SmyTTor wrote on Jan 16, 2013, 22:42:

JoeNapalm wrote on Jan 16, 2013, 12:21:
I can't help but notice that no one mentions that Swartz could have plead out - six months at Club Fed Minimum Security - or that he had struggled with depression and thoughts of suicide for years.

Federal sentencing guidelines are based on the amount of damages - he compromised ("hacked") systems and stole millions of pages of documents that, at the time, were not free.

While I commend the guy's activism and agree his death is sad, he went too far, he broke the law, he was facing REASONABLE consequences for those actions. If he refused to cut a deal and wanted to roll the dice in court, then yes - he was risking a huge sentence.

You can't plead "NOT GUILTY" and expect to get off just because you don't agree with the law. I don't like to drive slow, but that won't get me out of trouble if I drive 200mph through a school zone. He never contested the fact that he DID the criminal acts - if he disagreed on principle, cut a deal for "No Contest" - don't plead "Not Guilty" then off yourself because you're being prosecuted for crimes you actually committed.

But as the old saying goes - if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

You are incorrect on the prosecution's actions. The charges deviated widely from the standard and expected charges, which would normally be misdemeanors. Hence the speed at which the whole thing was dropped in the hopes to make it disappear as quickly as possible. You may also want to double check the actual estimation of the alleged damages.

No dog in this one, but still needs to be sorted out properly.

JoeNapalm wrote on Jan 16, 2013, 12:21:
I can't help but notice that no one mentions that Swartz could have plead out - six months at Club Fed Minimum Security - or that he had struggled with depression and thoughts of suicide for years.

Federal sentencing guidelines are based on the amount of damages - he compromised ("hacked") systems and stole millions of pages of documents that, at the time, were not free.

While I commend the guy's activism and agree his death is sad, he went too far, he broke the law, he was facing REASONABLE consequences for those actions. If he refused to cut a deal and wanted to roll the dice in court, then yes - he was risking a huge sentence.

You can't plead "NOT GUILTY" and expect to get off just because you don't agree with the law. I don't like to drive slow, but that won't get me out of trouble if I drive 200mph through a school zone. He never contested the fact that he DID the criminal acts - if he disagreed on principle, cut a deal for "No Contest" - don't plead "Not Guilty" then off yourself because you're being prosecuted for crimes you actually committed.

But as the old saying goes - if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

According to the documents, Swartz downloaded more than two million JSTOR documents over a two-week period by using a variety of deliberate, evasive tactics designed to confound JSTOR controls.

Wallshadows wrote on Jan 16, 2013, 12:49:
All the ghosts in Pac-Man want to kill him unless he takes drugs and eats them first. May as well say they are racists towards yellow circle folk too.
Ban!