Aaron Swartz

[undead]

Well, Aaron was the most—person most dedicated to fighting social injustice of anyone I’ve ever met in my life, and I loved him for it. He used to say—I used to say, "Why don’t you—why we do this thing? It will make you happy." And he would say, "I don’t want to be happy. I just want to change the world."

As much as he accomplished in his life, I think everyone would agree that it would have been better to have him around in the coming years. I see a lot of this and it really isn't the most useful stance to take. There are too many people that gauge their dedication to social justice by how angry and/or miserable they are feeling.

[lyrimal]

I have avoided appending this thread before now because of a lack of time. I have complex feelings about this "suicide" and characters orbiting it, and knew that it would take hours to flesh out my thoughts. I am still without those extra hours, but am hopeful I can share the gist, hopeful that others might be able to help.

From the outset, at the news of his death, I couldn't decide which was more sad: that Aaron hung himself, or that he was perhaps eliminated.

That he simply hung himself is a huge indictment of our society. I gather that Aaron was just about as model a citizen in our society as possible. Whatever skeletons may have been hidden, his public face was unflinchingly benevolent and generous to the common good. That he would be driven to suicide swells within me already present feelings of hopelessness; that all best efforts to bring a little sanity into this world are doomed.

That he may have been eliminated brought similar feelings of hopelessness, but also the hope that he was onto something if he was indeed targeted.

IIRC, it was about a week after Aaron's death that the first news of a 6 month plea deal came out. Aaron would have still been labeled a felon, but would not have to spend more than 6 months in the pen (which I do not mean to belittle). For that first week, it seemed to me, the story was carefully orchestrated to create the impression Aaron was literally facing dozens of years behind bars. In that light, it seemed more realistic that Aaron would give up. None other than Lawrence Lessig, who claimed to be a friend and to have been in the know about Aaron's case, helped create that impression:

Fifty years in jail, charges our government. Somehow, we need to get beyond the “I’m right so I’m right to nuke you” ethics that dominates our time. That begins with one word: Shame. -from "Prosecutor As Bully" http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/403474630 ... r-as-bully

Nowhere in that screed is the notion of an existing six month plea deal allowed.

More on Lessig shortly...

I understand if Aaron did not accept the six month plea, he stood to face a lot more time if convicted, and this may well have weighed on him, but the fact that six months was available to him does make the likelihood of him doing himself in seem much much less likely. I guess that's just a strong feeling of mine, but one I believe others will share.

More on my feelings: It seems the tactic for the prosecutor was to threaten decades in jail to make the target much more agreeable to substantially less time on a plea deal. What if Aaron was actually too strong for this extortion? It has been demonstrated that the prosecution's case was not strong. It seems to me Aaron would have been aware of this, being the thoughtful considered type that he was. I tend to the belief that if they couldn't get Aaron to go along with the plea agreement, the likelihood was that he'd get off.

By all accounts, Aaron Swartz was instrumental in squashing SOPA, This is huge! This is MLK Jr. huge. Aaron had demonstrated the threat he represented going forward, as he had before SOPA, leading to his overzealous prosecution in the first place. SOPA was like a brightly beaming confirmation to TPTB. Aaron Swartz represented a direct threat to the status quo!!

If you can not tell yet, I have become rather convinced of elimination, Aaron's depressive tendencies notwithstanding (which, again, were probably just coopted for the purpose of painting a Swartz at the end of his rope). Aaron was supposed to accept the greatly reduced plea deal, and be a disenfranchised felon for the rest of his days. He was too strong for this arm twisting. He was too big a threat and example to simply be allowed out of his hogtie.

Given the existent plea offer, from the outside, the timing of his suicide makes absolutely no sense. He had not even been convicted. And self-hanging?!?! ...

On Lessig, learned he's from the Chicago school and clerked for the conservative Judge Richard Posner. He went on from there to clerk for none other than Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia before magically transforming into a progressive scion! And forgive me, but I've learned to distrust all professionals keenly associated with Harvard on sight, which Lessig's career is inextricably tied to. I do believe that Swartz had 'mentors' in his life whose job was more to keep tabs on Swartz than to actually help him move forward.

...Scattered and somewhat vague, I know! I am sorry, but that's all the time and focus I have for this right now.

[JackRiddler]

lyrimal, I don't think any of what you say about Lessig justifies your insinuation that he is involved in Swartz's death or a cover-up thereof. It would take an amazing altruist not to take a law clerk position with a Supreme Court justice. Can you show that anything Lessig has said and written for himself is anything like Scalia's views, or is otherwise indicative of malice? Can you point to concrete evidence of malicious conduct by Lessig, as opposed to your prejudices about universities? As for Harvard, I think the university community numbers upwards of 20,000 people. One of them was Aaron Swartz. Same goes for Chicago. It's almost like you're accusing someone for being from a given city. And Lessig is among those in the forefront of demanding justice for the abusive prosecution.

Swartz and his lawyer, Peters, rejected the six-month imprisonment offer on principle because they believed he was not guilty of the charges and it would have involved a guilty plea on 13 counts. At least, according to Peters in this article:

http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2013/01 ... story.html

Cambridge
MIT hacking case lawyer says Aaron Swartz was offered plea deal of six months behind bars

01/14/2013 4:42 PM

Wendy Maeda/Globe Staff


By Kevin Cullen and John R. Ellement, Globe Staff

During plea talks held in the months before his death, federal prosecutors told Aaron Swartz and his attorney that the computer prodigy must spend six months behind bars and plead guilty to 13 federal crimes in order to resolve the criminal case short of a trial.

Swartz’s lead defense attorney, Elliot Peters, said today that both he and Swartz rejected the plea deal offered by the office of US Attorney Carmen Ortiz, and instead were pushing for a trial where federal prosecutors would have been forced to publicly justify their pursuit of Swartz.

But at the same time, Peters said, he was worried about Swartz’s emotional vulnerability and planned to try and bypass trial prosecutors, Stephen Heymann and Scott Garland, and use a letter-writing campaign from local academics to convince Ortiz to change the proposals.

“As eager as I was to try to win it, I didn’t want to expose Aaron to the risk,” said Peters.

Peters said that the academics would attest to Swartz’s brilliance and lack of malicious intent.

In July 2011, Swartz, who acknowledged battling depression, was charged in US District Court in Boston with hacking into the archive system JSTOR on MIT’s network during 2010 and downloading more than 4 million articles, some of which were only available for purchase.

Authorities said Swartz planned to distribute the information free on file-sharing websites. At the time, he was a fellow at Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics.

Swartz pleaded not guilty Sept. 24.

Swartz, 26, hanged himself in his Brooklyn apartment Friday, according to the statement and the New York Medical ­Examiner’s Office.

In a statement after his death, Swartz’s family linked the criminal charges to his suicide.

“Aaron’s death is not simply a personal tragedy,” read the statement. “It is the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach. Decisions made by officials in the Massachusetts US attorney’s office and at MIT contributed to his death.’’

A spokeswoman for Ortiz said in an e-mail that the top federal prosecutor for Massachusetts will not publicly discuss the case today. Ortiz’s office filed paperwork with the clerk’ s office today, formally dropping the charges against Swartz.

“We want to respect the privacy of the family and do not feel it is appropriate to comment on the case at this time,’’ spokeswoman Christina DiIorio-Sterling wrote in an e-mail.

On Sunday, MIT President L. Rafael Reif said he had appointed MIT professor Hal Abelson to review the school’s handling of the Swartz case. Abelson is a computer science and electrical engineering professor and a founding director of Creative Commons, the nonprofit dedicated to sharing works on the Web through free legal tools.

According to records filed in US District Court in Boston, both Peters and prosecutors were still engaged in a heated legal battle on Friday – the day Swartz killed himself in New York.

They were battling over the admissibility of a laptop and other electronic equipment seized from Swartz after his arrest in Cambridge on Jan. 6, 2011.

The evidentiary hearing on the defense’s motion to suppress had been set for Jan. 25.

Kevin Cullen can be reached at cullen@globe.com

Here is what Anonymous (or "Anonymous," who can know) posted on the US corrections site - a threat to spill "warhead" level secrets about each Supreme Court justice:

Citizens of the world,

Anonymous has observed for some time now the trajectory of justice in the United States with growing concern. We have marked the departure of this system from the noble ideals in which it was born and enshrined. We have seen the erosion of due process, the dilution of constitutional rights, the usurpation of the rightful authority of courts by the "discretion" of prosecutors. We have seen how the law is wielded less and less to uphold justice, and more and more to exercise control, authority and power in the interests of oppression or personal gain.

We have been watching, and waiting.

Two weeks ago today, a line was crossed. Two weeks ago today, Aaron Swartz was killed. Killed because he faced an impossible choice. Killed because he was forced into playing a game he could not win -- a twisted and distorted perversion of justice -- a game where the only winning move was not to play.

Anonymous immediately convened an emergency council to discuss our response to this tragedy. After much heavy-hearted discussion, the decision was upheld to engage the United States Department of Justice and its associated executive branches in a game of a similar nature, a game in which the only winning move is not to play.

Last year the Federal Bureau of Investigation revelled in porcine glee at its successful infiltration of certain elements of Anonymous. This infiltration was achieved through the use of the *same tactics which lead to Aaron Swartz' death. It would not have been possible were it not for the power of federal prosecutors to thoroughly destroy the lives of any hacktivists they apprehend through the very real threat of highly disproportionate sentencing.

As a result of the FBI's infiltration and entrapment tactics, several more of our brethren now face similar disproportionate persecution, the balance of their lives hanging on the severely skewed scales of a broken justice system.

We have felt within our hearts a burning rage in reaction to these events, but we have not allowed ourselves to be drawn into a foolish and premature response. We have bidden our time, operating in the shadows, adapting our tactics and honing our abilities. We have allowed the FBI and its masters in government -- both the puppet and the shadow government that controls it -- to believe they had struck a crippling blow to our infrastructure, that they had demoralized us, paralyzed us with paranoia and fear. We have held our tongue and waited.

With Aaron's death we can wait no longer. The time has come to show the United States Department of Justice and its affiliates the true meaning of infiltration. The time has come to give this system a taste of its own medicine. The time has come for them to feel the helplessness and fear that comes with being forced into a game where the odds are stacked against them.

This website was chosen due to the symbolic nature of its purpose -- the federal sentencing guidelines which enable prosecutors to cheat citizens of their constitutionally-guaranteed right to a fair trial, by a jury of their peers -- the federal sentencing guidelines which are in clear violation of the 8th amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishments. This website was also chosen due to the nature of its visitors. It is far from the only government asset we control, and we have exercised such control for quite some time...

There has been a lot of fuss recently in the technological media regarding such operations as Red October, the widespread use of vulnerable browsers and the availability of zero-day exploits for these browsers and their plugins. None of this comes of course as any surprise to us, but it is perhaps good that those within the information security industry are making the extent of these threats more widely understood.

Still there is nothing quite as educational as a well-conducted demonstration...

Through this websites and various others that will remain unnamed, we have been conducting our own infiltration. We did not restrict ourselves like the FBI to one high-profile compromise. We are far more ambitious, and far more capable. Over the last two weeks we have wound down this operation, removed all traces of leakware from the compromised systems, and taken down the injection apparatus used to detect and exploit vulnerable machines.

We have enough fissile material for multiple warheads. Today we are launching the first of these. Operation Last Resort has begun...

Warhead - U S - D O J - L E A - 2013 . A E E 256 is primed and armed. It has been quietly distributed to numerous mirrors over the last few days and is available for download from this website now. We encourage all Anonymous to syndicate this file as widely as possible.

The contents are various and we won't ruin the speculation by revealing them. Suffice it to say, everyone has secrets, and some things are not meant to be public. At a regular interval commencing today, we will choose one media outlet and supply them with heavily redacted partial contents of the file. Any media outlets wishing to be eligible for this program must include within their reporting a means of secure communications.

We have not taken this action lightly, nor without consideration of the possible consequences. Should we be forced to reveal the trigger-key to this warhead, we understand that there will be collateral damage. We appreciate that many who work within the justice system believe in those principles that it has lost, corrupted, or abandoned, that they do not bear the full responsibility for the damages caused by their occupation.

It is our hope that this warhead need never be detonated.

However, in order for there to be a peaceful resolution to this crisis, certain things need to happen. There must be reform of outdated and poorly-envisioned legislation, written to be so broadly applied as to make a felony crime out of violation of terms of service, creating in effect vast swathes of crimes, and allowing for selective punishment. There must be reform of mandatory minimum sentencing. There must be a return to proportionality of punishment with respect to actual harm caused, and consideration of motive and mens rea. The inalienable right to a presumption of innocence and the recourse to trial and possibility of exoneration must be returned to its sacred status, and not gambled away by pre-trial bargaining in the face of overwhelming sentences, unaffordable justice and disfavourable odds. Laws must be upheld unselectively, and not used as a weapon of government to make examples of those it deems threatening to its power.

For good reason the statue of lady justice is blindfolded. No more should her innocence be besmirked, her scales tipped, nor her swordhand guided. Furthermore there must be a solemn commitment to freedom of the internet, this last great common space of humanity, and to the common ownership of information to further the common good.

We make this statement do not expect to be negotiated with; we do not desire to be negotiated with. We understand that due to the actions we take we exclude ourselves from the system within which solutions are found. There are others who serve that purpose, people far more respectable than us, people whose voices emerge from the light, and not the shadows. These voices are already making clear the reforms that have been necessary for some time, and are outright required now.

It is these people that the justice system, the government, and law enforcement must engage with. Their voices are already ringing strong with a chorus of determined resolution. We demand only that this chorus is not ignored. We demand the government does not make the mistake of hoping that time will dampen its ringing, that they can ride out this wave of determination, that business as usual can continue after a sufficient period of lip-service and back-patting.


Not this time. This time there will be change, or there will be chaos...

-Anonymous



Links to the encrypted data files:

http://buy.relevantproperties.com/Scalia.Warhead1
http://buy.relevantproperties.com/Kennedy.Warhead1
http://buy.relevantproperties.com/Thomas.Warhead1
http://buy.relevantproperties.com/Ginsburg.Warhead1
http://buy.relevantproperties.com/Breyer.Warhead1
http://buy.relevantproperties.com/Roberts.Warhead1
http://buy.relevantproperties.com/Alito.Warhead1
http://buy.relevantproperties.com/Sotomayor.Warhead1
http://buy.relevantproperties.com/Kagan.Warhead1

[JackRiddler]

Carmen Ortiz released a statement about Aaron Swartz back on the 16th:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201301 ... tion.shtml

After staying silent or issuing "no comments" for nearly a week, Carmen Ortiz, the US Attorney in charge of the prosecution against Aaron Swartz has finally released a statement about Swartz, his suicide, and her possible role in the suicide. As you might imagine, the statement is highly questionable. First, here's the statement:

January 16, 2013

STATEMENT OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY CARMEN M. ORTIZ
REGARDING THE DEATH OF AARON SWARTZ

As a parent and a sister, I can only imagine the pain felt by the family and friends of Aaron Swartz, and I want to extend my heartfelt sympathy to everyone who knew and loved this young man. I know that there is little I can say to abate the anger felt by those who believe that this office’s prosecution of Mr. Swartz was unwarranted and somehow led to the tragic result of him taking his own life.

I must, however, make clear that this office’s conduct was appropriate in bringing and handling this case. The career prosecutors handling this matter took on the difficult task of enforcing a law they had taken an oath to uphold, and did so reasonably. The prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his acts for personal financial gain, and they recognized that his conduct – while a violation of the law – did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases. That is why in the discussions with his counsel about a resolution of the case this office sought an appropriate sentence that matched the alleged conduct – a sentence that we would recommend to the judge of six months in a low security setting. While at the same time, his defense counsel would have been free to recommend a sentence of probation. Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the judge. At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz’s attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum penalties under the law.

As federal prosecutors, our mission includes protecting the use of computers and the Internet by enforcing the law as fairly and responsibly as possible. We strive to do our best to fulfill this mission every day.

The statement is complete hogwash, frankly. If what she claims is true -- that they recognized "his conduct – while a violation of the law – did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases" then they would not have piled on more charges in the indictment in September. The original indictment, which had four charges against Swartz, had a maximum potential jail time of 35 years. And, Ortiz's own press release trumpeted that fact:

AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million.

And, then in September, nine more charges were added, which brought the total possible time up to 50 years.

If Ortiz truly believed that his conduct did not warrant such "severe punishment" then she would not have trumpeted the 35 years in the first place, nor would she have piled on more charges. That would serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever if her claim here was true.

Furthermore, as Swartz's lawyers have made clear, Ortiz and her assistant, Stephen Heymann were pretty explicit to Swartz's lawyers that if he did not take their plea bargain offer, the next offer would be for more jail time, and if he still chose not to accept the offer, they'd seek at least seven years for Swartz in court. Tossing out that six month claim as if it were proof of some sort of fair dealing on Ortiz's part is flat out insulting to the intelligence of any thinking person, and downright offensive to the memory of Aaron.

How would Ortiz like it if her own child was accused on trumped up charges and threatened with 35 or more years in prison in press releases -- and then told to "settle" for just six months. I doubt she would find that to be "fair."

As Tim Lee explains, the whole "plea bargain" system is a farce, allowing prosecutors to effectively bring forth these massive "possible" punishments to effectively force someone into pleading guilty without ever going to trial. Going to trial is dangerous, because the prosecutors effectively make sure that anyone who does exercise a right to a trial is likely to get much more time in jail:

If Ortiz thought Swartz only deserved to spend 6 months in jail, why did she charge him with crimes carrying a maximum penalty of 50 years? It’s a common way of gaining leverage during plea bargaining. Had Swartz chosen to plead not guilty, the offer of six months in jail would have evaporated. Upon conviction, prosecutors likely would have sought the maximum penalty available under the law. And while the judge would have been unlikely to sentence him to the full 50 years, it’s not hard to imagine him being sentenced to 10 years.

In this hypothetical scenario, those 10 years in prison would, practically speaking, have consisted of six months for his original crime (the sentence Ortiz actually thought he deserved) plus a nine-and-a-half-year prison term for exercising his constitutional right to a trial.

As he further notes, no judge would impose a harsher sentence on someone for exercising other rights -- such as taking the Fifth, hiring a lawyer or confronting an accuser. Yet, if you demand your right to a trial, the US Attorneys have effectively rigged the system so that defendants are punished. And that gives them immense power.

Thanks in part to this kind of coercion, more than 90 percent of defendants waive their right to a jury trial. For the majority of defendants, then, the plea bargaining process is the justice system. As a result, prosecutors wield an immense amount of power with very little accountability.

It’s not surprising that Ortiz doesn’t see anything wrong with this system. Powerful people rarely see their own power as problematic. But the rest of us should be outraged—not just by Ortiz’s conduct, but by a system that treats thousands of defendants less famous than Swartz the same way.

This is not a new problem. A year and a half ago, the NY Times had a feature article highlighting this very problem, which it calls "the trial penalty."

Also, while Ortiz claims that the final sentence "would have been up to the judge" and even suggests that since defense counsel could have recommended just probation, the judge might have been more lenient, she must know that it is quite rare for judges to issue sentences more lenient than what prosecutors put forth from a plea bargain. In fact, judges will often issue harsher sentences than what the prosecutors "agreed" to with the defendant, since the judge is not bound to the terms of the agreement specifically.

Many countries do not allow plea bargaining, because they recognize how it can be used for coercion. Meanwhile, studies have shown that plea bargains quite frequently can lead to innocent people accepting a deal recognizing that it's much better to do that than risk a trial where the punishment would be much, much higher. Yes, more innocent people do stand up against such offers than guilty ones (according to the same study), but a large number of innocent people feel compelled to just take the deal.

Basically, this whole system is wide open to abuse, and it's clear from Ortiz's actions that she, too, was abusing the system in this manner: pushing for super high possible jail time as a huge and scary weapon to try to pressure Swartz into accepting a lower rate -- but also making him a convicted felon. Using the plea offer as some sort of "proof" of reasonableness is really quite incredible and despicable. It's like pointing a gun at someone, telling them that you're planning to shoot them... and then saying that if they agree to confess to something they don't believe, you'll just pinch them instead. And then, when they complain, you say "well, clearly, I just thought the pinch was appropriate." That's clearly a bullshit explanation. Ortiz was better off with "no comment" than trying to pass this off as a reasonable claim.

[JackRiddler]

Curious posts on Twitter by Wikileaks:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks

Due to the investigation into the Secret Service involvement with #AaronSwartz we have decided to disclose the following facts (1-3)

1. Aaron Swartz assisted WikiLeaks #aaronswartz (1/3)

2. Aaron Swartz was in communication with Julian Assange, including during 2010 and 2011

3. We have strong reasons to believe, but cannot prove, that Aaron Swartz was a WikiLeaks source. #aaronswartz

[jlaw172364]

I'm with Lyrimal on this.

Were the media personalities who declared that "Aaron Swartz hung himself" present while they acts that led up to his death transpired?

No, they weren't.

They merely learned second or third-hand that Aaron Swartz was found hanging.

So why are they so quick to declare it a suicide?

Why are people who are, on the one hand, critical of the government's persecution, unwilling to publicly consider the possibility that a persecuting government might have just said, "Fuck Aaron Swartz, we're taking him out," like they do every day with other people, and like they've done historically, like all governments have done historically?

Regardless of whether they are Pollyanna bourgeois living in cloud-cuckoo land, desperately clinging to cherished myths learned in childhood, or gimlet-eyed media mandarins cynically spinning lies, the end result is the same: perpetuation of potentially problematic information.

Why not say, "He allegedly killed himself, according to the authorities, who of course can't be trusted," or "There needs to be an independent investigation;" maybe they don't want to publicly reveal their hand? Maybe they're quietly working behind the scenes? Who knows?

I'd wager that if Swartz were a dissident in some other country, like Iran, Russia, or China, they'd be more publicly open to the possiblity that he was murdered. But this is the U.S., land of the free, etc., so appearances have to be maintained. I think his father gets it though. That's why he publicly used rhetoric like "the government murdered my son."

It's also interesting to me that these people were relatively silent while he was being persecuted by the U.S. attorney's office. Sure, they're upset now that he's dead, but why weren't they calling for Ortiz's resignation from the beginning? It's all post-hoc guilty conscience hand-wringing.

As for the question of clerking for Scalia, the clerks for the more overtly fascist wing of the Supreme Court are selected by the Orwellianly named Federalist Society, of which all said justices are a member. The Federalist Society basically insists that all clerks to these justices be wingnut Federalists. No libertarians or moderates allowed. It's been that way for awhile. The other justices do not exercise the same level of ideological control over their candidates. So if Lessig worked for Scalia, he was at least, a wingnut at the time. I think I googled Lessig and right wing and came up with an admission from him that he was a die-hard right-winger in his youth.

Of course, I'm not believer in terms like right and left, but I use them for convenience.

At the very least, Lessig is an authoritarian. He wants to tell other people what to do. He wants to make rules that other people have to live by. Often, "conservatives" in academia will pretend to be more "liberal," but mostly its a matter of style: do you prefer the carrot or the stick? I think all the institutions are inherently "conservative," as in authoritarian forces.

[JackRiddler]

I'm with Lyrimal on this.

Were the media personalities who declared that "Aaron Swartz hung himself" present while they acts that led up to his death transpired?

No, they weren't.

They merely learned second or third-hand that Aaron Swartz was found hanging.

So why are they so quick to declare it a suicide?

Taryn Stinebrickner-Kauffman, his girlfriend, found him hanging. She has no doubt.

I suppose a very well executed professional hit job could have fooled both her and the coroners (there is a technique to make murder-hangings look like suicides, since these usually leave different bruise patterns, at least according to this very well-researched mystery novel I read that focused on the subject).

Then again, maybe you'd prefer to just throw both the girlfriend and the coroners in as perps into whatever plot you're cooking up?

I'd wager that if Swartz were a dissident in some other country, like Iran, Russia, or China, they'd be more publicly open to the possiblity that he was murdered. But this is the U.S., land of the free, etc., so appearances have to be maintained. I think his father gets it though. That's why he publicly used rhetoric like "the government murdered my son."

You may be right. I am not close-minded at all to the idea that Swartz was murdered. I'd have to admit it could be true, given this country, given the context. I'd also have to admit I have no evidence or ability at this time to subpoena it, and thus that I could certainly not rule out either choice. Thousands of bright people kill themselves every year and leave the survivors very confused about why. It rarely makes sense.

Rather, I am alarmed by the usual turn to making vague insinuations about people who happen to be nearby, not only without evidence about their undefined role, but also without evidence that you have engaged in any self-critical assessment of the accusations you produce. You just already know, it seems.

It's also interesting to me that these people were relatively silent while he was being persecuted by the U.S. attorney's office. Sure, they're upset now that he's dead, but why weren't they calling for Ortiz's resignation from the beginning? It's all post-hoc guilty conscience hand-wringing.

Bullshit. The media wasn't covering them. Also, Swartz was trying to minimize it until recently so he wouldn't be the Big Cause that everyone had to take up.

Lessig and Swartz first met when Swartz was 14 and have collaborated often since. From all appearances they were close. If you have countra evidence - evidence, not spidey-sense - please provide.

I think I googled Lessig and right wing and came up with an admission from him that he was a die-hard right-winger in his youth.

You think you googled?! Was it such a big effort that you can't bother to do so again before writing that, and provide us with the actual citation? Do you think "I think I googled" inspires confidence in what you say? We're not in a bar without smartphones - you're online!

I can imagine it's true. It wouldn't say anything about whether he's lying about his subsequent conversion or development, as you seem to have already concluded.

At the very least, Lessig is an authoritarian. He wants to tell other people what to do. He wants to make rules that other people have to live by. Often, "conservatives" in academia will pretend to be more "liberal," but mostly its a matter of style: do you prefer the carrot or the stick? I think all the institutions are inherently "conservative," as in authoritarian forces.

Very authoritative sounding and all out your ass. No actual referents to which "other people" the "authoritarian" Lessig wants to tell "what" exactly "to do." In fact, no referents whatsoever to Lessig's work. He's been the most prominent attacker of the present-day copyright regime for many years. That's how I know him. Maybe there is a dark side to his work of which I am so far unaware. If so, inform us. Please find citations that actually support your statements, or correct yourself. Thanks.

.

[jlaw172364]

@JackRiddler

She found him hanging. Emphasis on found. She was not present when the actual hanging took place. The tradecraft pioneered by the intelligence agencies on murdering people has trickled out into the mainstream to the point where we are casually discussing it on this forum. I know for a fact that enteprising cops and private detectives moonlight as assasins for those with the money to pay, not to mention ex-military types, and run-of-the-mill gang-bangers.

All you'd need is some black-market substance to incapacitate the person that leaves few if any traces, of which those initiated into the tradecraft know about, then you hang them. Then everyone talks about how they hung himself.

I'm not saying Lessig et al are conspirators. I'm saying that they are irresponsible for trumpeting the message "He hung himself! He committed suicide!" when they do NOT have direct first-hand knowledge of this fact since they were not present as witnesses. Maybe it's because they're blinded by emotion.

It's as irresponsible as trumpeting the message "Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK! I read it in the newspaper! It must be true!" Why say anything?

They shift the discussion in part to suicide and why people kill themselves, and away from the fact that the guy was being persecuted. And some people, including his girlfriend, even "blame" him for killing himself. What if he didn't actually kill himself?

People didn't want to make a cause around Swartz? Swartz was a genius who was instrumental in actually thwarting powerful interests and he wasn't worth protecting? He wasn't worth rallying around? This is one of the reaons why the monied interests win. They insulate and protect themselves and their brightest lieutenants, and send the less talented out to take the risks.

Part of this has also to do with buying into the myth of egalitarianism, where everyone has equal worth. Unfortunately, reality reveals this to not be the case. But people will rally around some drug-addicted loser who's serving an over-harsh sentence, or for something he didn't do. All the energy gets expended on winning a minor battle while the war is being lost.

As for Lessig. He's a creature of Harvard and of law school and of the law. Those that know about those institutions know what I'm talking about. I know I googled about his right-wing connections. Someone posted on here that he served as a clerk to Scalia. This is not something everyone is allowed to do. You could be a rabid wingnut and still not be allowed near Scalia. It's like being tapped for Skull and Bones to be allowed near the Supreme Court. You have to be completely captured by their ideology.

Him and his ilk could have done more for Swartz while he was alive. But they didn't. They admit this. Part of it may also have to do with the inherent weaknesses of intellectuals. Constantly bombarded with information. Constantly having their attention split and diverted. Constantly holding court on everything. He may simply not have had the energy. Or he might have figured Swartz was smart enough to get out of the trap.

If these people are so smart, they must have history at some point, and if they are political, they must be familiar with U.S. history and things like COINTELPRO. If you're going to be a dissident, you need to know what you are up against.

Again, they may be lying publicly about their true opinions, and there may be an investigation.

I'm speculating. I admit it. It's speculation to say Swartz was murdered. It's also equally speculation to say he hung himself. I doubt anyone on here is privy to all the evidence, which of course can be tampered with, hidden, etc.

You should also know that my opinions are formed by working on a post-conviction relief case where the authorities basically covered up the murder for organized crime and rail-roaded a couple of local losers into prison where they rotted for 20 years before millions of dollars of resources were spent on getting them out. I assume that I was merely a pawn in a larger political game, and that the people that were funding this from behind the scenes probably had some sort of cynical, corrupt political agenda, probably challenging the local druglord or something.

As for authoritarianism, Lessig is a law professor at an elite university, and he clerked for the Supreme Court. He's not exactly an anarchist hippie, even if anarchist hippies embrace him.

[JackRiddler]

Okay, now that you've explained your views in greater depth I can't say you're wrong (or necessarily right) about any of it, and you have thought it through.

Swartz killed himself, or he was murdered. That covers 99.999% of the raw possibilities. Either way, he was the target of an outrageous prosecutorial abuse by the Boston U.S. attorney, with MIT as an accomplice. Either way, his death is the fulcrum of an incipient movement for justice, against those two institutions; for freedom of information and freedom of the Internet; and for some very large-scale reforms: of the present-day copyright regime, of abuses of prosecutorial discretion and plea-bargaining, of the whole system that feeds the prison-industrial complex. Either way, his death is entangled with everything that is wrong about the System of unaccountable private-public power, with issues like Manning and Wikileaks, appropriation of the commons by rent-seeking interests, surveillance and the national security state. You may be right about Lessig's authoritarian conditioning, and perhaps he even played a suspect role in all this, although I've seen no evidence for the latter. Remember, it was Swartz who until shortly before the end was determined to downplay his own case. You're doubtless right about the conditioning and possibly cowardice that causes all these prominent people to automatically speak of suicide as the lone acceptable thing to think out loud, lest they be labeled as conspiracists, irretrievably other and insane. Nevertheless, this all-too belated movement for justice for Swartz and freedom for human knowledge has received a kick-start. I get alarmed when I see attacks on precisely the kind of people, like Swartz's friend Lessig, who have the most standing to pursue and lead this fight. Let's people them by what they do, not who they may have been as law clerks or Harvard strivers in some past decade.

[wintler2]

Re the Anonymous Warheads torrent, i think its worth seeding. Assuming its just a bluff, its a good one, because its existence alone prompts questions about the justices. It could also be booby trapped, to cause hassle ID anon allies; i think that risk can be managed by attention to chksums and storing file on usb not harddrive. If its boobytrapped to just ID anon allies, well theres ways beyond my ken and thats a risk i'm willing to wear - they'd be wasting their time on me. But if its true & anon does have evidence of career destroying/indictable offences, then p2p is elevated to the publisher of last resort, which i'm all for.

[jlaw172364]

@JackRiddler

I agree with much of what you've said. I suppose I'm jaundiced by my own exposure to law professors and other academics.

Before I relate some experiences, I'd just like to make another point, similar in gravity to the whole trumpeting claims one has no first-hand knowledge of.

Basically, another problem I have with where the energy is being directed is that, with the suicide accepted unquestioningly, all attention is diverted toward the overt manifestations of government, and not the covert, unaccountable, criminal assholes who run around scot-free, playing god, bumping people off left and right. Even if Ortiz is fired, and reforms are put in place, the real problem of doves trying to regulate hawks is still in place. I mean, how are peace-loving people supposed to stop murderous psychopaths? I guess we already have mechanisms. The militaries basically attract people inclined toward violence, then give them wars where they can slaughter each other. The gangs attract similar people, and they either wind up dead, or in prison. Many of the people who created these systems never ever got their hands dirty killing someone or something. At least not directly.

It also seems that the overt and the covert branches of government have merged to the point where the President, an overt manifestation of power, now has powers normally exercised by the master of assasins. He can have people bumped off. I'm sure they've all done this, as we go back through history. The difference today is that they're gunning for citizen approval, as seen by the media propaganda offensive, where we civilians are constantly asked to sympathize with cold-blooded murderers.

Have you ever read the piece, "Murder Most Yale," or something along those lines, about the grad student who was research Osama bin Laden, and then her spooked up professor was suspected, at least by some in the media, as being involved?

The academy is often spy city.

I remember suggesting writing about Gladio to one of my law professors. After explaining what it was about, without missing a beat, she suggested I write about something else instead. There was no discussion, or questioning. I also brought up the subject of Gladio when former senator Gary Hart came to speak at my school. I asked him point blank about Gladio, because he was talking about legalizing an appartus to hunt down terrorists, kick in their doors, and shoot them in the face. He literally when white on stage, and looked like he was about to shit himself. He gave some mealy-mouthed answer so abstruse that it's not worth repeating. Later, when I tried talking to him semi-privately in the lobby, his security guard physically hustled him away. I got the feeling I was dealing with a hostage, and not an independent actor. It was very creepy.

There are countless other examples I could give.

Ever see "The Lives of Others," about East Germany? Remember the scene where the student makes some human rights point in class and the professor makes a mark next to his name? I was that student. Maybe, like, a million times, until I got sick of bashing my head against a brick wall of disingenuousness. Law school lectures were basically all about making sly arguments for an every-expanding tyranny and hierarchy while pretending that the post 9/11 appartus could never be used against the people it was supposed to protect. It was like something out of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

[JackRiddler]

all attention is diverted toward the overt manifestations of government, and not the covert, unaccountable, criminal assholes who run around scot-free, playing god, bumping people off left and right. Even if Ortiz is fired, and reforms are put in place, the real problem of doves trying to regulate hawks is still in place. I mean, how are peace-loving people supposed to stop murderous psychopaths?

You know, that's a good question.

Have you ever read the piece, "Murder Most Yale," or something along those lines, about the grad student who was research Osama bin Laden, and then her spooked up professor was suspected, at least by some in the media, as being involved?

Right. Suzanne Jovin. Spent a long night looking into that one, soon after 9/11. You can find pages about her on Killtown, Rumor Mills, the usual suspects, but also the Vanity Fair article you cite:

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/arch ... rder199908

I remember suggesting writing about Gladio to one of my law professors. After explaining what it was about, without missing a beat, she suggested I write about something else instead. There was no discussion, or questioning.

Yeh. This is all too typical.

Ever see "The Lives of Others," about East Germany? Remember the scene where the student makes some human rights point in class and the professor makes a mark next to his name? I was that student. Maybe, like, a million times, until I got sick of bashing my head against a brick wall of disingenuousness.

Yeah, seen it. I think I get it.

[The Consul]

"Thus Master Wayne is left without solutions. Out of options, it’s no wonder the series ends with his staged suicide."

I'm just saying... the media hyping up Aaron's alleged depression/suicidality, but looking at it I'm not seeing much evidence of that. Probably all of us have felt some despair here or there and written about it. It looks like Aaron had stomach problems at times. I don't see him suggesting suicide. It also doesn't look me to me as if the prosecution really had that much on him. It's very possible Aaron would hae beaten the charges and elevated himself as a leader in the movement for information freedom. The powers that be had plenty of reason to want him dead. But don't tell Reddit that; even the "conspiracy" forum (reddit.com/r/conspiracy) is largely dismissing the suggestion that he possibly might not have killed himself.

Another death that I found suspicious was that of Rebecca Tarbatton, the 39 year-old head of Rainforest Action Network, who was leading RAN's campaign against the global banking system (with Citi as the poster child) on environmental grounds. I worked in that campaign some years ago, and I know how effective it's getting at damaging the banks' reputations. Rebecca died a few weeks ago in a swimming accident in Mexico.

Nothing to see here, though; just some dead activists.

I have seen enough suicide to say I don't know who or why or why not. Oddly, once in a hotel bar, I was having a discussion with a friend and his brother a cartographer late of the DIA about Gary Webb, leading eventually to his untimely demise. My comment was that I believed it was possible that the CIA could probably pretty much suicide anyone they wanted to, in a hundred different ways, all of them practically impossible to prove.
Brother cartographer said, "oh, come on, that's ridiculous."
Just as we sat there in a moment of silence our ears caught on to the end of some pharmaceutical ad. "If you experience dizzyness, shortness of breath or suicidal thoughts, contact your doctor immediately." I said to cartographer "if they can manufacture suicide on accident, imagine what they can come up with on purpose?"
He had spent time in the Green Zone and saw much of Iraq and later Afghanistan by air - he was in GZ when it was mortared during the Cheney visit and had amazing tales to tell about it
. "You guys don't know what you're talking about," he said. "You don't know shit. You don't have a motherfucking clue." He pushed away and went to the head. I didn't get the feeling that he was actually disagreeing with us at that point. He believes the Islamist terrorists would incinerate or enslave every one of us if they could and that we have to do whatever is necessary to stop them. When he came back he said "we can't have this conversation anymore." Why not, his brother asked? "Because it's fucking useless. So what if they can, so what if they are? They got their reasons and they are way above our rank and pay grade." I decided to go for the tender spot. "What will you do if you get suicidal thoughts?" "Then," he answered, "I'll be a man and fucking kill myself, alright?"
He had spent time with some real hard nosed search and destroy types and let it rub off on him.
Anyway, if Swartz pissed off the wrong people in a big enough way, getting him suicided would not be much of a problem, any more than it was for Lombardi.
Proof? No. I also believe if you get too close or become too much of a pain in the ass they have ways of making you crazy, batshit crazy, probably with little more effort than sprinkling something on your salad.
Swartz was blessed with brains and cursed with balls. I strongly feel that one day another Swartz will find a way to light a really big fire and make these motherfuckers pay.

[jlaw172364]

The "They got their reasons and they are way above our rank and pay grade." quote seems intimately linked to the
"What will you do if you get suicidal thoughts?" "Then," he answered, "I'll be a man and fucking kill myself, alright?" quote. <----- I LOL'd at this last bit.

This guy, an insect-like creature of a hiearchical structure, is terrified at the prospect of thinking for himself, as he can only think in relation to his low-level role in the hive.

If the elites want to suicide him, he'll kill himself, like a man.

The next question should have been, "But how can you be sure the suicidal thoughts you are getting aren't really from the Commies, or the Islamofascists, hmmmmm????"

Then his head would have exploded.

I suppose it also ties with monotheistic tendencies, having to follow a perfect, all-powerful deity, so that all of one's actions, borrowing the perfect all-powerful deity's authority, are also perfect, since they come at the best best of the deity. The deity is, after all, above the lowly worshipper's pay-grade, and has its own reasons, so why not just be a man, and sacrifice your new-born child?

[brainpanhandler]

the real problem of doves trying to regulate hawks is still in place.

or seagulls: