Techdirt Reading Club: The Boy Who Could Change The World: The Writings Of Aaron Swartz
from the sad-stories dept
We're back again with another in our weekly reading list posts of books we think our community will find interesting and thought provoking. Once again, buying the book via the Amazon links in this story also helps support Techdirt. This week we have a brand new book, but one I'm disappointed needs to be a book. It's the collected writings of Aaron Swartz, called The Boy Who Could Change the World: The Writings of Aaron Swartz. As I've noted in the past, I knew Aaron as we worked in similar circles and interacted on a bunch of occasions, though I didn't know him well. But, more importantly, I'd actually been following Aaron's writings on his personal blog and elsewhere from a very early age (I particularly remember following his writings about his experience as a freshman at Stanford). As you probably know by now, Aaron committed suicide almost three years ago, while dealing with a ridiculous federal prosecution for downloading too many academic papers from a computer system at MIT, where the license was clear anyone could download as much as they wanted.While I won't go as far as others in arguing that the prosecution is why he took his own life, I will say that the whole situation -- both the prosecution and the suicide, remain a tragedy. Aaron was so thoughtful and so passionate about so many things important to nearly everyone who reads Techdirt. He wasn't always the easiest person to get along with, but mostly because he held everyone to almost impossibly high standards. And all of that always came through in his writings. I haven't read this particular collection yet, but considering I tended to read basically everything he wrote back when he originally wrote it, chances are I have read much of it already. Still, I've picked up a copy of the book and will reread it in the coming weeks, though I'm afraid of how angry and annoyed and frustrated it will make me, as it reminds me, again, how much we've lost in the fact that Aaron is no longer around to challenge people, to spark ideas and to directly try to move the world forward. He's been greatly missed for the past three years, and will continue to be missed. Hopefully, by reading this book, others will be inspired to carry on his legacy.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: aaron swartz, techdirt reading club
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Such a lie, Mike. The license he agreed to when he accessed JSTOR explicitly said that he could not scrape the database. And then they revoked whatever license he may have had by blocking his MAC address and all the other things they did to try and stop him.
Your denial of reality is remarkable, to say the least. Why do you insist on lying about him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartzs-crime/
Looks unlikely he agreed to anything, even so much as passes for agreement to TOS these days.
Obviously he stopped doing what he was doing when they "tried" (ie: did) stop him. Actually, JSTOR weren't even after him, once he returned the articles he downloaded, they were satisfied. Only NO HARMED PARTY (tm) at all was still trying to crucify him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not talking about the hacking charge. I'm talking about Mike's bullshit claim that "the license was clear anyone could download as much as they wanted." This is absolutely false. This has been pointed out to Mike numerous times, yet he keeps making the same claim. Mike is intentionally lying.
From the superseding indictment (page 2):Source: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/09/swartzsuperseding.pdf
Mike doesn't care about the truth. Never has. Never will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
When you label someone as a devil, you force others to play devil's advocate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now, it has been argued that Swartz did do just that — but if that's true, it was apparently not a big enough deal for either JSTOR or MIT to have any real beef with him. If there's anything false in the statement that "the license was clear anyone could download as much as they wanted" then it's the word "clear" - perhaps that should be, "strongly suggested with only vague caveats"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is NOT what they said at the time. You're just as bad as Mike. You're making stuff up. You guys are unreal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
While you're at it, please feel free to explain why if they were more restrictive, they've since made them less so, after an incident where if anything they would have tightened the rules up even more if what had happened had really been a problem for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How else would you deal with a fascist regime that ignores its own laws just to spite someone it does not like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then again according to US law, even wget is a hacking tool if the stars align correctly.
Please remember that people were handed sentences of up to 5 years of federal "pound-me-in-the-a**" prison for basically executing something like this:
for(i = 0; i < 9999; ++i)
{
syscall("wget", "http://somesite.net/stuff/${i}/index.htm");
}
Something like this should be punished as a public nuisance at best (i.e.:ringing all the doorbells in a neighborhood).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You may be correct, but I'm not aware of any official classification of wget as a hacking tool or of there being anything intrinsically illegal—or even detrimental—about it. It's described as a "command-line web browser," and it's the same utility that Mark Zuckerberg used on the road to building his Facebook empire. If a site honors a request for downloads, is that not tacit approval to do so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I've read stories where Big Something pees off Little Guy, whereupon Little Guy exhorts all and sundry to "when you have a moment, click on this page", where "this page" is Big Something's web server. That wins Little Guy an accusation of DDoS attack. He counters with "civil disobedience" and "what, your web server isn't supposed to serve web pages?"
Fold in an asshole prosecutor and "civil disobedience" morphs into decades in prison after millions of dollars in legal fees defending yourself and a pretty much destroyed life, for stating your opinion on something someone else didn't like.
I'd be more inclined to accuse Big Something of not knowing how to run a web server, but I doubt they'd listen to the likes of me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]