek: Tell me Tez. If I went into the court and made the comparison in front of a Jury, would the prosecution raise an objection?


Of course they would, as any attorney argument is not allowed. There would be an objection if you compared it to anything. Of course, dragging the rules of evidence into this muddies the point as what they would require is irrelevant to the point at hand.
 
2013-01-14 02:36:30 PM

Teiritzamna: ProfessorOhki: Sure, but you obviously have the knowledge of the differences in types of comparison and how they could be interpreted by someone not adhering strictly to your argument. I'm sure there's more than one analogy for prosecution where the victim doesn't want to bring charges; you're also smart enough to know exactly what you were doing when you did it. Now, I'm not going to say there's some, "rational man's burden," where it's solely up to you to keep the other party from responding emotionally, but you're also not going to convince me that you weren't aware of the potential for derailing the argument.

Well three things -
1) I didn't make the argument in the first place - just commenting along about it ^_^

2) as discussed above - more than anything else i think this is one of the big communicative differences between lawyers and non-lawyers. Amongst the people i know from law school and my job - no one would bat an eye at such a comparison because this is what we do and are trained to do. So when discussing the law, i will find an analogy that is on point and use it. The trick is that i try not to do it as much in my normal life for exactly the reasons you noted. The one place i wont dumb down is when discussing the law. Because if people feel like they want to get their GED-in-law on, then they are gonna deal with the way the game is played at the pro level.

3) If this were a one off scenario, i think your point would have more oomph. True, here, we have a set arguers who are accusing another of being emotionally manipulative. Yet when the actual basis of the agrument is explained, the offended parties have responded: "nope, you compared wife beating to fraud and trespass! thus you are teh evuls, Q.E.D.!"

At that point i feel even a reasonable rational man's burden as you call it (which i like and may steal) has transformed into situation where one side is pulling a "oh my stars and garters!" act as a way of neutering what is a fairly good sub ...


Except T then proceeded to call it back, over and over and over. And be the arrogant jackass that he is. It was emotionally manipulative. And continual denial that it could possibly viewed as manipulative doesn't help your case that it wasn't so.

AND FOR THE LAST FARKING TIME. Mandatory prosecution in hacking laws is retarded. The state, in this case, should have to demonstrate COMPELLING FARKING INTEREST. Mandatory prosecution in even violent cases is not compulsory all the time under all circumstances. Domestic abuse cases ARE DIFFERENT because they have a likelihood of repeating until one party is dead or so severely injured that the state foots the medical bill. Also, the children. In this case, it was JSTOR, MIT, and Swartz. All private entities. Breach of TOS (And aside from the trespassing, that's where all the charges stem from.) is a private contract breach. Not a public interest.
 
2013-01-14 02:39:13 PM

Teiritzamna: Kinek: Tell me Tez. If I went into the court and made the comparison in front of a Jury, would the prosecution raise an objection?

Of course they would, as any attorney argument is not allowed. There would be an objection if you compared it to anything. Of course, dragging the rules of evidence into this muddies the point as what they would require is irrelevant to the point at hand.


Then why are you defending the comparison now? The comparison was emotionally burdened. Why not a more proper definition, as I know lawyers love definitions.

Hacking requires mandatory prosecution under X statute.

Hey look, I didn't mention rape, beating your spouse, child porn, or lighting puppies on fire anywhere! Lookat that.
 
2013-01-14 02:45:13 PM

Kinek: Then why are you defending the comparison now? The comparison was emotionally burdened.


Wait, what? The reason you cannot argue it to a jury is that it is legal argument. You don't get do that to a jury because juries DON'T MAKE RULINGS ON LAW. Judges do. And in briefs or oral argument before a judge, lawyers would make such comparisons. They do. All the time.

Arguing by analogy is a technique just like arguing based on text. You seem to have a problem with it. That's cool. I am just saying that argument by analogy is
 
2013-01-14 02:45:56 PM
d'oh

I am just saying that argument by analogy is a thing we do.
 
2013-01-14 02:47:24 PM

Teiritzamna: 1) I didn't make the argument in the first place - just commenting along about it ^_^


Kinek: It was Thaeteus, the other patent lawyer who made the comparison.


Oh. Sorry, Teiritzamna.

/I KNOW Thaeteus does it on purpose
//But gave up on that many many threads ago
 
2013-01-14 02:49:51 PM

Teiritzamna: You don't get do that to a jury because juries DON'T MAKE RULINGS ON LAW.


aaaaaand, I'm ejecting from this thread before the jury nullification folks show up.
 
2013-01-14 02:52:52 PM

ProfessorOhki: aaaaaand, I'm ejecting from this thread before the jury nullification folks show up.


heh - yeah. In the words of the Doctor: "run for your life!"
 
2013-01-14 02:53:17 PM
If you need more evidence of the Obama administration being the RIAA's little biatch...

A bizarre attempt by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to seize the domain name of a hip-hop blog accused of copyright infringement ended today with the government abruptly abandoning the lawsuit.

Government officials initially trumpeted the seizure of the music blog, DaJaz1.com as an example of the law prevailing over pirates. Attorney General Eric Holder warned at the time that "intellectual property crimes are not victimless," and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) director John Morton proclaimed that "today, we turn the tables on these Internet thieves."

The only problem? It turns out that Holder's and Morton's claims appear to have been, well, exaggerated.

That started to become apparent when Dajaz1's editor, who's known as Splash, showed The New York Times e-mail messages from record label employees sending him unreleased songs. ICE had claimed that the music was "unauthorized."

What's unusual here is that normally U.S. law strongly discourages efforts to censor Web sites before a full trial can be held. That's called "prior restraint," and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Pentagon Papers case that even top-secret national defense information did not qualify for temporary, pre-trial censorship.

But in the DaJaz1 case, a series of allegations of dubious reliability offered in an ICE affidavit were enough to censor a popular music blog--which had been featured on MTV News a few months earlier--for over a year.


After this effort to allow the RIAA to take down a music blog just because they wanted to failed, the push for SOPA/PIPA began.

Seizing a website because the RIAA wants it seized was exactly what the SOPA/PIPA legislation was supposed to allow, and exactly what the the poor kid who was just hounded to death by the RIAA's pet politicians prevented from passing.
 
2013-01-14 03:21:47 PM

Teiritzamna: Kinek: Then why are you defending the comparison now? The comparison was emotionally burdened.

Wait, what? The reason you cannot argue it to a jury is that it is legal argument. You don't get do that to a jury because juries DON'T MAKE RULINGS ON LAW. Judges do. And in briefs or oral argument before a judge, lawyers would make such comparisons. They do. All the time.

Arguing by analogy is a technique just like arguing based on text. You seem to have a problem with it. That's cool. I am just saying that argument by analogy is


Sorry. I misread what you meant. I thought you meant that the comparison is not a legal argument, but an emotional one and such not a proper argument to be made to a jury, since it's not predicated on facts or evidence. Since that is not your argument, I retract my own. I still fully argue that the use in Thaeteus's statement was something that he's known to do. And no, juries don't get to make rulings on law. I'm making the argument that the choice of analogy is not based on equivalency (There are plenty of mandatory prosecution crimes) but rather based on emotional linkage, and that repeated feigned outrage is further evidence that I caught him being a gigantic turd. As he is wont to do.

Anyways, I'm out. Going to go eat lunch and have a romp in the winter wonderland.
 
2013-01-14 03:31:59 PM

Kinek: It was Thaeteus, the other patent lawyer who made the comparison. But yes, bringing up domestic abuse rather than, I dunno. Saying; "There are mandatory prosecution laws for hacking under X, Y, and Z." Is definitely made as an emotional appeal.


Not at all, and I never said that, nor would I - there are no mandatory prosecution laws for hacking.
Which again leads me to think that you're either missing the point or trying to hide it so as to make your emotional appeal. The point is that the state can bring charges without the cooperation or approval of the victim. JSTOR can say "no, we're cool" and the government can still pursue charges. Similarly, in domestic violence cases, the victim can say "no, we're cool" and the government can still pursue charges.

But for some reason, merely mentioning that the same rules apply to both wire fraud and domestic violence causes you to shiat yourself with frothy outrage. Apparently, you'd prefer some other analogy? Well, statutory rape can be prosecuted without the consent or approval of the victim. Possession or creation of child porn, too. In murder, you clearly can't get the victim to work with you.
Let me guess - you have a problem with all of those analogies, too? If so, then how about you suggest a good analogy?
 
2013-01-14 03:35:02 PM

ProfessorOhki: Sure, but you obviously have the knowledge of the differences in types of comparison and how they could be interpreted by someone not adhering strictly to your argument. I'm sure there's more than one analogy for prosecution where the victim doesn't want to bring charges


As noted above, murder (where they can't), domestic violence, statutory rape, child pornography, sex trafficking... Frankly, I'm not sure any of those are less likely to make you or Kinek clutch your pearls and accuse me of psychopathic tendencies for comparing them.
 
2013-01-14 03:36:27 PM

Kinek: Teiritzamna: Kinek: Then why are you defending the comparison now? The comparison was emotionally burdened.

Wait, what? The reason you cannot argue it to a jury is that it is legal argument. You don't get do that to a jury because juries DON'T MAKE RULINGS ON LAW. Judges do. And in briefs or oral argument before a judge, lawyers would make such comparisons. They do. All the time.

Arguing by analogy is a technique just like arguing based on text. You seem to have a problem with it. That's cool. I am just saying that argument by analogy is

Sorry. I misread what you meant. I thought you meant that the comparison is not a legal argument, but an emotional one and such not a proper argument to be made to a jury, since it's not predicated on facts or evidence. Since that is not your argument, I retract my own. I still fully argue that the use in Thaeteus's statement was something that he's known to do. And no, juries don't get to make rulings on law. I'm making the argument that the choice of analogy is not based on equivalency (There are plenty of mandatory prosecution crimes) but rather based on emotional linkage, and that repeated feigned outrage is further evidence that I caught him being a gigantic turd. As he is wont to do.

Anyways, I'm out. Going to go eat lunch and have a romp in the winter wonderland.


No prob chief, I hear you.

Enjoy the wintering!
 
2013-01-14 03:38:55 PM

Kinek: But yes, bringing up domestic abuse rather than, I dunno. Saying; "There are mandatory prosecution laws for hacking under X, Y, and Z."

Kinek: Mandatory prosecution in hacking laws is retarded.

Kinek: Hacking requires mandatory prosecution under X statute.

Kinek: There are plenty of mandatory prosecution crimes


Before someone other than Kinek gets confused, it should be pointed out that there's no mandatory prosecution required here.

The point was whether the government can bring charges without the consent or approval of the victim, i.e. JSTOR. They can, hence the complaints about the victim not having a huge problem with what Swartz did is just as irrelevant as such complaints are in other crimes where the state doesn't need the cooperation or approval of the victim to prosecute.
 
2013-01-14 03:58:41 PM

Theaetetus: Kinek: It was Thaeteus, the other patent lawyer who made the comparison. But yes, bringing up domestic abuse rather than, I dunno. Saying; "There are mandatory prosecution laws for hacking under X, Y, and Z." Is definitely made as an emotional appeal.

Not at all, and I never said that, nor would I - there are no mandatory prosecution laws for hacking.
Which again leads me to think that you're either missing the point or trying to hide it so as to make your emotional appeal. The point is that the state can bring charges without the cooperation or approval of the victim. JSTOR can say "no, we're cool" and the government can still pursue charges. Similarly, in domestic violence cases, the victim can say "no, we're cool" and the government can still pursue charges.

But for some reason, merely mentioning that the same rules apply to both wire fraud and domestic violence causes you to shiat yourself with frothy outrage. Apparently, you'd prefer some other analogy? Well, statutory rape can be prosecuted without the consent or approval of the victim. Possession or creation of child porn, too. In murder, you clearly can't get the victim to work with you.
Let me guess - you have a problem with all of those analogies, too? If so, then how about you suggest a good analogy?


How about,

The point is that the state can bring charges without the cooperation or approval of the victim. JSTOR can say "no, we're cool" and the government can still pursue charges.

And not bringing up rape, domestic abuse, or anything else? How about that?
 
2013-01-14 04:05:20 PM

Theaetetus: ProfessorOhki: Sure, but you obviously have the knowledge of the differences in types of comparison and how they could be interpreted by someone not adhering strictly to your argument. I'm sure there's more than one analogy for prosecution where the victim doesn't want to bring charges

As noted above, murder (where they can't), domestic violence, statutory rape, child pornography, sex trafficking... Frankly, I'm not sure any of those are less likely to make you or Kinek clutch your pearls and accuse me of psychopathic tendencies for comparing them.


The better question is, one of these things is not like the other. Why is that? Is it because it doesn't belong? I think it is!

Hacking, domestic violence, statutory rape, CP, and Sex trafficking. One of these things is not like the others.
 
2013-01-14 04:10:28 PM

Theaetetus: ProfessorOhki: Sure, but you obviously have the knowledge of the differences in types of comparison and how they could be interpreted by someone not adhering strictly to your argument. I'm sure there's more than one analogy for prosecution where the victim doesn't want to bring charges

As noted above, murder (where they can't), domestic violence, statutory rape, child pornography, sex trafficking... Frankly, I'm not sure any of those are less likely to make you or Kinek clutch your pearls and accuse me of psychopathic tendencies for comparing them.


Actually, if those are the only ones you can come up with, it's a great indicator that the crimes in this instance don't belong on that list.
 
2013-01-14 04:18:18 PM

ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: ProfessorOhki: Sure, but you obviously have the knowledge of the differences in types of comparison and how they could be interpreted by someone not adhering strictly to your argument. I'm sure there's more than one analogy for prosecution where the victim doesn't want to bring charges

As noted above, murder (where they can't), domestic violence, statutory rape, child pornography, sex trafficking... Frankly, I'm not sure any of those are less likely to make you or Kinek clutch your pearls and accuse me of psychopathic tendencies for comparing them.

Actually, if those are the only ones you can come up with, it's a great indicator that the crimes in this instance don't belong on that list.


I'm sorry, are we talking about the law how it is or the law how you think it should be? See, I was talking about existing laws and why the fact that JSTOR said they're okay is irrelevant. Kinek there then accused me of all sorts of shameful things. If he was instead suggesting that he'd like the law changed, he should make that clear, rather than throwing a tantrum and flinging around insults just because people point out that current reality differs from his fantasy.
 
2013-01-14 04:38:22 PM

xynix: Doing illegal stuff usually gets you prosecuted.


Unless you're a Wall Street fraudster.
 
2013-01-14 04:39:50 PM

Theaetetus: orbister: You forgot "... said his own lawyer".

Done in one.

Oh yes, and the article says that he paid JSTOR compensation.

Not to mention that he also turned his drives over to them.

I mean, seriously:
Elliot Peters, Swartz's attorney, told The Associated Press on Sunday that the case "was horribly overblown" because JSTOR itself believed that Swartz had "the right" to download from the site... JSTOR, one alleged victim, agreed with Peters that those terms were excessive, Peters said. JSTOR came over to Swartz's side after "he gave the stuff back to JSTOR, paid them to compensate for any inconveniences and apologized," Peters said.

If JSTOR thought he had 'the right' to download that stuff, then why did they insist that it be returned and he pay damages?


I don't see where they insisted there.
 
2013-01-14 04:41:22 PM
This kid was hounded to suicide by a Federal Prosecutor seeking not to do any justice for JSTOR, but to exact revenge on him for the incident years before, when he released all of those federal court docs and was not prosecuted. You mess with the gravy train, you get smacked.
 
2013-01-14 04:43:12 PM

xynix: Doing illegal stuff usually gets you prosecuted.


Unless you're a bank in which case funding terrorists gets you a slap n the wris
 
2013-01-14 04:43:28 PM

Theaetetus: ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: ProfessorOhki: Sure, but you obviously have the knowledge of the differences in types of comparison and how they could be interpreted by someone not adhering strictly to your argument. I'm sure there's more than one analogy for prosecution where the victim doesn't want to bring charges

As noted above, murder (where they can't), domestic violence, statutory rape, child pornography, sex trafficking... Frankly, I'm not sure any of those are less likely to make you or Kinek clutch your pearls and accuse me of psychopathic tendencies for comparing them.

Actually, if those are the only ones you can come up with, it's a great indicator that the crimes in this instance don't belong on that list.

I'm sorry, are we talking about the law how it is or the law how you think it should be? See, I was talking about existing laws and why the fact that JSTOR said they're okay is irrelevant. Kinek there then accused me of all sorts of shameful things. If he was instead suggesting that he'd like the law changed, he should make that clear, rather than throwing a tantrum and flinging around insults just because people point out that current reality differs from his fantasy.


I think your account of events is off:
1) dehehn said "when your victims don't actually have that much of a problem with anything you did."
2) You drew the domestic abuse analogy
3) Kinek gets upset over your analogy
4) You, me, Kinek, and Teiritzamna debate emotionally charged analogies and their validity in arguments involving laypeople.
5) You and Kinek start going at it again over their misuse of "mandatory"
5) I say that, given the list you've just produced, I'm of the opinion the crimes in the article should require the victim to bring charges
6) You somehow get confused about 5 (replace "don't belong" with "shouldn't be" if it makes it more obvious)

I don't think Kinek has ever addressed the law except in the context of not liking your analogy... so the bulk of what you just said is sort of lost to the aether.
 
2013-01-14 05:06:58 PM

ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: ProfessorOhki: Sure, but you obviously have the knowledge of the differences in types of comparison and how they could be interpreted by someone not adhering strictly to your argument. I'm sure there's more than one analogy for prosecution where the victim doesn't want to bring charges

As noted above, murder (where they can't), domestic violence, statutory rape, child pornography, sex trafficking... Frankly, I'm not sure any of those are less likely to make you or Kinek clutch your pearls and accuse me of psychopathic tendencies for comparing them.

Actually, if those are the only ones you can come up with, it's a great indicator that the crimes in this instance don't belong on that list.

I'm sorry, are we talking about the law how it is or the law how you think it should be? See, I was talking about existing laws and why the fact that JSTOR said they're okay is irrelevant. Kinek there then accused me of all sorts of shameful things. If he was instead suggesting that he'd like the law changed, he should make that clear, rather than throwing a tantrum and flinging around insults just because people point out that current reality differs from his fantasy.

I think your account of events is off:
1) dehehn said "when your victims don't actually have that much of a problem with anything you did."
2) You drew the domestic abuse analogy
3) Kinek gets upset over your analogy
4) You, me, Kinek, and Teiritzamna debate emotionally charged analogies and their validity in arguments involving laypeople.
5) You and Kinek start going at it again over their misuse of "mandatory"
5) I say that, given the list you've just produced, I'm of the opinion the crimes in the article should require the victim to bring charges
6) You somehow get confused about 5 (replace "don't belong" with "shouldn't be" if it makes it more obvious)

I don't think Kinek has ever addressed the law except in the context of not liking your analogy... so the bulk of what you just said is sort of lost to the aether.


Number 5 (the first one) is about Kinek's apparent (and erroneous) belief that the law requires mandatory prosecution, so yes, he's apparently addressing the law as he thinks it is.

Number 6 shows no confusion - I understand that, at number 5 (the second one), you're expressing your opinion of how the law should be changed, a reasonable avenue for discussion albeit a new one in this thread. I pointed out at number 6 that Kinek is not doing anything of the sort.
 
Displayed 50 of 162 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report