Make no mistake about it - this was done on purpose. I am sure the DOJ did not anticipate suicide, but it matters little to me. What they need, what they want, is an example, and they got what they wanted in spades.
The government, the banks, and the corporate interests behind this are attempting to prevent the breakdown of a system that allows them a lot of control over information while not technically violating any free speech rights.
Banks and their corporate clients control information through the use of the monetary system. Information is distributed through a handful of corporations who are able to dominate the industry because of their credit. Large corporations do not have to earn the money they spend. They have great credit, which allows them to get the bulk of new money created in any given economy through the partial reserve lending system. No matter how much you can raise online, they can simply borrow a hundred times that amount and bury you.
That is the way the system is designed. It is designed that way from the ground up specifically for that purpose.
This is not an accident, nor is it a conspiracy theory to merely relate how the system works, or why it is necessary to squelch the objections of Aaron Swartz and those of us who agree with his philosophy of open access to information.
If JSTOR and other internet gatekeepers were to design their systems to provide this sort of service, people would not feel the temptation to automate the process to save themselves the wasted time of doing it manually.
Mass searches and downloads represent an advance in technology that enables researchers to sift through the massive amounts of information we now have available.
Swartz did them a favor, and they drove him to suicide for it. That is very typical of the modern financial/informational complex.
Your side? You don't HAVE a side. The other "side" here is a group of organizations and industries who have repeatedly fed hundreds into the lion's maw, ripping off artists and inventors alike so that people who own shares and run banks can make money off of other people's work.
Your "side". pfft Your side doesn't even know that you exist, let along care.
You know, his family has come out against the government on this. I think you might do well to back off using a man's death as a platform for your unique brand of self righteous blasphemy.
An eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth, 7 years in prison plus some unmentioned amount of money for...
We are all painfully aware that this is how the game is played. That is what we object to. It is not appropriate for the government to step in when no harm has been done and when the principles in a disagreement have made peace, and threaten someone until they capitulate in order to make some political point that wealthy and powerful interests want made.
You're nowhere near as cleverly pragmatic as you try to sound.
Yeah. I read this and then spent about 15 minutes raging bitterly and red faced under my breath lest I disturb any of my neighbors in my apartment building, just sick and tired of the apathy at the repeated injustices that are piling up in this country.
Ultimately I am slowly turning into one of those people who no longer blames the government. Ultimately, this nation is failing because people do not care.
This is just too obvious. I'm just sick and tired of a handful of people being the only ones.
While this falls well short of an assassination, such things have never been out of the question for those who have a vested interest in power.
This is not some weird little accident of politics and personality disorder. This is the result of a consciously constructed system whereby our nominally democratic republic has been turned into a centrally controlled state. Banks create and loosely control money, which we are required by law to use to pay government taxes. This cooperation between private industry and the state gives the banks the upper hand, and undermines all other attempts at democratic rule.
As if that were not enough, IP then allows the large corporations that work with banks to own ideas and concepts. We don't "censor speech" and violate long respected civil rights. Oh no. We protect our "Intellectual Property" rights - rights that have ever been used to silence critique of the government wherever such rights exist.
Finally, we protect the architects of such policies behind a wall of limited liability. They own. They command. But they are not accountable.
In order to teach Watson not to cuss, they need to come up with some way to store positive and negative feedback and then start teaching him when it is ok, and when it is not ok, to use certain words. I wonder why they just deleted the Urban Dictionary and then added a filter?
Nice short term work around, but a real solution would seem to be right up their alley.
Can we be fair? Even if someone were to use internet surveillance to somehow discover you sped by 1 mile an hour, and for the sake of argument we assume the prosecution went forward and you were convicted, or perhaps just pled guilty, the fine for that is not overwhelmingly crippling.
Fact is the laws regarding homosexuality were all reversed due in no small part to a good bit of civil disobedience. Privacy achieved nothing but the prolonging of the legal sanction against homosexuality. Essentially, hiding it served as a tacit admission that the law was indeed just.
Murder does not become palatable if you do it in the privacy of your own home. The issue is really never the surveillance. It is the nature of the law itself that is problematic.
Where technology runs afoul of the 4th ammendment is it ceases to be a search because your "personal" effects are not hanging around out in public.
Almost from the beginning I felt that most people misunderstood the nature of the internet and needed to realize it is much more like a huge ball room with many cozy tables for people to gather at than it is like some psychic, private, inviolable direct connection between people or organizations. Your privacy on the internet has always been largely illusory.
It's still a useful tool, but it's no place to keep evidence that you broke the law.
Ah, I see where you are coming from. Essentially you really just meant to say that it is not a good idea for people to get flippant about disobeying the law.
"Violating a law because it's "dumb" produces no judicial mechanism to rectify the invalid law."
Of course it does. With eyes wide open, a person places themselves into the justice system specifically to call into question the unjust nature of the law.
You keep saying this as if it were true - "An ineffective law merely needs to be improved, not violated."
You seem to include in the definition of "ineffective" the concept of injustice.
An unjust law needs to be violated until such time as it is "improved" enough to stop being unjust. Law does not take precedence over justice. The "rule of law" is absolutely meaningless otherwise.
China seems to have this Jekyl and Hyde thing going on where they allow some things that we try to stamp out, then turn right around and forbid things (Like, you know.. free speech) that seem so much more obviously needful.
In order to explain, I would have to utterly derail the conversation, which is more or less my entire complaint. There's no need to drag religion into this at all.
On the post: The Case Against Aaron Swartz Was Complete Garbage
Why a felon
The government, the banks, and the corporate interests behind this are attempting to prevent the breakdown of a system that allows them a lot of control over information while not technically violating any free speech rights.
Banks and their corporate clients control information through the use of the monetary system. Information is distributed through a handful of corporations who are able to dominate the industry because of their credit. Large corporations do not have to earn the money they spend. They have great credit, which allows them to get the bulk of new money created in any given economy through the partial reserve lending system. No matter how much you can raise online, they can simply borrow a hundred times that amount and bury you.
That is the way the system is designed. It is designed that way from the ground up specifically for that purpose.
This is not an accident, nor is it a conspiracy theory to merely relate how the system works, or why it is necessary to squelch the objections of Aaron Swartz and those of us who agree with his philosophy of open access to information.
On the post: The Case Against Aaron Swartz Was Complete Garbage
Remember Customer Service
Mass searches and downloads represent an advance in technology that enables researchers to sift through the massive amounts of information we now have available.
Swartz did them a favor, and they drove him to suicide for it. That is very typical of the modern financial/informational complex.
On the post: The Case Against Aaron Swartz Was Complete Garbage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just a guess but...
Your "side". pfft Your side doesn't even know that you exist, let along care.
On the post: The Case Against Aaron Swartz Was Complete Garbage
Re: The whole point
Anonymous Coward, Jan 14th, 2013 @ 6:04pm
That one.
On the post: The Case Against Aaron Swartz Was Complete Garbage
Re: Re: Re:
An eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth, 7 years in prison plus some unmentioned amount of money for...
Downloading free stuff.
You don't have the moral high ground. Give it up.
On the post: The Case Against Aaron Swartz Was Complete Garbage
The whole point
You're nowhere near as cleverly pragmatic as you try to sound.
On the post: The Case Against Aaron Swartz Was Complete Garbage
Rage
Ultimately I am slowly turning into one of those people who no longer blames the government. Ultimately, this nation is failing because people do not care.
This is just too obvious. I'm just sick and tired of a handful of people being the only ones.
On the post: Why Did The Secret Service Take Over Aaron Swartz's Case Two Days Before He Was Arrested
Awesome connection
On the post: Why Did The Secret Service Take Over Aaron Swartz's Case Two Days Before He Was Arrested
Government, Banks, IP, Limited Liability
This is not some weird little accident of politics and personality disorder. This is the result of a consciously constructed system whereby our nominally democratic republic has been turned into a centrally controlled state. Banks create and loosely control money, which we are required by law to use to pay government taxes. This cooperation between private industry and the state gives the banks the upper hand, and undermines all other attempts at democratic rule.
As if that were not enough, IP then allows the large corporations that work with banks to own ideas and concepts. We don't "censor speech" and violate long respected civil rights. Oh no. We protect our "Intellectual Property" rights - rights that have ever been used to silence critique of the government wherever such rights exist.
Finally, we protect the architects of such policies behind a wall of limited liability. They own. They command. But they are not accountable.
This is unconscionable.
On the post: IBM Researcher Feeds Watson Supercomputer The 'Urban Dictionary'; Very Quickly Regrets It
Lazy Scientists
Nice short term work around, but a real solution would seem to be right up their alley.
On the post: IBM Researcher Feeds Watson Supercomputer The 'Urban Dictionary'; Very Quickly Regrets It
"Scraped the Urban Dictionary from its Memory"
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Speed Limit
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Re: Civil Disobedience and Homosexuality
Murder does not become palatable if you do it in the privacy of your own home. The issue is really never the surveillance. It is the nature of the law itself that is problematic.
Where technology runs afoul of the 4th ammendment is it ceases to be a search because your "personal" effects are not hanging around out in public.
Almost from the beginning I felt that most people misunderstood the nature of the internet and needed to realize it is much more like a huge ball room with many cozy tables for people to gather at than it is like some psychic, private, inviolable direct connection between people or organizations. Your privacy on the internet has always been largely illusory.
It's still a useful tool, but it's no place to keep evidence that you broke the law.
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Surveilance vs.
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Eh?
That's not nearly as enlightened as some folks here seem to want to make it sound. =)
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Civil Disobedience II
Of course it does. With eyes wide open, a person places themselves into the justice system specifically to call into question the unjust nature of the law.
Where have you been the last century? =)
On the post: Yes, You've Got Something To Hide
Civil Disobedience
You seem to include in the definition of "ineffective" the concept of injustice.
An unjust law needs to be violated until such time as it is "improved" enough to stop being unjust. Law does not take precedence over justice. The "rule of law" is absolutely meaningless otherwise.
On the post: Pirated Buildings In China And The Rise Of Architectural Mashups
Now if only
Still, good on Zaha Hadid.
On the post: HBO Has A Distribution Problem, But Just 'Going Without' Does Nothing To Push Them To Solve It
Re: Re: Simplificate and add lightness
On the post: HBO Has A Distribution Problem, But Just 'Going Without' Does Nothing To Push Them To Solve It
Re: There's one problem with this...
Next >>