US Attorney Chided Swartz On Day of Suicide

I think it's kind of ridiculous that everyone is pointing fingers at "everyone else" other than the man responsible for the suicide, Aaron Swartz himself.<p>Sure, he was in a tough situation, and I'll admit I don't know the entire backstory of what led up to this man's suicide(although there is no shortage of information on the HN front page as of late), but there is nobody that can be held responsible for his suicide other than himself.<p>It is self-evident that this man was well-respected in the online community.<p>He killed himself. Nobody else is responsible for that extraordinary action. We can only speculate on his exact reasoning for doing it, but I would suspect a man in that state of mind may not be acting completely rationally and just wanted to escape but sadly could not find a way out other than ending his own life.<p>Let's celebrate his life and accomplishments and stop trying to find people to blame.

The author of this filing is making an argument before the court, not chiding Swartz personally. More importantly: I'm unclear on whether its author is US Attorney Carmen Ortiz or her deputy AUSA Stephen Heymann. I believe the distinction is meaningful; Heymann would have been responsible for the superseding indictment and the overall prosecution strategy; the former is a political appointee who may be supporting her deputies just like anyone else in her position would be doing.<p>Heymann is a nationally recognized authority in the prosecution of computer crimes, and if he's responsible for the overall strategy used by the prosecution, it's him most of all you'd want to see accountable; not just because removing Ortiz (which will for what it's worth never happen) wouldn't remove him, but also because he's the key national influencer in cybercrime prosecution, not Ortiz.

Hopefully this drives more people to <a href="https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-district-attorney-carmen-ortiz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck" rel="nofollow">https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-stat...</a>, which is almost a quarter of the way to the point where the administration has to respond.

I found this interesting:<p>"With MIT President Emeritus Charles M. Vest currently serving as a Trustee of JSTOR parent Ithaka as well as a Trustee of The MIT Corporation, one might have expected MIT to issue a statement similar to the let's-put-this-behind-us one JSTOR made on the Swartz case back in 2011."<p>I had been wondering if JSTOR was really as hands-off as they made themselves out to be. This suggests at least one financial incentive MIT might have had for cooperating on this case.

Wait a minute? your telling me the system built to protect Americans are bullies who just force you to admit your guilty? say it ain't so.<p>It's unfortunate that no one talks about how normal. Speaking as someone who has small dealings with our system I can honestly say they are not your friend. They will lie to your parents, lie to your spouse and lie to your neighbors in hopes of making you sign a guilty plea. They Press will spin it's own story to make a buck or two. Now you ask where's the truth? (I don't have the answer to that)<p>I really doubt that much will change over this, as the (cynical) reason that the US Attorney General went after Swartz is because he wanted to make American's quite clear that he won't tolerate this behavior.<p>Keep in mind that part of our Judicial system does is create fear so you won't commit the same crime. Sadly that's all he was after here, fear. :(<p>Unfortunately it will take thousands more deaths before our leaders start listening. It's too Bad America isn't 'We The People' any longer... :(

Doesn't the footer suggest that the writer was STEPHEN P. HEYMANN acting on behalf of Ortiz?

how do people feel about MIT's negligence of making an active decision on the matter; thereby passively contributing to fed's attempt to make the case?

&#62; The e-mail that Defendant Swartz's supplemental memorandum cites as paramount to his fifth motion to suppress [evidence against him] is relevant, but not nearly as important as he tries to make it out to be<p>I'm sorry, "chided"? This is just a legal argument. It's what happens in court proceedings. And it's pretty tame. It's not personal, and while it names "Defendant Swartz", what it really means is his attorneys since they are the ones that submitted the memo. There is no malice in this statement at all. This headline is sensationalist.<p>Yes, Swartz was bullied by the government. This is not an example of it, and it's a shameful attempt at shifting blame for a tragedy.

Why would the secret service be involved with this? Is it common practice in similar cases?

Crazy that they're talking about Swartz's laptop in that email. Is the government so blind as to think that he would actually have all of those documents on his computer? I wonder what the laws are surrounding content kept in the cloud. Is that "possession"?

Heymann probably thinks he's Javert.

This is currently the top story on Hacker News. Instead of dealing with the fact that someone's depression caused them to commit suicide, they are casting about for blame.<p>That's not a very healthy way to deal with this situation. But I realize what you are all doing: you are trying to use his horrible death as a political statement to further your causes (something about making academic papers free and accessible, nothing to die over, especially if you have to deal with the cops).<p>If you can't do the time, or deal with the repercussions without killing yourself, don't do the crime. Also I find the reaction on Hacker News disgustingly trying to use this to further their narrow agenda.<p>So to respond to the title of this top thread: who cares if he was chided?? No reason to kill yourself! Give me a break! Show the man some respect.