Aaron Swartz Legal Defense Fund

https://free.aaronsw.com/

by sethbannon • 14 years ago

132 137 14 years ago

free.aaronsw.com

markbao• 14 years ago

Is it just me, or does that payment box look kind of dodgy? I think there's a reason that so many people use PayPal and services like it—people trust a familiar face. But this one doesn't really have any padlocks or any details like address or zip code or anything, and just looks out of character for a checkout page.

As a person that knows about Aaron, I know it can be trusted, but it might not be the same for others. Just a reaction that the folks supporting Aaron might want to be aware of.

mrkmcknz• 14 years ago

I get what you're saying.

One company who got around this hurdle was App.net(piggybacking on the Stripe/Visa/Mastercard brand). I'm assuming this is another implementation of Stripe.

oneplusone• 14 years ago

It is the official Stripe payment tag. https://stripe.com/docs/payment_tag

tptacek27• 14 years ago

Is Aaron incarcerated?

sciurus3• 14 years ago

I don't believe so; the "free" in the URL seems a bit cheeky. The trial is scheduled for February 4, 2013.

thejerz• 14 years ago

What are we defending Aaron Swartz against? (Sorry for being a boob)

sciurus3• 14 years ago

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/21/aaron-swart...

gnu82• 14 years ago

I'm not willing to donate. Aaron's goal may have been noble, but his actions are indefensible.

mibbitier5• 14 years ago

I agree. He was extremely foolish and arrogant at best. I don't think this belongs on HN.

Also didn't he make a ton of money selling Reddit?! :/

TheCowboy• 14 years ago

Could either one of you please explain how "his actions were indefensible" or how "he was extremely foolish and arrogant at beast"? Appreciated.

j_s• 14 years ago

Part of legitimate civil disobedience (which may be a stretch of terminology in this case) is facing the consequences. A legal defense fund could be viewed as a part of that (allowing those donating to join in), or as an attempt to avoid the consequences.

So much depends on specifics of the situation that I'm not really comfortable making any type of judgement on anyone involved.

tptacek27• 14 years ago

I hope he wins his case.

sciurus3• 14 years ago

Do you think his actions [0] merit 13 felony charges and the decades in prison they could lead to? I don't, so I donated.

[0] http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/21/aaron-swart...

adharmad2• 14 years ago

Concur. This case reminds me of another public case: Randal Schwartz's case. Randal's case was fairly black and white since he did not deny running the password-cracking scripts. He also had a harder time since Intel decided to twist the knife and make an example out of him.

tptacek27• 14 years ago

Aaron Swartz's case is so unlike Randal Schwartz's case that just making the comparison is a kind of "tell".

Randal Schwartz was a contractor for Intel, through an IT contracting company. At the conclusion of his contact and, as I remember, his employment with the company that placed him, he backdoored systems at Intel. He later used those backdoors to regain access to Intel systems and got caught.

Randal Schwartz' defense has always been that his activities were innocuous (and, in some cases, necessary to complete work for Intel, which is a claim that is damaged by the fact that some of his actions took place after his business relationship with Intel was severed). There is no "service to the greater good" angle in Randal Schwartz's case. What happened with him was either a spectacular misunderstanding or a galactic-scale instance of bad decisionmaking on his part.

Aaron Swartz set out to liberate information from a private database, because that information had been unjustly locked up.

What you're saying when you draw an equivalence between these cases is that you think most computer fraud/abuse cases are illegitimate. I'm not saying that's a ridiculous perspective to have (though it is not mine), but you should be on guard for the ways that perspective can cloud your reasoning. By all means keep believing that the Internet should be a "wild west" where the strong/gifted rule unchecked so long as they don't steal people's credit card numbers. But also read the case files when you want to argue about them.

citricsquid• 14 years ago

They really should include some sort of background or link on this page. For anyone else that has little idea who he is or why he needs money: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#JSTOR

More complete background: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/07/reddit-founder-ar...

bcl• 14 years ago

If you want people to donate to your cause you need to do a couple things:

1. Include some background on why I should care. 2. Provide some level of assurance that this page is actually linked to the issue at hand and isn't just a phishing scheme.

_delirium• 14 years ago

#2 seems reasonably certain, since aaronsw.com has been Aaron Swartz's domain for a while now. As for background: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4528083

hollerith2• 14 years ago

I can attest that aaronsw.com has been under the control of the Aaron Swartz for years and years. (I know because I just grepped my bookmarks file.)

edw519• 14 years ago

Now let me see if I got this right:

  1. Brilliant programmer gets chance of a lifetime.
  2. Turns that into lots of money early in life.
  3. Decides to change the world in his own way.
  4. Consciously & purposefully breaks the law.
  5. Has a webpage to get others to pay his legal bills.

I've never met Aaron but I've always enjoyed his writing and looked forward to meeting him one day. But there is something seriously wrong about this.

Aaron should man up, take responsibility for his actions, and pay his own bills.

And if this is his idea of changing the world, perhaps he should reconsider his choices and find a better way of paying it forward to other brilliant programmers who never got the breaks he did.

st3fan• 14 years ago

Maybe he can't. Maybe he is broke already. Maybe his fortune from previous enterprised wasn't that much. Who knows .. there must be a good reason. I'll support him.

oinksoft3• 14 years ago

Didn't he write a blog post about having "fuck you money" a few years ago? I can't find it now.

brador3• 14 years ago

It comes down to why he did it.

He did it to, as far as I know, set the information free from the paywall. To release that information so anyone and everyone can access the research we'd already paid for.

A noble cause? yeah I think so.

I don't want to compare it to Ghandi's salt works but the comparison could be made. A stand against artificial restrictions on something that should be free or cheap for all.

skanuj• 14 years ago

It is Gandhi and not Ghandi.

tptacek27• 14 years ago

No. Imagine a museum was displaying an oil painting that had been illegally taken by the Nazis in the 1940s and kept from its rightful owners, who were alive today and appalled that their property, evidence of the 20th Century's worst war crime, was hanging on someone else's wall. Now imagine someone broke into the museum, took the painting, and returned it to their owners.

That person is guilty of breaking and entering and, I believe, of theft.

We are a nation ruled by laws, not people. It is via the due process of law that claims like "all the information held in JSTOR is the property of the citizens of the US" are resolved. It is not up to Aaron Swartz.

whyenot• 14 years ago

the research we'd already paid for.

Did he only "free" publicly funded research papers? What about all the work that is funded by private foundations or even self-funded? In some disciplines, for example physical anthropology, most research is not publicly funded. You didn't pay for it. What gives you the right to set it "free"?

encoderer• 14 years ago

Ok, so he's like Gandhi.

Gandhi spent several years in prison. He believed in his cause and made that sacrifice. Man up, aaronsw.

andrewljohnson3• 14 years ago

1) I don't think Aaron made more than six figures from Reddit. Soon after acquisition, he went on walkabout, and then he got canned. He probably got some money, but did not vest most of his share.

So, don't worry - he's poor enough for your pity and support.

2) As to your second line of thought, that we should punish him because he consciously broke the law... I disagree with anyone on this forum who says that Aaron didn't know the potential consequences of his actions, and therefore should not be punished. But I also disagree with you.

This was a victimless crime, and the only ones pursuing it are some relentless G-men. Where is the corporation or person that has been wronged? Who, in the public, wants to pillory Aaron? What did Aaron gain? Do we really need to make an example of him, so this doesn't happen again? Is this really good a use of taxes?

My reaction is just shame and disgust... I mean, really? This brilliant kid is going to jail because of civil disobedience? Just so we can show there is still a book than can be thrown?

tptacek27• 14 years ago

From the prosecution's vantage point --- and please stop for a minute and consider that perspective even though there's no chance you'll agree with it --- this was not a victimless crime.

As the prosecution sees it, Aaron broke into a service and took information that JSTOR charges 5 figures for access to with the intent of putting it on a file sharing network and thus destroying the commercial value of that information. If you read the indictment, the prosecution's vantage point seems to show that Aaron did this with the intention of destroying the commercial value of the information, because he opposes the commercialization† of that kind of information.

The prosecution's charge is that Aaron deliberately set out to harm an organization because they were incompatible with his own ideology.

† JSTOR is a nonprofit but you get the drift

hollerith2• 14 years ago

>He probably got some money, but did not vest most of his share.

If I had no faith at all in your word, I would consider that very unlikely since Aaron was probably an impoverished student at the time, and he seems rational enough not to throw away income in such a reckless way.

Anyway, now you've got me curious.

ADDED. "If I had no faith at all in your word," was probably not the best way to phrase it. All I meant was, "Before reading your comment, I would have considered it unlikely . . ."

nostrademons• 14 years ago

1) Reddit's acquisition was a cash deal, reportedly $20M. Aaron made a blog post at one point about walking out with a check with more zeroes than he ever expected to see. I think it's likely he made about $5-7M off it, given that Reddit and Infogami merged right after the SFP, before either had much success.

brianobush• 14 years ago

so this brilliant kid, is allowed a different set of rules from the rest of the populace? he committed a crime with the very intention of stealing and was caught. as a modern society we have rules to curb this behavior - obviously, Aaron, by your post, is above this and needs his own set of rules.

guelo2• 14 years ago

> looked forward to meeting him

If the feds get their way you'll know exactly where to find him for the next 35 years.

tptacek27• 14 years ago

There is virtually no chance Swartz is going to spend time in prison. People convicted of far more malicious computer frauds have spent minimal (and sometimes no) time in prison.

Swartz, on the other hand, is a young, successful first-time offender.

I know it makes the story a lot more boring to talk about when the only consequences are financial and reputational, but consider that perhaps when you talk about Swartz spending "35 years" in federal prison, you are being ghoulish.

sharkweek• 14 years ago

I think the most interesting aspect of this case is that JSTOR is not pressing any sort of civil charges. In fact, they said Aaron's actions urged them to expedite something they were planning on doing anyways.

For this reason I am happy to help how I can

tptacek27• 14 years ago

People keep bringing this up like it means something. JSTOR isn't pressing civil charges because there's no upside in it for them to do that. Relative to the overwhelming majority of criminal cases, this case is a media shitstorm. If I was a director at a nonprofit, I too would avoid sticking my whole head into the angry wasp's nest that is the Swartz federal case.

You cannot reasonably read tacit support for Aaron Swartz into JSTOR's failure to press charges.

I was mugged last year and I didn't press charges (my three muggers were, as it turned out, barely old enough to have graduated high school). Do I support muggings?

(Some nerd is typing as fast as he can to make the argument that I tacitly am doing that, so let me head you off at the pass NO I DO NOT.)

Randgalt• 14 years ago

Perfectly stated. This is the correct point of view.

shmulkey182• 14 years ago

Exactly. Mr. "Demand Progress" needs to understand that we are a nation of laws, and that those who knowingly break those laws will be -- and should be -- punished.

And, no, this is not a case of civil disobedience. If it was, Swartz would have publicly violated the law (rather than attempting to conceal the crime) in order to draw attention to its putative unfairness.

Aaron Swartz is a spoiled brat. I hope that they throw the book at him.

orangecat• 14 years ago

I hope that they throw the book at him.

So you think the appropriate punishment for what he did is a longer prison sentence than most rapists and murderers receive?

ohreilly2• 14 years ago

You are posting this comment on a forum that is run by a business co-founded by someone who was convicted under the same statute as Swartz is accused of violating. You knew that, right? Many years ago, he "broke the law" and was convicted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. But he served no jail time. I guess the situation was different in many ways. Tell us how. Or maybe it was not so different. What do you think?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Tappan_Morris

My guess is Swartz will end up dropping his rebellious attitude and will apologise for what he did.

freemanindia• 14 years ago

If the consequences were in line with his actions this logic would work, but life in prison is an extraordinarily oppressive response to this type of disobedience.

Further, using the legal system to extract a huge penalty before any jury has decided on guilt is the worst type of bullying by the big against the small.

Lastly, many of us relate to what Aaron is going through, and simple compassion compels us to help. Saying Aaron should "man up, take responsibility for his actions, and pay his own bills" belittles him and those of us who have chosen to support him.

ktizo4• 14 years ago

What the fuck is meant by "man up" in these kind of circumstances?

Is your average man supposed to take 30 years+ on the chin for trying to release academic papers?

If he didn't have a penis would you feel more compassion? As I have never heard it be suggested that a woman in desperate circumstances has a need to man up.

As for what could he do to give more breaks to other programmers, he was trying to give out academic papers for fuck's sake. On the scale of things, that is giving more breaks to others, than most people accomplish in a lifetime.

What is your idea of changing the world?

mikeklaas• 14 years ago

What? No kickstarter?

lhnz• 14 years ago

Why are they prosecuting a man for publicly making available beneficial scientific knowledge that the public have effectively paid for? Is personal gain of a few companies really more important than education, and should it really be enshrined in law?

adrianwaj• 14 years ago

He would've got more donations had he put the papers he downloaded online sooner, rather than get busted with 4 million. A journalleaks site would be much more useful than wikileaks.

nostromo• 14 years ago

I wish someone would make a KickStarter for legal stuff.

I've seen enough of these that it could be a real business. (Ex: help pay for a defense against some government intrusion, or RIAA overreaching, or to bring a case to challenge an unconstitutional statute, or to overturn a dumb pantent, or whatever).

It could even evolve into a platform for the political moneybomb we've seen before. (A bounty for the first person to introduce some bill, for example: patent reform.)

sillysaurus• 14 years ago

Actually, a Kickstarter for legal defense is a good idea.

shill• 14 years ago

It is a good idea. Unfortunately, the Obama administration is STILL fighting for indefinite detention powers[1] even after Judge Forrest's NDAA ruling[2]. The owner and users of a legal defense kickstarter could be at risk of indefinite imprisonment without trial if a cause was somehow linked to 'terrorism'.

1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/ndaa-case-indefinit...

2. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_ZWg1DMub...

kunle• 14 years ago

Pretty sure crowdtilt (www.crowdtilt.com) allows you to do this already. (Full disclosure - I'm friends with the founders)

5xz41s0P8T5N• 14 years ago

You forgot to accept Bitcoin.

kylebrown• 14 years ago

The guy that uploaded the JSTOR papers last year after Swartz was indicted, Greg Maxwell, accepted bitcoin donations.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110721/11122615195/aaron-...

david_shaw• 14 years ago

I don't necessarily disagree with the motives behind Aaron's actions, but if you're going to break the law in what may be perceived as "civil disobedience," you need to be willing to "do the time," too.[1]

I'm neither encouraging nor discouraging people from donating, but I do think that it's a little off-putting that Aaron's taking what could have been a selfless, martyrdom-filled act of civil disobedience and then changing it into "silly mistake," from which he's asking for help recovering.

[1]: 'Doing the time' as a turn of speech. I doubt Aaron would get actual jail time for this. Then again, I am not a lawyer.

shmulkey182• 14 years ago

This was not civil disobedience, which involves publicly breaking a law in order to demonstrate that it is unjust. Swartz, lacking the courage of his convictions, tried to commit a crime in secret. Now he wants us to help him pay the piper! Despicable.

ohreilly2• 14 years ago

When you impact JSTOR and the entire MIT network the way he did, it's hardly "in secret". Something like a stream of one million continuous JSTOR downloads 24/7, significantly impacting the entire MIT network, is going to go unnoticed?

His JSTOR use was heavy enough to draw an IP ban. Yet he continued. I fail to believe he was really trying to hide - he knew his actions would be noticed. Network admins would see what was going on. And even in the wiring closet, putting a bike helmet over his face? That's not exactly covert.

JSTOR would know something was up - the IP ban was probably automatic but still I would guess the folks administering their servers would have noticed a huge spike in activity from MIT.

MIT would know something was up. Their network admins are not asleep at the wheel.

Seems to me, it was no secret what he was doing. He did not try very hard to conceal it. (Or maybe you think he was supposed to hold a press conference or at least call the TV news first?) With the way he went about this, it's no wonder he got caught.

Moreover, he already knew he had an FBI file from the PACER incident. So it's not like he couldn't imagine the FBI getting involved.

Then again, I could be wrong. Maybe he really is that stupid.

rm999• 14 years ago

I totally agree with your point that he should be willing to "do the time" and that he shouldn't be calling it a "silly mistake". Civil disobedience is noble BECAUSE it comes with a cost.

That said, the legal system is setup in a way where it costs a lot of money to get a truly fair trial. A lawyer will tell his side of the story; without a good one he won't be properly heard by the legal system. Aaron would be a disservice to his cause by putting up a poor defense.

adastra3• 14 years ago

If people want to help Aaron, I'd recommend a political strategy as well as a legal one. I'm not a lawyer and certainly no expert on this case, but my sense is that there is something political going on or one of the prosecutors sees this as a big career boost. For someone without a criminal background like Aaron it would seem very much out of the norm to continue escalating the charges as they've done, rather than move toward a plea bargain.

These prosecutors work for the Obama Administration, and ultimately the President. The President has certainly courted the tech/internet vote, and I think some internet activism in this case is worth a shot. But it would need to be done basically right now (i.e. before the election). Are the prosecutors going to drop the charges? No. But some political pressure could improve whatever the terms of a plea deal are.

Disclosure: Aaron and I briefly worked at the same non-profit organization many years ago. But we were essentially in different departments, so while we met once or twice I wouldn't say I know him personally.

tptacek27• 14 years ago

Good plan. Because surely a Republican-controlled DoJ would be much more lenient about the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act.

adastra3• 14 years ago

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not.

My underlying assumption is that Obama is more than likely going to win re-election. FiveThirtyEight has him at 75% likelihood to win, and intrade bettors have him at 66%. But even if he wins, he'll have much less reason to pay attention to the views of the reddit demographic after the election than he will before. So Aaron's supporters should start working this right away.

Same goes with Congress by the way, if a member of Congress could be enlisted to help (what's the Congressional districts for Aaron's hometown and current residence?)

jhrobert• 14 years ago

They could not get Assange, hence...

godisdad• 14 years ago

Aaron Swartz Legal Defense Fund

Related Stories