Hacker News Reader

Comment by beatpanda | Hacker News Reader

" Now that it is politically advantageous for them to do so, and their actions can have no practical effect, lawmakers slam DOJ prosecution of Swartz as 'ridiculous, absurd' "

View on HN

If you want a member of congress to act on something, you have to ask them. That's how the system works. If you don't put in the effort, their time is spent on the thousands of other people clamoring for their attention who were more motivated and passionate than you were.

Really didn't want to bring this up, but I actually floated the idea of the community pursuing a political strategy to help Aaron here on HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4529907

The suggestion didn't get many upvotes, and was utterly belittled by one of HN's most prolific posters. Something to keep in mind before you ridicule the small number of representatives who are actually friendly to tech. (To be clear, I could have taken action myself anyway, and I didn't find the time. That's on me.)

It's really, really unfortunate that this is the top comment.

This is probably the top comment because the zeitgeist is that the system is broken and making nice with it is a failing strategy.

So engaging the system would have resulted in an outcome that is worse than what actually happened? I don't think so.

It's a false choice. You can engage the system and change it at the same time. Of course you can.

The system was engaged with, that was the problem. People have a default assumption of adequacy when it comes to interaction with the state, this episode shows such a default assumption is not only unwarranted, but actually dangerous.

In my experience, the more you engage with the system, the more willing you are to rationalize or even overlook its failings.

I've spent time doing both, and I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

No practical effect for Aaron.

But there is always a next person to come along. It benefits them.

And there is a possibility that in the process of investigating someone will point out to them that PACER is breaking the laws that they wrote about how much can be charged. This might lead to more than symbolic reform there.

While it may be politically advantageous that doesn't mean it's not a good thing. Remember, this "tough on crime" attitude is largely the product of public outrage at the spike in crime in the 1970's and 1980's. The drug war was buoyed up on a tide of "just say no!" moms and dads in the 1980's and 1990's.

Congresspeople aren't completely immune to responding to broad public pressure, if that is indeed what develops from this case.

Just to play devil's advocate here though, how many people in the US wrote their congressperson over this? Zoe Lofgren was mine at the time Swartz' case went public in the media, and I didn't write.

I guess that makes me partially guilty, too.

How? How can Congress affect a US attorney once confirmed, unless by impeachment? I guess that a committee could call in the attorney for hearings, but how likely is that?

The mere threat of damaging their political reputations in a hearing is probably enough to make a prosecutor suddenly change their mind given that it's all these prosecutors ever cared about in the first place.

Yeah, that's how democracy works. Actions that are forward progress eventually become politically advantageous. That's pretty much the single principle that makes democracy as functional as it is.

Certainly we wish they'd done something while Aaron was alive.

The effect we can now hope for is prosecutors everywhere will learn that despite it being very unlikely that something bad will happen when they over-prosecute for career advancement, if it does, they're going straight under the bus.

A moments hesitation in the mind of the next Ortiz/Heymann duo thinking about levering up against a "soft target" is a very good thing.

You don't think Congress agreeing with us on this can have any practical effect? You realize they are the ones who make the laws and confirm judicial appointments, right?

I know it's cool to hate on the government and criticize everything they ever do and assume they are all idiots - and most of the time they deserve it - but if they are on our side on this that should be welcomed and they should be given credit for it.

My point is that I don't think Congress actually agrees on this. Zoe Lofgren represents Silicon Valley. Making statements like this could just as easily be trawling for votes as it could be genuine outrage over the issue.

No Congressperson ever said these things while Swartz was still alive, and his prosecution was just as ridiculous then, but saying so wouldn't have netted you nearly the positive media coverage in the tech press that it will now.

Um. We didn't do anything much either before he killed himself. I think it's fantastic that they're on Aaron's side here - yes, it's unfortunate that it took his death to make them on his side, but that blame lies with all of us, not the lawmakers.

We made this a big deal after his death, consequently leading to the politicians making their claims now. Had we made a big deal before he died, perhaps the lawmakers would have done the same.

Our fault, not theirs. They really are representing us here.

> Our fault, not theirs. They really are representing us here.

Why are you blaming the victims? It's not difficult to determine that the current penal system is ridiculous, and unlike us, it's their responsibility to do so. <hyperbole magnitude="a bit"> Instead, they focus on making copyright legislation to support corporate interests. And the courts focus on whether or not the 5th Amendment was a good idea after all. </hyperbole>

I agree with you completely that we should be doing more to advocate for reform, but it is far from being our fault.

I don't know. I think the fact that he killed himself is a very strong message that wouldn't have been attached to movement (by 'us') prior to his death (not that I'm happy it happened).

Martyrdom is a hell of a drug.

I think the counter point would be that if they actually do make positive changes to the laws to reflect their newfound wisdom then perhaps their public pandering will actually be a good thing.

The public just needs to make sure that they do make changes and aren't just happy with them eating crow. Saying shit is broken just to look good does nothing for the people, but if they actually fix shit then they can say whatever they want imo.

I don't know if you can really blame congresspeople for being apathetic while Aaron was alive if even HN of all communities largely was as well.

Until action takes place, there's no distinction between political opportunism (i.e. blowing a lot of hot-air at the press to look good and maybe win a few votes) and genuine concern about the state of the law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com