How long shall we persecute genius?

January 15, 2013

The lamentations over the suicide of Aaron Swartz are many on the Internet this week; Google his name and read more eloquent stuff than I could paraphrase here. I was just introduced to this man’s work, though I use his inventions and follow his causes daily.

This story turns not only around depression, but about prosecutorial overreach at the Department of Justice, the same institution that refuses to hold any members of the financial industry to account for their crimes. As such, there is an outpouring of indignation from Swartz’s friends – and those who love truth, knowledge, justice and enlightenment.

Take a moment to read Matthew Stoller’s elegy for the friend he lost and the values he championed:

Aaron suffered from depression, but that is not why he died. Aaron is dead because the institutions that govern our society have decided that it is more important to target geniuses like Aaron than nurture them, because the values he sought – openness, justice, curiosity – are values these institutions now oppose. In previous generations, people like Aaron would have been treasured and recognized as the remarkable gifts they are. We do not live in a world like that today. And Aaron would be the first to point out, if he could observe the discussion happening now, that the pressure he felt from the an oppressive government is felt by millions of people, every year. I’m glad his family have not let the justice system off the hook, and have not allowed this suicide to be medicalized, or the fault of one prosecutor. What happened to Aaron is not isolated to Aaron, but is the flip side of the corruption he hated.

As we think about what happened to Aaron, we need to recognize that it was not just prosecutorial overreach that killed him. That’s too easy, because that implies it’s one bad apple. We know that’s not true. What killed him was corruption. Corruption isn’t just people profiting from betraying the public interest. It’s also people being punished for upholding the public interest. In our institutions of power, when you do the right thing and challenge abusive power, you end up destroying a job prospect, an economic opportunity, a political or social connection, or an opportunity for media. Or if you are truly dangerous and brilliantly subversive, as Aaron was, you are bankrupted and destroyed. There’s a reason whistleblowers get fired. There’s a reason Bradley Manning is in jail. There’s a reason the only CIA official who has gone to jail for torture is the person – John Kiriako - who told the world it was going on. There’s a reason those who destroyed the financial system “dine at the White House”, as Lawrence Lessig put it. There’s a reason former Senator Russ Feingold is a college professor whereas former Senator Chris Dodd is now a multi-millionaire. There’s a reason DOJ officials do not go after bankers who illegally foreclose, and then get jobs as partners in white collar criminal defense. There’s a reason no one has been held accountable for decisions leading to the financial crisis, or the war in Iraq. This reason is the modern ethic in American society that defines success as climbing up the ladder, consequences be damned. Corrupt self-interest, when it goes systemwide, demands that it protect rentiers from people like Aaron, that it intimidate, co-opt, humiliate, fire, destroy, and/or bankrupt those who stand for justice.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ae-Wehr/1322844727 Ae Wehr

    The issue of digital rights is the spearhead, or perhaps the canary in the coal mine, of government corruption.

    Throughout the 20th centry, Hollywood studios have been making unsuccessful bids to shut down technologies which would empower consumers and compel them to adapt to market conditions. They couldn’t STAND the fact that we had the legal right to record radio and tv, xerox pages out of books, etc. In the 90′s, they started to get “smart”, however, and are now very successfully taking advantage of old peoples’ inability to understand digital technology to shut down innovation and liberty (particularly personal property rights and free speech) in wide swaths.

    Question: Ever wonder why there aren’t commercial iphone jailbreaks or region-free players on wal-mart shelves?

    In 1998 they passed what they call “anti-circumvention” law, which can be paraphrased as: “if a company makes something intentionally incompatible, you can’t independently engineer your own compatibility with the product without their permission” ( I’m sure you can understand how dangerous this idea is to capitalism and innovation — I find it an “interesting coincidence” that this law was passed in ’98 and went into effect on jan 1 2000.).

    It outlawed the manufacture and distribution of tools the public needs to exercise fair use in the digital age, and in so doing, opened the gates wide for incumbents to lock out new competitors.

    If anti-circumvention law were applied to homes, general contracting firms would be able ban the sale of hammers because only they should be able to build additions onto homes (force people to pay them instead of doing it themselves), and if it were passed in 1978 instead of 1998, the pc and internet revolution would never have happened because so many third parties would have the capacity to block the formation of common standards and the development of independent converters and decoders.

    Thus, corporations are exerting ownership of things you’ve already bought: game consoles, iphones, computers, dvr units, HDTV’s, the works — and using it to deny your access to and participation in culture in order to sell it back to you piece by piece, but only on devices they get a cut of.

    Of course, the media doesn’t talk about this at all (except to call anyone who doesn’t tow the line an “evil thieving pirate”), because their executives are the ones hiring the lobbying firms responsible for this.

    Since then, we’ve had worse laws —
    Online copyright infringement now carries the same “guilty until proven innocent” approach as drug possession.

    “notice and takedown” — this policy leverages corporations’ litigious-averse nature to deny individuals free speech. There are virtually no effective penalties for misuse of takedown notices, and companies have no legal requirement to actually review and protect the rights of their hosted clients and everything to lose if they’re wrong. So if someone accuses you (usually via bots with high false-negative rates), you’re off the net.

    “asset forfeiture” —
    Look what happened to mega-upload — on a mere accusation they were raided, their assets seized, and their business shut down — without being able to face their accusers in court and despite demonstrated good-faith efforts to abide by all relevant laws. The US corporate media obediently towed the line calling the company a “mega conspiracy” or an “international pirate ring in disguise”. Imagine if they had this much zeal going after banks for robo-signing.

    “cruel and unusual punishment” –

    criminal and civil penalties for individuals are closer to manslaughter than to a traffic ticket for downloading a single film — the penalty for fighting and losing is so great the plaintiffs can (and do) extort people for “protection money” to make them go away.

    The “no electronic theft act” removed the requirement that substantial financial harm be done for infringement to be considered criminal. It actually includes veiled mention of ideological opposition to the current overreach of copyright in the language. Read between the lines and it says “we are trying to jail people who are trying to take back the consumer rights they used to enjoy in 1985″.

    “fritz chips” –

    They tried to put some nameless bureaucrats in remote control of your electronics with the capacity to break them with a push of a button if you did things they didn’t like with the hardware you bought. They missed getting it passed by a hair, so they just bypassed our legislature and entered into “private agreements”, so now we have microsoft literally breaking the read only memory to prevent you from rolling back firmware on your own xbox, and amazon ironically reaching out to “snuff out” peoples’ copies of 1984 (which they bought) on kindles (which they bought).

    “3 strikes” –

    They tried to make it a law that they could revoke your internet access. They got it in some other countries. In the US they failed, but they end-ran our rights to legislative and judicial review again by going into “private agreements” with ISPS with some pressure from the more corrupt senators and AG’s, and now you have the “voluntary graduated response” program in which monopoly ISPs now allow an extremist lobbying arm of a special interest group to, on mere accusation, unilaterally order the degradation and cut-off of your internet.

    Mind you a UNC study managed to get a copying machine with no local storage accused of tens of thousands of counts of copyright infringement.

    “ACTA” –

    Imagine some guy at the airport searching your iphone and leading you off in cuffs if you can’t legitimize the source of every music, image, or video file on it. It’s not some comedy show, it’s a clause in ACTA,

    “SOPA” –

    This would have allowed the RIAA, MPAA, and DOJ to
    unilaterally seize entire domain infrastructure on an accusation and
    without judicial review. This was what Aaron Swartz helped to defeat.

    After he did this, he was identified and brought into court for “violation of
    hacking laws” — he used an automated script to grab JStore articles he
    had a proper license to access, but because he used a method to access
    them that they did not not think of and explicitly “allow” in their
    terms of use, the justice department used this opening to try to put him
    away for a longer term than most armed-and-violent felons.

    How dare he oppose Hollywood’s continued and increasingly bold campaign to control the internet and all technology with Darth Vader’s iron grip.

    Thanks to laws like this, and the demonstrated propensity for them to get worse, you basically need a legal team before you can even approach VC’s about starting a new consumer tech company. This is why you don’t see any new faces despite the fact that smaller firms would be more agile at meeting consumer demand in an increasingly evolving tech landscape, and why that evolution, despite increasing everywhere else, has frozen in time.

Previous post:

Next post: