Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MIT Investigating School's Role In Swartz Suicide

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the rest-in-peace dept.

Crime 382

The untimely death of Aaron Swartz has raised a lot of questions over the weekend. Now MIT is launching an internal investigation to determine what role the school played in his suicide. From the article: "In a statement, MIT President L. Rafael Reif offered his condolences, saying that the school's community was 'extremely saddened by the death of this promising young man who touched the lives of so many. Now is a time for everyone involved to reflect on their actions, and that includes all of us at MIT,' Reif said. 'I have asked professor Hal Abelson to lead a thorough analysis of MIT's involvement from the time that we first perceived unusual activity on our network in fall 2010 up to the present. I have asked that this analysis describe the options MIT had and the decisions MIT made, in order to understand and to learn from the actions MIT took. I will share the report with the MIT community when I receive it.'"

cancel ×

382 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good for them (5, Insightful)

alostpacket (1972110) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580851)

However it's sad that it took a suicide for them to examine their role here. For a college that pioneered OpenCourseWare, I never understood why they stood idly by.

Re:Good for them (5, Insightful)

coastwalker (307620) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580913)

3% of Americans are under the correctional supervision of their justice system. There are seven times more people in prison in the US as a percentage of the population as there are in Europe.

There is no evidence that this policy is any more effective than things like removing Lead in Gas for reducing overall crime. The rest of the world looks on in horror at prison camp America which locks up slightly more people than the Russians. Ever tried looking in the mirror?

I'm not surprised this guy looked at the options and chose the one he did, it was probably the most rational sane thing to do.

Re:Good for them (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42580965)

Ever tried looking in the mirror?

I believe that's the point of this story...

Re:Good for them (1)

jaygatsby27 (894445) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581027)

agreed.

You Disgust Me (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581053)

Okay well I suppose this is going to be a really unpopular post but I don't see anyone else saying anything like this.

First off, I am deeply saddened and distraught that such a prolific person that had already helped the world so much took his own life. I hope his family and friends take solace in the amount of achievements this young man had made before his decision to take his own life.

3% of Americans are under the correctional supervision of their justice system. There are seven times more people in prison in the US as a percentage of the population as there are in Europe.

There is no evidence that this policy is any more effective than things like removing Lead in Gas for reducing overall crime. The rest of the world looks on in horror at prison camp America which locks up slightly more people than the Russians. Ever tried looking in the mirror?

The US Justice System is there to enforce the law. I don't know what relevance this has or what you hoped to achieve with your parroted statistics but I don't find it very helpful here. He was charged with wire fraud, computer fraud among other things [archive.org] and when someone alerts the authorities that this may have taken place, they investigate it. If I bypassed your home's security and installed a laptop in your home that connected to your network and took all your files, would you want there to be laws against that? That's what they were investigating -- is there any evidence of undue or unjust actions in this investigation? I think that's what MIT wants to find out here.

I'm not surprised this guy looked at the options and chose the one he did, it was probably the most rational sane thing to do.

You know, that almost sounds like an endorsement for suicide which is probably one of the most disgusting and vehement posts I've read here so far. There is nothing rational nor sane about taking one's own life. When I was 16 one of my friends committed suicide and more recently a roommate's girlfriend came over while my roommate was gone and committed suicide. As someone who has witnessed the aftermath both to someone who meant so much to me and someone I barely knew, I will tell you right now that it is a terrible act that impacts everyone -- and most often in a profoundly negative way. To call it 'rational' or 'sane' in any case reveals that you do not know anything about suicide.

I didn't know Aaron Swartz although I've been following this case with interest. What I suspect happened was that Swartz wanted to make a statement about opening up journals to the public and he wagered that it would be hard to pin any fallout on himself if he did all of this covertly. And he tried. But at the end of the day they figured out who was taking these articles of information. Did you know he was a Fellow at Harvard University's Center for Ethics? What do you think this meant for his career to be indicted on such charges? How would you, as a student, listen to a lecture on ethics from someone who had broken laws and evaded police? I think that Swartz saw this as a sort of "civil disobedience" but when his peers did not agree, he took the coward's route instead of letting society decide his fate for his actions -- and I think the case was still open!

Let's assume Swartz was completely in the right on all of his actions. What, precisely, would you have MIT and the US Government do differently to prevent this suicide? What actions of theirs do you find culpable for forcing Aaron Swartz into no other choice than to take his own life?

You Disgust Me (4, Insightful)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581191)

Take your penultimate question and look at it a bit broader
(not that others haven't done that already -- therefore my surprise).
Look at proportionality. Keep your suspicions out of the picture.
Good luck.

Re:You Disgust Me (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581197)

Wow, your lack of insight is staggering.

Re:You Disgust Me (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581217)

3% of Americans are under the correctional supervision of their justice system. [...] There is no evidence that this policy is any more effective than things like removing Lead in Gas for reducing overall crime.

The US Justice System is there to enforce the law.

So, what's your point? That anything which is law must be good policy? In the US, the penalty for identity fraud is up to 30 years in prison. In Germany, fraud, in "especially serious cases," may get you 6 months to 10 years. US law imposes harsher sentences for similar crimes (especially certain classes of crime), and these draconian penalties seem to serve no social benefit.

And You Disgust Me (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581233)

The US Justice System is there to enforce the law. I don't know what relevance this has or what you hoped to achieve with your parroted statistics but I don't find it very helpful here. He was charged with wire fraud, computer fraud among other things [archive.org] and when someone alerts the authorities that this may have taken place, they investigate it. If I bypassed your home's security and installed a laptop in your home that connected to your network and took all your files, would you want there to be laws against that? That's what they were investigating -- is there any evidence of undue or unjust actions in this investigation? I think that's what MIT wants to find out here.

And Bush,Cheney, and their associated ilk were charged with war crimes (http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/05/12/bush-convicted-of-war-crimes-in-absentia/). Where's the enforcement there, huh? Fuck you. AmeriKKKa is a thugocracy, established by albino slaveholders.

You know, that almost sounds like an endorsement for suicide which is probably one of the most disgusting and vehement posts I've read here so far. There is nothing rational nor sane about taking one's own life. When I was 16 one of my friends committed suicide and more recently a roommate's girlfriend came over while my roommate was gone and committed suicide. As someone who has witnessed the aftermath both to someone who meant so much to me and someone I barely knew, I will tell you right now that it is a terrible act that impacts everyone -- and most often in a profoundly negative way. To call it 'rational' or 'sane' in any case reveals that you do not know anything about suicide.

There is plenty rational and sane about committing suicide when you're facing 30+ years of prison! I would do it in a second. Probably after killing dumbfucks like yourself first, though.

Your post is a pathetic troll (-1, Flamebait)

Ifthir (1446587) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581315)

It's good you found a way to interject Bush, Cheney, and even Ice Cube's AmeriKKKa phrase all while cowering from your anonymous hole. Nothing is rational or sane about suicide. It is the ultimate selfish act for cowards.

Re:Your post is a pathetic troll (5, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581429)

Nothing is rational or sane about suicide. It is the ultimate selfish act for cowards.

The first sentence is true, the second only half true; I see you've never had the misfortune of knowing anyone with clinical depression. You can no more blame a suicide's death on the suicide victim than you can blame the victim of a heart attack for his. It's a disease; clinically depressed people can't just shrug it off any more than you can shrug off cancer. It needs professional treatment, and like cancer treatments, sometimes they fail.

Depression [Re:You Disgust Me] (5, Insightful)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581239)

I'm not surprised this guy looked at the options and chose the one he did, it was probably the most rational sane thing to do.

You know, that almost sounds like an endorsement for suicide which is probably one of the most disgusting and vehement posts I've read here so far.

Just as a reminder, Swartz was subject to bouts of extreme depression. Although it's a human tendency to want to find external causes and somebody to blame, it is most likely that depression has more to do with his suicide than any other factor.

Re:You Disgust Me (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581263)

In your idiotic support of the current system you seem to miss out a lot of things. Maybe your ignorance or your unwillingness to confront them leads you to spout this nonsense.

1. MIT's investigation is not about just and unjust actions - it is more about the fact that they did not actively stop the justice department from going after Schwartz. JSTOR aggressively responded to the prosecutorial threat and declined to pursue charges, whereas MIT did not. If MIT too had strongly declined, then, the prosecutor would have very little grounds to prosecute Aaron.

2. The justice department is there to enforce laws - yes. But Very often, due to the fact that most prosecutors seem to aim for political office, they make their prosecutions a populist action. Thus you have prosecutors often hiding exculpatory evidence, going after lifetime charges against kids to please the local population and basically looking out for themselves. That's not exactly a 'justice is blind' policy - it is more like 'what do I do get headlines and further my career'

3. After watching US going after Assange, Lulsec and others and basically meting out punishments in decades to computer hackers, a person who is facing 35 yrs in the slammer wont exactly be happy. Especially because no one recently has managed to get out of such charges. So now 26 Aaron had a choice. Fight for 3-4 yrs in the courts and then spend 15-20 yrs in the slammer or hug the grim reaper.

Finally, if ignorance is your excuse - learn to keep your rants to your head. Unfortunately, the world has too many of you, and too few of people like him... we can ill afford to lose people like him ... and would not feel the difference if 100s of people like you disappeared this instant.

Re:You Disgust Me (4, Interesting)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581567)

A few minor corrections.

After watching US going after Assange...

Uh, the US has not gone after Assange (not yet, anyway). The US went after Bradley Manning, is that who you're thinking of? Sweden is going after Assange, who is wanted in Sweden for questioning on rape charges, and Assange says that he fears that if he goes to Sweden to answer the charges, they will extradite him to the US... but to date, there is no U.S. action against Assange.

...So now 26 Aaron had a choice. Fight for 3-4 yrs in the courts and then spend 15-20 yrs in the slammer or...

Newspapers always like to phrase indictments with words like "up to XX years in prison!" This makes the news story more exciting. However, there are such things as federal sentencing guidelines [ussc.gov] . Non-violent crime, first offense, no previous convictions, no aggravating factors-- I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up with a fine plus time served.

Furthermore, he almost certainly could get a plea bargain-- believe it or not, prosecutors don't want to go to court if they can possibly get a conviction without doing so. Unfortunately, a plea bargain would have required Swartz admitting that he did broke the law, and it looks like he was not the type of person who would do that.

Re:You Disgust Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581729)

Bingo, Swartz couldn't handle being a felon. His incredible streak of good fortune was about to end.

Ethical is not the same as lawful (5, Insightful)

aepervius (535155) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581307)

There are a lot of ethical action which are unlawful and vice versa, a lot of unethical action which are perfectly lawful. I would certainly hear the lecture of somebody which know the difference between ethical and lawful and the ramification.

Re:You Disgust Me (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581311)

I agree. Swartz saw a future where he was just a random techie with a drained fortune, no degree, and a felony record. No more startup founding opportunities, ivy league fellowships, or other sweetheart gigs from the many power brokers who took a shining to him. He would have to start over from scratch and that scared him.

Re:You Disgust Me (4, Insightful)

Vintermann (400722) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581341)

The problem is that he ran into a careerist prosecutor. To be a former prosecutor with a record of being touch on cybercrime, especially anything related to "information activists" (think Julian Assange), is a big red loyalty star in the party book, and this prosecutor was (is) running for office. Aaron's earlier stunt with the legal database PACER was also completely legal, yet pissed off many in the US legal establishment.

Not all lawyers are created equal. O.J. Simpson could afford a team of star lawyers, one would have to be pretty naïve to think it didn't matter. One would have to be similarly naïve to think it didn't matter that Aaron was a prize target for a powerful Democratic party apparatchik.

Unfortunately for Aaron, he wasn't as rich as O.J. (It's well known he'd given away a lot of the money he made on the reddit sale to charity). He really wasn't prepared to fight on the terms of this corrupt system. Something the prosecutor exploited grossly in the plea bargain, of course - a great example of how plea bargains corrupt justice.

If he hadn't been a high-profile target of a high-ambition prosecutor eager to score political points, charges would have been dropped the moment JSTOR asked for it.

Re:You Disgust Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581357)

Well, eldavojohn, I think your assumptions on what were going on through Swatz mind is presumptuous and arrogant.

Indeed, the actions of MIT and the prosecution are being looked at, I guess that in your mind suicide is always due to the pathetic nature of cowards. In my mind there are several moments in life that take us to places where things that seem absolutely illogical, become logical, and quite often we are put in those places by the treatment of others. It's generally the more emotional of us that can be both at once brilliant, and terrible, something that an institution like MIT should understand quite intimately...

Re:You Disgust Me (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581359)

Overcharging is the issue. The DOJ has a habit of charging misdemeanors and felonies and low felonies and high felonies in order to try to get plea agreements. And US Attorneys have a habit of using high profile criminal cases to get publicity to run for office or to get appointed as a federal judge. The overcharging happened here. They charged Aaron Swartz with anything they could remotely stick to him and exaggerated his downloading of academic documents to look like a major cybercrime. There is nothing about this case that served justice. The only logical reason that this case was prosecuted with the ferocity and with the resources that were expended is that the US Attorney and Assistant US Attorneys involved wanted a trophy they could put on their wall.

Re:You Disgust Me (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581473)

The US Justice System is there to enforce the law.

Except when 'prosecutorial discretion' is employed in cases, e.g. that of David Gregory [blogspot.com] .
As you browse Overcriminalized [overcriminalized.com] , you may get the impression that the second best way to destroy a country, after debt, is regulation.

Re:You Disgust Me (5, Insightful)

pla (258480) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581539)

Let's assume Swartz was completely in the right on all of his actions. What, precisely, would you have MIT and the US Government do differently to prevent this suicide? What actions of theirs do you find culpable for forcing Aaron Swartz into no other choice than to take his own life?

Let's assume you didn't mean that as a troll.

For a nonviolent crime with no victims and no damages (sorry, but we really need to move beyond considering people torrenting movies as "lost customers" - And even JSTOR, for all their other evils, did the right thing here and decided not to pursue any civil penalties), what would you consider a proportional reaction by the relevant authorities?

Ideally, this should never have reached the police intervention level (never mind the feds) - The only "real" offense here involves misusing access to MIT's network. A purely internal student misconduct disciplinary board could best have handled the whole affair with a semester or two of probation.

Once it did go to the police level - Okay, he technically committed a crime. Guilty as charged. Which better serves society and justice - 30 years in prison (or a death sentence, as it turns out), or 100 hours of community service?

Everyone, at every level of escalation here, should have taken a step back and considered what really happened. A kid abused his uni's access to a subscrption service to download more than he should have. That is not a fucking capital offense.

Re:You Disgust Me (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581611)

A purely internal student misconduct disciplinary board

FFS, he was NOT a student. They had no purvue over him! The authorities were the only ones who did!!!

Re:You Disgust Me (5, Insightful)

anagama (611277) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581585)

The US Justice System is there to enforce the law.

No it isn't. Start with this: https://secure.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/20/myths-of-the-criminal-justice-system_n_879768.html [huffingtonpost.com]

And the problem is that it's becoming nearly impossible to know what the law actually is. The U.S. Constitution outlines just three federal crimes -- treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. Various projects have tried to count the number of federal criminal laws passed since, and many have simply given up. But by most estimates, there are at least 4,000 separate criminal laws at the federal level, with another 10,000 to 300,000 regulations that can be enforced criminally.

In his most recent book, the civil libertarian and defense attorney Harvey Silverglate argues that most Americans now unknowingly commit about three felonies per day.

link to the book referenced: Three Felonies a Day, how the Feds target the innocent: http://www.harveysilverglate.com/Books/ThreeFeloniesaDay.aspx [harveysilverglate.com]

The Federal criminal system is designed to give the Feds total power and control. A government can take such control in several ways. The transparent manner is for a government to just do what it wants without explanation. Such governments are rightly despised as despotic. The US Federal government has chosen a different method. It has made so many crimes of such a vague nature, that everyone commits them without even knowing it. As a result, the Feds have no difficulty figuring out how to persecute a person should they decide they don't like that person for one reason or another. They just shuffle the deck and "pick a crime, any crime."

Now, whether Swartz committed a crime or not is sort of beside the point. Even assuming that he did, how does a 35 year prison term fit into what he did? It doesn't. It lacks all proportionality. What this lack of proportionality does do howver, is give the Feds absolute despotic control over people's lives, a power which they can exercise at will, with total immunity, against any person they decide to hate.

And worse, despite its ruthless disproportionate persecution, a signficant portion of the population will respond like you by blaming Swartz for being a crook. Problem is, with so many laws on the books -- you too are a crook. You just don't know it and not knowing the law is not a defense (except for police and prosecutors). That's a nice catch 22. You can't use lack of knowledge to defend yourself, but the code is so vast, vague, and disorganized, you can't know the laws.

Re:Good for them (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581071)

"Our Crime Rate is dropping, so why are all these people in prison"?

Whoosh!

Re:Good for them (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581077)

Just to be clear, the 3% number includes Americans who are on parole or probation. It's about .8% in prison. Still very high.

Post-scarcity MIT? (0)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581319)

Here is essay I wrote four years ago about helping Princeton trancend to post-scarcity values: http://www.pdfernhout.net/reading-between-the-lines.html [pdfernhout.net]

From two of the beginning sections on it that relate to this issue:

One motivation for writing (or reading) this essay

I have written on these post-scarcity topics before. The biggest single motivation for the organization of this specific essay is the PAW article on "Jumping From the Ivory Tower".
        http://www.princeton.edu/paw/archive_new/PAW07-08/13-0514/features_phd.html [princeton.edu]

Is that title going to bring up echoes of this controversy?
        "Automaker agrees to changes after meeting with suicide prevention group that objected to spot showing fired robot jumping off bridge."
        http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/09/news/companies/gm_robotad/ [cnn.com]

        The robot is shown forced to take a number of menial jobs, including holding a speaker at a fast-food drive through and becoming upset enough [by repeated failure at them] to throw itself off a bridge.

(I won't link to the video, which contains a graphic image of leaping from a bridge.)

That PAW article title was selected only a little over a year after this statement by a recent Princeton University alumna on behalf of her family:
        "Cho family statement"
        http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/20/shooting.family.statement/index.html [cnn.com]

        On behalf of our family, we are so deeply sorry for the devastation my brother has caused. No words can express our sadness that 32 innocent people lost their lives this week in such a terrible, senseless tragedy. We are heartbroken. We grieve alongside the families, the Virginia Tech community, our State of Virginia, and the rest of the nation. And, the world. ... We are humbled by this darkness. We feel hopeless, helpless and lost. This is someone that I grew up with and loved. Now I feel like I didn't know this person. ... There is much justified anger and disbelief at what my brother did, and a lot of questions are left unanswered. Our family will continue to cooperate fully and do whatever we can to help authorities understand why these senseless acts happened. We have many unanswered questions as well.

With Princeton-praising articles titled "Jumping From the Ivory Tower", it seems like PAW is not helping answer these deep questions. If anything, PAW is helping bury them under inappropriate humor. This essay is not intended in any way to condone violence or the abdication of personal responsibility. But it is intended to help understand some of these issues of suicide and alienation in a university context, and to make suggestions for improvements to the social part of these issues. It even tries to use humor in relation to suicide and morbid themes a bit more appropriately (satirically about PU in this case, discussing options like its voluntary peaceful self-dissolution to help a billion poor children get an education, or its metaphorical death and rebirth as an agent of global economic transcendence to a post-scarcity society of abundance for all). It is always easier to destroy than to create, so this essay includes some specific suggestions for improving the situation at Princeton University, which is a mythologically troubled institution (even as it is filled with many wonderful and caring people).

Like how the Cho family describes Virginia Tech, PU also is filled with people with "so much love, talent and gifts to offer". Even the brother of Sun-Kyung Cho '04, Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech, might have been able to develop his capacities for love further in a different context, whether he ultimately committed suicide or not, and whether he ultimately took others with him or not. We can, and should, ask how we can create institutions that help everyone in them become healthier, more loving, more charitable, more hopeful, more caring (even as they may be dying or even if they are tragically taking others with them). The last word on almost all airplane crash cockpit voice recorders is the same -- "Shit!" -- usually after the pilots' calm struggle for minutes with a seemingly impossible situation like trying to get an airplane with a multiple failing engines over a mountain -- they don't give up even when the task seems impossible. But those are just the aircraft tragedies, the same training helps pilots fly millions of safe and comfortable air miles.

We should also ask how we can create institutions which even help everyone in them become even more faithful in the sense of believing at least in values like health, love, charity, hope, community, and caring. As I say later in this essay, it is part of the human condition to have faith in something (even if it is faith in faithlessness).

That kind of deep questioning might help avert some extreme incidents, or it might even perhaps help bring some little peace to the Cho family someday. But a more important reason to ask those hard questions is to make life day-to-day better for everyone. The most extreme incidents are a bit like strobe light pulses illuminating for an instant in stark relief what is going on all the time. Ultimately, as sad and tragic as extreme incidents are, people die all the time around universities for all sorts of reasons, usually accidents or addictions or health issues. Consider:
        "Top 20 Causes of Death - Young Adult (20 - 24)"
        http://www.statisticstop10.com/Causes_of_Death_College_Age_Adults.html [statisticstop10.com]
That table suggest the roadway system is the biggest single predator of young lives in the USA (about 5700 a year), although murder (about 3300 a year) and suicide (about 2500 a year) come next. I don't mean to deny or minimize the grief all involved at Virginia Tech feel on a personal basis, but as a percentage of annual deaths, 33 deaths is 0.17% of the annual number of around 19000 in that age range. So, that tragedy is illuminating, but these numbers show the folly of focusing too many resources on preventing that one type of very rare incident.

Roadways can be made safer by looking at the issues surrounding automotive tragedies, including the rare multiple fatality incidents on the roadway, even if that does not help any with a tragedy that happened. With many accidents in cars correlated with a driver getting behind the wheel upset (or getting that way afterwards), even on the roadway helping with emotional issues make a difference (or coming up with ways emotional issue don't effect driving safety).
        "Anger on the road"
        http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun05/anger.html [apa.org]
        "Study finds emotional upset linked to accidents"
        http://ink.news.com.au/mercury/mathguys/articles/1999/990215a1.htm [news.com.au]
In that sense, a pleasant drive is a safer drive. But more than that, when you really look deeper at the whole notion of transportation you might think of things like self-driving cars as at PU or other rapid transit concepts as elsewhere including automated deliveries. Just think, for example, of all the lives Amazon.com is saving on the roads from trips not made to the local store. Ideas may appear that make life *better* for everybody (even those who don't drive), not just safer for a few who might otherwise be involved in automotive tragedies relative to some number of millions of miles driven.
        "Accidental Deaths - United States - 1999-2003 -- [Motor Vehicle -- 1.3 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles]"
        http://hazmat.dot.gov/riskmgmt/riskcompare.htm [dot.gov]

I'd suggest the same may happen if we look deeply and creatively and life-affirmingly at issues affecting murder and suicide at universities and take helpful action on the findings -- that life might get better for *everyone* on and around campus. This essay does not in any way explore the specifics of the Virginia Tech incident. But, that incident did in a sense illuminate for an instant the landscape this essay explores, and an awareness of that tragedy was an aspect of my motivation to write this essay in relation to the PAW article.

This essay mainly uses the illumination from some tragedies I saw myself related to PU (although there are other tragedies in here too). But to counterbalance those tragedies, I also point out specific examples of caring people at PU, as well as try to add in a bit of humor (so think of this is a bit of a tragicomedy). This essay is sad at times and hopeful at times -- like my own personality. :-) And oftentimes, this essay tries to be both sad and hopeful at the same time. That's part of humor sometimes too.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Is_Beautiful [wikipedia.org]

        Life Is Beautiful (Italian: La vita bella) is a 1997 Italian language film which tells the story of a Jewish Italian, Guido Orefice (played by Roberto Benigni, who also directed and co-wrote the film), who must learn how to use his fertile imagination to help his son survive their internment in a Nazi concentration camp.

By the way, for anyone reading this who is feeling suicidal, or who even just has a friend or loved one who might be, one resource is:
        "If you are suicidal, read this first"
        http://www.metanoia.org/suicide/ [metanoia.org]

        You can survive suicidal feelings if you do either of two things: (1) find a way to reduce your pain, or (2) find a way to increase your coping resources. Both are possible.

That web page also includes free hotline numbers, other suggestions, and some links. Or this general Google search would lead you to many others, just to show all the good people out there willing to help:
        "Results 1 - 10 of about 1,810,000 for suicide prevention. (0.10 seconds)"
        http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=suicide+prevention&btnG=Search [google.com]

And for anyone feeling homicidal or war-like in regards to others, or if you know someone who might be, this book is a good resource for alternatives to killing anyone:
        "Creating True Peace : Ending Violence in Yourself, Your Family, Your Community, and the World" by Thich Nhat Hanh
        http://www.amazon.com/Creating-True-Peace-Violence-Community/dp/0743245199 [amazon.com]

        Sometime, people who cannot find any way to resolve a problem with someone else are tempted to eliminate the problem by eliminating the other person. They wish the other person would just go away, die, or disappear. That desire may be strong enough to lead them to kill. Killing another person is not an act of freedom but an act of despair and great ignorance; it will not bring freedom or peace. (page 92)

        Our enemy is never another person; our enemy is the wrong perceptions and suffering within him, within her [or sometime even within ourselves about them]. When a doctor sees a person who is suffering, he [or she] tries to identify the sickness within the patient to remove it. He [or she] does not try to kill his patient. The role of the doctor is not to kill people but to cure the illness within them. It is the same with a person who had suffered so much and who has been making you suffer -- the solution is not to kill him [or her] but to try to relieve him [or her] of his [or her] suffering. This is the guidance of our spiritual teachers. It is the practice of understanding and love. In order to truly love, we must first understand. (pages 89-90)

        All of us can practice nonviolence. We begin by recognizing that, in the depths of our consciousness, we have both the seeds of compassion and the seeds of violence. We become aware that our mind is like a garden that contains all kinds of seeds: seeds of understanding, seeds of forgiveness, seeds of mindfulness, and also seeds of ignorance, fear, and hatred. We realize that, at any given moment, we can behave with either violence or compassion, depending o the strength of those seeds within us. When the seeds of anger, violence, and fear are watered in us several times a day, they will grow stronger. Then we are unable to be happy, unable to accept ourselves; we suffer and we make those around us suffer. Yet when we know how to cultivate the seeds of love, compassion, and understanding in us everyday, those seeds will become stronger, and the seeds of violence and hatred will become weaker and weaker. We know that if we water the seeds of anger, violence, and fear within us, we will lose our peace and our stability. We will suffer and we will make those around us suffer. But if we cultivate the seeds of compassion, we nourish peace within us and around us. With this understanding, we are already on the path of creating peace. (Pages 1-2)

And for those who are parents and trying to find ideas to apply in your home to raise peaceful and happy children, perhaps the single most illuminating thing I have learned about peaceful parenting is the difference between "authoritarian", "authoritative", "permissive", and "neglectful" parenting behaviors:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenting_styles [wikipedia.org]
All parents are each of these four types at times, but what matters is the relative proportions in relation to the situation and the child's own growth. And matches of personality between parents and child also a big issue, with each parent personality and child personality matchup having its own unique issues as parents try to build on their strengths and accommodate their weaknesses:
        http://www.motherstyles.com/ [motherstyles.com]
And, as with a critical reviewer of Thich Nhat Hanh (mentioned below) who says Thich Nhat Hanh overstates his case, it is the tension between these first three which can make it hard to find a path of peace in Western society. It doesn't help that US society (including the workplace) generally is often both parent-unfriendly and child-unfriendly. This isn't meant to blame anyone, just to illuminate the landscape of how peaceful families grow.
        "Mister Rogers' How Families Grow"
        http://www.fci.org/viewproduct.asp?ID=%7B01AF13CB-D655-4832-A2E9-CCA6A75EFE7D%7D [fci.org]
There are other specific cultural problems in the USA right now, including praising absolute qualities ("you are smart") or accomplishments ("good job") instead of perhaps sometimes effort ("you must have tried hard"), progress ("you are getting smarter everyday") or specific aspects of results ("giving that present must have made that person feel happy"); see in general:
        "Five Reasons to Stop Saying "Good Job!""
        http://www.alfiekohn.org/parenting/gj.htm [alfiekohn.org]
It can also be harmful to label kids, even with positive labels like "creative", instead of approaching them as whole people who are continually growing and changing, in part by their own efforts. Another difficulty is isolated Western nuclear families without as many ties to relatives in different situations and of different ages to learn from or seek refuge in. General knowledge is obviously no substitute for practice; where do children and would-be parents get a chance to practice parenting skills in our society before they need them? These issues are all interwoven into later life happiness for children. It is not fair to pick out one and blame one person or one aspect of a culture for a tragedy. They are all interwoven (including personal choices).

One of my favorite cartoon images is of someone who slipped over a cliff, and who is holding on to a breaking branch above certain doom, an yet the person gazes in awe at a beautiful flower growing on the side of the cliff. We all die, what matters is how we live until then, including how we help others live until then.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa [wikipedia.org]
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Lecture [wikipedia.org]
        http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0212302/september11heroes.html [thinkquest.org]
        "Translators dying by the dozens in Iraq"
        http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-05-21-translator-deaths_x.htm [usatoday.com]
And we all make mistakes, sometime ones that hurt others.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_famine_of_1944 [wikipedia.org]
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster [wikipedia.org]
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_sanctions_against_Iraq [wikipedia.org]
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks [wikipedia.org]
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War [wikipedia.org]
But it is in the reflection on and admitting of mistakes, and resolving to do better, that the deeper healing begins.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commission_(South_Africa) [wikipedia.org]

Psychologists are beginning to realize the study of psychological pathology can only get you so far. Probably the same is true for the study of ethical pathology. Ultimately, it may be a better idea to build on strengths rather that try to remedy weaknesses. From:
        "Building human strength: psychology's forgotten mission" by Martin E.P. Seligman, APA President
        http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan98/pres.html [apa.org]

        We have discovered that there is a set of human strengths that are the most likely buffers against mental illness: courage, optimism, interpersonal skill, work ethic, hope, [humor, :-)] honesty and perseverance. Much of the task of prevention will be to create a science of human strength whose mission will be to foster these virtues in young people. Fifty years of working in a medical model on personal weakness and on the damaged brain has left the mental health professions ill-equipped to do effective prevention. We need massive research on human strength and virtue. We need practitioners to recognize that much of the best work they do is amplifying the strengths rather than repairing their patients' weaknesses. We need psychologists who work with families, schools, religious communities and corporations to emphasize their primary role of fostering strength.

I now see "Positive Psychology" was probably something I unconsciously hoped to find in the PU Psychology department a quarter century ago, but sadly I did not find much of it at an academic level (though there was some at a personal level, thankfully). So, while this essay does consider tragedies at PU, it does, following positive psychology, suggest some ways PU could build on some of its strengths both in engineering & science and in the liberal arts.

------

On "quality" in a university setting, and a sketchy map of the landscape of this essay

That robot in the controversial car company commercial was supposedly suicidal because "everyone at [a Big Car Company is] obsessed with quality". Sound like any university we know? What does "quality" mean anyway? How many dimensions does "quality" have? Let's try to go beyond an abstraction like Pirsig's metaphysics of quality:
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirsig's_metaphysics_of_quality [wikipedia.org]
and, as it were, "name names".

Consider these aspects of a high-quality life (and so presumably also life with the least unnecessary pain and the most coping resources, granting that some pain in life is a given or even necessary for health or growth):
* joy,
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness [wikipedia.org]
        http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_joy.html [wisdomquotes.com]
* balance,
        http://www.amazon.com/Question-Balance-Artists-Writers-Motherhood/dp/091894953X [amazon.com]
        http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/backissues/3/barbour3art.htm [depauw.edu]
        http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/ALAN/spring96/griffin.html [vt.edu]
* community
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_of_community [wikipedia.org]
* connectedness,
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy [wikipedia.org]
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapport [wikipedia.org]
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_animal [wikipedia.org]
* rootedness,
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_of_place [wikipedia.org]
        http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rootedness [google.com]
* gentleness,
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentleness [wikipedia.org]
        http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=gentleness [google.com]
* collaborativeness,
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboration [wikipedia.org]
* friendliness,
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendship [wikipedia.org]
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_artificial_intelligence [wikipedia.org]
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindness [wikipedia.org]
* peace,
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace [wikipedia.org]
        http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2002/june/060902c.html [dartmouth.edu]
* family,
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family [wikipedia.org]
* love,
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love [wikipedia.org]
* freedom,
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom [wikipedia.org]
* humor,
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humor [wikipedia.org]
        http://www.humorproject.com/doses/default.php?number=1 [humorproject.com]
* community and humor integrated into all aspects of healing and wellness,
        http://www.patchadams.org/campaign/hospital-paper [patchadams.org]
* wellness and healing integrated into all aspects of a community, and
        http://www.patchadams.org/campaign/hospital-paper [patchadams.org] :-)
* the fact that people can like you exactly the way you are (Mr. Fred Rogers),
            http://pbskids.org/rogers/songlist/ [pbskids.org]
            http://www.fci.org/ [fci.org]
        at least, if you are not too much of a mean jerk: :-(
            "Blame It on Mr. Rogers: Why Young Adults Feel So Entitled" :-)
            http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118358476840657463.html [wsj.com]

Are these all aspects of a quality experience at PU too? How much "quality" is in the PU experience by these various measures (both undergrad and grad)? And if we expect there to be an abundance of stuff to go around in the "future", why would we want to sacrifice any of these core humane values in the "now"?

Let's consider some specific tough questions about Princeton related to "quality" in the "now".
* Do, say, most people who start PU PhD programs usually get professorships?
* Does the typical person with, say, a degree in linguistics get to later do research on, say, the history of words after graduation?
* Do alumni who, say, endow professorships have long and joyful lives?
* Are donations doing unique good?
* Is there room for everyone, young and old, to give what they can to the local community and the global world?
* Are ethics integrated into science and engineering?
* Are the non-university surroundings strengthened in diversity and community by the university's presence?
* Are the students socializing Friday and Saturday nights in joyful settings promoting wellness and balance?
* Are PU assets producing the highest return in terms of people well educated globally?
Princeton is a complex institution, so there can be no definitive or easy answers to each of these questions. Still, this essay suggests that, more often than it should be, the answer to all of them is "No". So, I suggest, not only is Princeton conflicted about the "future", it even misses the "now". Which means it is time for serious change in how it sees itself.

Maybe, frankly, that's why "jumping from the Ivory Tower" is a little too realistic a problem for most PhD-granting academic communities. Or, as Leslie Farber suggests (below), why a life spent around PU might too often be spent just *thinking* about jumping from the Ivory Tower, either career-wise or really from Fine Tower? Why might that be? And might it get worse before it gets better unless strong action is taken?

There is also a mention in that PAW article of the term "post-academic". Maybe "post-academic" is not what the PU community should be talking about. Maybe a better thing to talk about is "post-scarcity"?

This essay (more like a short book by now) is written towards addressing both the issue of PU and "quality" (as it relates to "jumping from the ivory tower" in multiple senses) and also the issue of PU and "post-scarcity". These two issues are intertwined as well, for reasons this essay explores. And don't worry PU, this will be a narrative evaluation -- no letter grades here. Make of this what you will.

This essay is not a scholarly work. It is more a humorous (somewhat satirical) travelogue of a romp through a newly discovered island of ideas (myths, really) to which this issue of PAW has provided transportation, like the ship that brought the Swiss Family Robinson to their island. :-) Now that the essay is done, it seems more obvious how it could be structured to be clearer. I'll outline a map of that island of ideas for future explorers, but this essay remains as it is, and it will be up to real scholars to make better maps than I.

So, after the fact, I can now see how this essay would be better and shorter if I had just made a long list of myths many Princetonians live by, and then went through them one by one, to see just how true they are now including how much they are self-fulfilling prophecies, and then venture a guess how true the myths might be in a post-scarcity future or what might replace them. Some of the myths to explore might include:
* the value of competition vs. cooperation
* the value of individual success vs. collective success
* the value of excellence vs. joy
* the value of perfection vs. effectiveness
* the value of the market vs. a gift economy
* the value of materialism vs. voluntary simplicity and spirituality
* the value of reputation vs. playing the fool
* the value of self-censorship vs. free expression and personal growth through feedback
* the value of artificial scarcity vs. universal abundance
* science as truth vs. science as a faith
* external incentives vs. intrinsic motivation
* high anxiety vs. appropriate anxiety
* numerical grades vs. complex narratives
* technology as value-neutral vs. technology as embodying our values through what we build and research
* non-profit private rights vs. non-profit public responsibilities
* institutions as shadows of individuals vs. institutions as emergent beings
* the meaning in movement and ideas vs. the meaning in place or community
* knowing, dominating, and appreciating vs. caring for and being cared for
* classical views of academic intelligence vs. the value in a diversity of intelligences
And so on. Maybe these myths might be carefully captured in the wild from years of PAW or commencement speeches. :-) This essay does address a lot of these myths, just not in a coherent scholarly way. And I don't want to imply that these "vs." statements are mutually exclusive. One may well need some balance of, say, excellence and joy to have a happy and healthy life. Or even lots of both. :-)

I forget who said this: "Sometimes you need to go a long way out of your way to go a few steps correctly". Pogo?
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_(comics) [wikipedia.org]
Probably something I read in my class yearbook over two decades ago. Anyway, this essay is all those wrong steps. :-) But this work is freely licensed (see the end) so feel free to use it to help go a few steps correctly. :-) If I were to write it over, I'd try to be more upbeat about how PU was making steady progress towards a better future (from where it and our society was coming from). I hope someone can do that, and perhaps just show this essay is perhaps a dark shadow from the past.

The end result will be the diagnosis of mythological "heart disease" for the PU community, of which PAW articles like "Jumping from the Ivory Tower" are just a symptom (just like our current president in the USA is more a symptom of something wrong at the heart of the USA than the problem itself, given he could otherwise be easily impeached). If you ask any doctor about, say, heart disease, they would give you this typical advice (and I add what is in parentheses for keeping your mythological heart healthy, too :-):
        http://mayoclinic.com/health/heart-disease-prevention/WO00041 [mayoclinic.com]
        http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-rda-for-vitamin-d.html [blogspot.com]
* give up smoking (and competition),
* exercise regularly (especially your compassion, which studies show increases with practice),
* eat a healthy diet (and do good works and do joyful things),
* get the right amount of vitamin D from sunshine and supplements (and connect to the world around you in a balanced way),
* lose weight if you are physically obese (or give away money if you are financially obese), and
* have regular interactions with your health provider (and supportive community).

This essay goes into how to translate the parenthetical advice to a Princeton University context. :-) I also include a "Modest Proposal" for transforming PU into a post-scarcity organization, as well as a more realistic one, as as *starting* point for discussing these issues. It also seems to have turned into a bit of a memoir. :-)

As an incentive to perhaps get a few people in the current PU administration to skim this essay, I'll point out that this satire also has a section entitled: "The Abolition of the Princeton University Band". Or in other words, be careful what you wish for, you may get it. :-)

It has been pointed out to me since first writing this that the PU Band has curbed its excesses since I knew it in the 1980s, and, despite still having a fundamentally subversive voluntary and egalitarian nature, the Band has come to live more symbiotically with a compulsory and stratified university system and so is now flying under the University's radar so to speak:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_stratification [wikipedia.org]

So, to further tempt PU administrators to read this essay, I'll mention a few more issues it "resolves" for the university: :-)
* sustainability and greening,
* traffic and parking,
* the Robertson lawsuit ( http://www.princeton.edu/robertson/ [princeton.edu] ),
* Congress' interest in mandating spending down the endowment,
* the changing landscape for financial aid, and
* the university's relationship with the eating clubs.

Well, this essay doesn't actually address the last very well, but some conflicts require more poetry than prose to resolve (like in the movie the Yellow Submarine where Jeremy gives the chief Blue Meanie a rash of roses and a song in his/her/its heart via poetry), so maybe some of these people might be able to help more with the low intensity social conflict between the University and the eating clubs?
        http://www.poetsagainstthewar.org/ [poetsagainstthewar.org]

As one alumnus put it, this long essay is "Shakespearean". Thanks, Harold, I'll try not to let that go to my head. :-) And for the record, consider this essay as a vocal accompaniment arising to greet Harold's steady drumbeat of posting alternative views on TigerNet (PU's alumni mailing lists). You are an inspiration, Harold. Thank you for your persistence in the face of adversity. If this essay is of any value in the end to PU, also thank Harold "Happy Tiger" Helm '68 for his long lasting dedication to the higher ideals of the liberal arts. :-)

Or building on Harold's "Shakespearean" idea, this essay should perhaps instead start with:

        To be, or not to be: that is the question:
        Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
        The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
        Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
        And by opposing end them?

Although, for the purposes of this essay, you can take "fortune" to be the WordNet sense of "abundance", thus increasing the *irony* of that quote as it applies in a PU context. :-) Yes, I am suggesting Princeton University's deepest trouble is the coming world of "fortune" for all. :-) And PU can take up arms against that fortune for all, or PU can accept these metaphorical slings and arrows, be thankful for them, and change its mythology to help bring good fortune to an inclusive world.

Re:Post-scarcity MIT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581589)

tl;dr

Re:Good for them (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581509)

However it's sad that it took a suicide for them to examine their role here.

"Examine their role" indeed.

They're trying to establish that they are not liable. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology was a bully, pure and simple, as was the prosecutor.

Now, we see all the ass-covering. Well, fuck you, MIT. It's too late.

good (1)

joseph90 (193138) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580873)

MIT has a duty of care for its students. Unlike most other colleges MIT is large enough that it can withstand pressure from external agencies who do not have the students interests at heart. Hopefully they will learn from this and make the results public.

J.

Re:good (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42580899)

Swartz was not one of their students. He broke in to MIT wearing a disguise, then broke into a locked networking cabinet.

Re:good (3, Insightful)

DigitalSorceress (156609) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580975)

So, he followed along in the tradition of TMRC / the original MIT computer hackers?

I like this Swartz guy more and more!

Re:good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581079)

Except for having the fiber to stand behind his actions, I guess.

Wrong. "Truth About Aaron Swartz "crime"" (5, Informative)

leftie (667677) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581049)

"-Aaron did not “hack” the JSTOR website for all reasonable definitions of “hack”. Aaron wrote a handful of basic python scripts that first discovered the URLs of journal articles and then used curl to request them. Aaron did not use parameter tampering, break a CAPTCHA, or do anything more complicated than call a basic command line tool that downloads a file in the same manner as right-clicking and choosing “Save As” from your favorite browser.
-Aaron did nothing to cover his tracks or hide his activity, as evidenced by his very verbose .bash_history, his uncleared browser history and lack of any encryption of the laptop he used to download these files. Changing one’s MAC address (which the government inaccurately identified as equivalent to a car’s VIN number) or putting a mailinator email address into a captured portal are not crimes. If they were, you could arrest half of the people who have ever used airport wifi.
-The government provided no evidence that these downloads caused a negative effect on JSTOR or MIT, except due to silly overreactions such as turning off all of MIT’s JSTOR access due to downloads from a pretty easily identified user agent.
-I cannot speak as to the criminal implications of accessing an unlocked closet on an open campus, one which was also used to store personal effects by a homeless man. I would note that trespassing charges were dropped against Aaron and were not part of the Federal case.

http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartzs-crime/ [unhandled.com]

Something is not nothing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581649)

...
-Aaron did nothing to cover his tracks or hide his activity... Changing one’s MAC address (which the government inaccurately identified as equivalent to a car’s VIN number) or putting a mailinator email address into a captured portal are not crimes.

You make one assertion and then support it with a different assertion. While changing a MAC address and putting a mailinator email address into a captured portal are, as you say, not crimes, they are a form of covering his tracks. So you can't say that Aaron did nothing to cover his tracks.

You could assert, if you like, "Aaron took only minimal actions to cover his tracks".

RE: Unusual (5, Insightful)

Archon-X (264195) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580879)

What I have found the most unusual about this situation is the outright-condemnation of techniques such as changing a MAC address, writing scripts, etc.

As anyone with a vague notion of computing can attest to, these are simply 'problem-solving techniques' - and are incredibly far removed from the judge's analogy of "a digital crowbar".

The closest 'real' analogy that I can come up with is someone sneaking into the library to photocopy journals - and when known to the doorman, putting on a hat or a fake moustache.

One can't help but question why the government had such a hardon for the case, considering JSTOR dropped all charges, and MIT didn't really care.

Re: Unusual (3, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580905)

A crowbar is also a problem solving technique. All sort of times two items are attached too firmly and you need to apply more leverage. A lot of the time this is perfectly legal - stuck doors, opening wooden crates and so on. This is a pretty good analogy for a script.

Re: Unusual (5, Insightful)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580941)

And when it is not legal and you use a crowbar you get up to 30 days of prison in the worst case scenario for trespassing, but when you do it electronically it magically becomes 35 years.

Re: Unusual (5, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581007)

Perhaps, but the problem here seems to be the plea bargaining system rather than the actual law.

In the case of a crowbar it wouldn't take too imaginative a prosecutor to come up with an argument for attempted burglary and to consider the crowbar as a weapon.

Re: Unusual (4, Interesting)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581043)

The plea bargain system only works as it does because the law is draconian enough to allow for decades of punishment as punishment for small crimes. If not for that people wouldn't be forced to take plea bargains regardless of their culpability to avoid the possibility of ridiculous punishments.

Re: Unusual (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581325)

LOL, what world do you live in where you get 30 days for breaking and entering?

Re: Unusual (2)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581375)

That is the maximum punishment for trespassing. Arguably they can charge you with damage to property if you destroy a lock too, although that wouldn't be a good analogy here, as Swartz never destroyed anything in his trespassing.

Re: Unusual (0)

logjon (1411219) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581535)

If you have to use a crowbar in the course of trespassing, that usually turns it into breaking and entering.

Re: Unusual (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42580937)

Because he pissed them off by taking some of their PACER money.

They couldn't nail him for that, so they waited and watched until they had something else.

Standard operating procedure. Surprised they didn't just "find" some illegal pornography or something similar, actually; tends to reduce questions asked by the public.

Money? Really? (3, Informative)

Ifthir (1446587) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580967)

MITIMCo is a division of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, created to manage and oversee the investment of the Institute's endowment, retirement and operating funds. As of June 30, 2012, MITIMCo had more than $15 billion of total assets under management. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/institute-endowment-figures-0914.html [mit.edu]

Re:Money? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581709)

So ripping off wealthy people is ok now?

Re: Unusual (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581089)

Modded Flamebait because Stupid Fucking Moron wasn't available.

Re: Unusual (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581599)

One can't help but question why the government had such a hardon for the case, considering JSTOR dropped all charges, and MIT didn't really care.

Please . . . SOPA!

"Justice system" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42580883)

"Injustice system" more like it amirite?

We'll revenge you Aaron.

Hypothesis (4, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580891)

Let's see if the final report:

Clears MIT of any real responsibility.
Talks about the need to listen more to issues that affect its community.
Talks about he need for MIT as an institution to take an active role in trying to educate authorities on technical issues.
Advocates for handling more issues internally but always cooperating with the authorities.

I'd hope the report won't look like the bound edition of this 15-second CYA.

How would MIT be responsible here? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42580951)

Based on what I've read and heard so far about this matter, I fail to see how MIT should be responsible for something that Swartz did to himself, in his own apartment.

In fact, it sounds like MIT is very much a victim of this whole ordeal, too, and were dragged into it solely by the actions of Swartz that happened on their property.

Re:How would MIT be responsible here? (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581017)

MIT were more dragged into it by the Feds. MIT had no desire to pursue legal action against Swartz. The Feds pushed this matter, one might infer, because they had an axe to grind with him.

Re:How would MIT be responsible here? (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581719)

And MIT didn't say no. Thus they're culpable.

see what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581581)

What makes you think the results will be published?

"I will share the report with the MIT community when I receive it."

The 'community' he was refering to was probably just the upper echelon of MIT.

it's the copyright law they should investigate (5, Insightful)

darkeye (199616) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580921)

it's not how MIT acted, but the copyright law, that's what they should investigate. like how come someone can be threatened with 35 years in prison and a $1m fine for making state-funded research papers accessible to people at large?

for killing a person, you only get 4 years.

yeah, for killing Micheal Jackson, you get less than for distributing one song of his 'illegaly'

this has to stop.

Re:it's the copyright law they should investigate (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581009)

it's not how MIT acted, but the copyright law, that's what they should investigate. like how come someone can be threatened with 35 years in prison and a $1m fine for making state-funded research papers accessible to people at large?

for killing a person, you only get 4 years.

yeah, for killing Micheal Jackson, you get less than for distributing one song of his 'illegaly'

this has to stop.

Indeed it has to top! The illegal copying of songs and movies are costing Hollywood billions of dollars every year.
The penalties for illegally copying songs must be made stronger, in order to deter copying.
Death penalty for anyone copying Michael Jackson songs!

Re:it's the copyright law they should investigate (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581399)

He wasn't charged with breaking Copyright law, rather he was charged with wire fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, recklessly damaging a protected computer, and aiding and abetting.

If convicted on all charges and the judge chooses the maximum sentence and chooses to have all sentences run consecutively then yes it would be 35 years. However, both the federal sentencing guidelines and common sense indicate that someone like Swartz with no criminal record and relatively benign offenses would not receive anything close to that.

According to insiders he was being offered a plea bargain which would probably be 6-24 months in jail but it was the felony conviction that would end up on Swartz record that scared him the most. No more having everything handed to him on a silver platter.

Re:it's the copyright law they should investigate (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581741)

And anyone with common sense would also realize that this was a very political act on both Swartz & the prosecutors' parts.

Thus the sentence is very likely to be much higher than the run of the mill first time convict.

Re:it's the copyright law they should investigate (3, Insightful)

anagama (611277) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581765)

Do you see what happened here? Charge with 35 years offer 6-24 mos. In the context of the trial, sounds like a great deal. In the context of reality --- WTF? Two years in prison for what?

Americans are becoming enslaved -- quite literally -- to the special interest groups that can afford to buy legislation. Welcome to fascism -- government for the benefit of the mega-corporation.

Zero Responsibility (-1, Flamebait)

Q-Hack! (37846) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580925)

I won't make the same claim for children, but when an adult commits suicide, the only one responsible, is that individual. I don't care how much somebody verbally abuses you, the only person who can be blamed, if you commit suicide, is you. That doesn't mean that other people are not jerks, but you can not blame them for somebody else's decision to take their own life. Along those same lines, this idea that people should be able to spot the warning signs is also asinine. Unless they actually tell you that they are going to end their life, you probably won't recognized the difference between somebody planning to take their own life to one who is just introverted. In this case, MIT can look at their internal policies to appease the touchy feely types, but there is no reason they should have to do so.

The only people I will feel sorry for are the close friends and family who cared about Aaron Swartz.

Re:Zero Responsibility (to other human beings) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42580979)

And so, in summary, Internet Tough Guy Q-Hack! has just illustrated the root cause of our nation's problem with untreated mental illness turning into violence and death.

Re:Zero Responsibility (to other human beings) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581115)

You have to recognize it first, and have trained professionals second, to be able to treat it. And for that you need a solid infrastructure. Mental health isn't profitable for insurance agencies, which means, said infrastructure, is minimal at best.

Re:Zero Responsibility (to other human beings) (2)

Q-Hack! (37846) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581237)

Tough guy? No, but old enough to have known a few people who committed suicide. People like to blame others as a means of coping. That is human nature. Emotion causes people to act in strange ways. Unfortunately, we now have a society that can't deal with death without blaming somebody or something. For example, take the recent school shootings in Connecticut. While we do give casual blame to Adam Lanza, society can't hold him accountable since he took his own life. So instead we blame the guns. In this case society can't hold Aaron Swartz to blame, so we blame MIT. BAH!

You alluded to untreated mental illness, and I agree that more can be done in this arena. But we need to stop blaming others for somebodies decision to commit suicide.

Re:Zero Responsibility (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581003)

What you have to understand is that majority of people posting on this site are anti-copyright zealots, because to them digital stuff should all be free as in beer. Music, movies, games, code, lecture videos, journal articles, whatever. (Ironically, all the stuff which the USA happens to be good at vis-a-vis China and other countries, but that is no matter). So they're going to blame Swartz's death on those who enforced copyright.

Re:Zero Responsibility (4, Insightful)

roccomaglio (520780) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581179)

What you have to understand is that majority of people posting on this site are anti-copyright zealots, because to them digital stuff should all be free as in beer. Music, movies, games, code, lecture videos, journal articles, whatever. (Ironically, all the stuff which the USA happens to be good at vis-a-vis China and other countries, but that is no matter). So they're going to blame Swartz's death on those who enforced copyright.

The articles were from publicly funded research. We the people already paid for the research once, why should the results not be free to us? If the public is going to fund the research the results should be made freely available to them.

Re:Zero Responsibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581595)

Why do you hate puppies?

Re:Zero Responsibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581501)

Wrong. And BTW, the USA is good at nothing. It is a country of immigrants, so basically the only thing it's good at is taking the trillions of dollars of free labor it got from niggers over 200+ years of institutional slavery and using it to attract intelligent people from around the world, depriving those countries of much needed intellectual capital to develop their own economies.

Re:Zero Responsibility (5, Insightful)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581107)

I really don't think it is so clear cut. If you bully someone into a corner, with 30 years of imprisonment, which is effectively a life sentence (the guy wouldn't be out until 56), then from a certain perspective committing suicide doesn't seem such like a bad alternative.

I would love to see the prosecutors to be disbard for inappropriate behavior that turned what was otherwise a minor of offence into something that was treated as was worse than murder. I would love to have the prosecutors and judge interviewed to understand why they had such a large axe to grind.

Justice should be about fair and appropriate punishment and not something used to make prosecutors feel like rock stars.

Re:Zero Responsibility (0)

anagama (611277) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581203)

Interesting. Perhaps a bar complaint is in order. I don't think it would realistically result in any consequences -- the Feds are just untouchable -- but maybe it would be a hassle for Ortiz. Anything to make her life difficult would be worth it.

http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/complaint.htm [mass.gov]

Re:Zero Responsibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581637)

I'd almost like to see a "We The People" petition for this.

Re:Zero Responsibility (0)

zwei2stein (782480) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581309)

By commiting suicide, he chose to punish his family and friends instead of him.

That is terrible, monstrous and unredeemable alternative.

His choice of actions all the way from begining. Goverment court documents? Of course he was going to be showtrialed and handled as harshly as possible.

Re:Zero Responsibility (2)

Vintermann (400722) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581515)

I would love to see the prosecutors to be disbard for inappropriate behavior that turned what was otherwise a minor of offence into something that was treated as was worse than murder. I would love to have the prosecutors and judge interviewed to understand why they had such a large axe to grind.

In the current political climate, that isn't going to happen. They couldn't explain it coherently either. In a politicized judicial system, you do what you think the political authorities will approve of as a matter of course, to advance your career. It's not the first time for Carmen Ortiz [wikipedia.org] , and she's already being suggested as a candidate for the senate or a governorship.

Re:Zero Responsibility (2)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581181)

I won't make the same claim for children, but when an adult commits suicide, the only one responsible, is that individual. I don't care how much somebody verbally abuses you, the only person who can be blamed, if you commit suicide, is you. That doesn't mean that other people are not jerks, but you can not blame them for somebody else's decision to take their own life.

Most suicides are the result of a mental problem, because situations where a suicide would be a sane and rational decision would be very rare. Mental problems _can_ be created or made worse by other people's actions, for example depression.

I suggest people should take responsibility for their actions (that's what Americans always say), and if someone kills themselves because of the shit some jerk told them, then that jerk should take responsibility for his actions.

Re:Zero Responsibility (2)

Bigbutt (65939) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581527)

In hearing all the horror stories about prison life, I imagine "not taking me alive" might be the best solution when looking at 35 years.

[John]

Re:Zero Responsibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581411)

I'm glad you live in a world where everyone's mental health is sorely reliant on themselves and no one else has a single bit of influence. If someone is in an abusive relationship and is violently raped, beaten and tortured in every imaginable way every day of their life to them it may seem the only option to escape is suicide. Would you consider the victim of this abuse to be entirely at fault and with no possible influence from any one around them?

Suicide is a horrible thing, but people are suicidal for many different things and we as a society should protect and support these people to prevent them making this choice. That doesn't mean we aren't responsible for the monsters we make and the lack of mental health care and compassion in modern life is making monsters for sure.

Re:Zero Responsibility (2)

Vintermann (400722) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581439)

Fine, we won't hold the prosecutor responsible for killing Aaron. However, she did want to lock him up in a violent prison for some 30 years for taking something the offended party (JSTOR) had decided not to care about.That's really not much better.

And for what? Unless she supplies something that can explain the extreme overreaction better, I will assume it was to curry favor in the US political system, in particular the Democratic party. It's not as if we haven't seen such behavior before, in the US and other countries.

MIT is doing it wrong (1)

wompa (656355) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580939)

The time to reflect on their actions was before their actions contributed to the "death of this promising young man". Now they're just trying to save face.

Re:MIT is doing it wrong (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581213)

No, they're just double checking whether there were any mistakes. MIT did *nothing wrong*. This idiot *insisted* on trying to steal millions of dollars of material, involving the free republication of millions of man-hours of research that get only limited funding and rely on these sorts of copyrighted publications for some of that limited funding.

He was screwing with thesis writing and core research, abusing the credentials of Harvard to sneak onto the MIT campus, and he *kept insisting on doing it!!!*. MIT kept doing as little blocking as feasible to protect their access to critical research material, and he kept insisting on abusing that resource. If there's any failure, it's on *Harvard* for giving this idiot credentials. MIT was tolerant and patient in the extreme: the police only caught him when he was *breaking into the wiring closet* to re-establish his illegal access to that resource with his illegally connected laptop.

I'm sorry for his family that he chickened out and committed suicide, but MIT has no guilt here. This was too big to whitewash: they did everything they could to give him chances to stop his abuses. They didn't help stop him because he was stealing, they helped stop him because he was *sucking up all the bandwidth* and overwhelming the resource. This isn't like stealing some dry ice, this is like staling *all* the dry ice and making experiments fail because they can't preserve tissue samples.

The man deserves no sympathy. His family and friends may deserve some, but only because he was too cowardly to face the charges for his actions.

Re:MIT is doing it wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581687)

This idiot *insisted* on trying to steal millions of dollars of material

He "stole" millions of dollars of material that the public has already paid for, you insufferable cunt.

Prosecutors (5, Insightful)

qbast (1265706) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580971)

I would rather see internal investigation in prosecutor's office. Or if they are unwilling, external one.

Oh, this is an easy one. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42580991)

MIT will found they did nothing wrong and point the finger at the prosecution, just like everyone else has. And we all know exactly what Obama is going to do about the prosecution -- nothing. Your "duly elected officials" want you to be afraid of them, they don't want people like Aaron alive to stand up to them.

You need to decide for yourselves today, is this the kind of country that we want to live in, are we going to forget about Aaron and go back to posting pictures of fucking cats in a few hours, or are you going to get up and FIGHT? Is all the sound and fury that you're going to offer in his memory a couple of useless fucking petitions on the White House page that will only be ignored, or are you going to do something to change things? How committed _are_ you to a better world? Aaron was committed enough that he suffered to the very last moment of his life, what are _you_ going to do?

The school is not responsible. (0, Troll)

mumblestheclown (569987) | about a year and a half ago | (#42580995)

MIT is not responsible.
The Police are not responsible.
It's not "copyright law" that should be changed because somebody committed suicide.
The MPIAA/RIAA/JSTOR are not responsible.

the young man who chose to engage in illegal activity that he knew clearly constituted criminal copyright infringement, whatever his philosophical rationalizations, and then his inability to come to terms with the likely consequences, are the reason. Even if you believe that he's the 21th century equivalent of Ghandi (which he most certainly was not, but still, if), the whole point of being Ghandi is accepting the consequences of breaking what you feel to be an unjust law. Otherwise, there are plenty of LEGAL ways to press home your case.

As such, the blow hards who claim that "they will revenge [sic]" him have no legitimate target for their utterly misplaced angst.

The "duty of care" argument is nonsense EVEN IF HE WERE A STUDENT - WHICH HE WAS NOT. MIT does not have a duty of care to ensure that students who engage in criminal activities be able to cope with the pressures of being called out on the carpet for them.

The irony is that most of you here would agree that the US is overlawyered as it is. Hell, a huge percentage of slashdot bandwidth is spent complaining about what you perceive to be over-reaches of the legal machinery in the USA And yet, here many of you are, proposing outrageous theories of vicarious responsibility (which would necessarily imply financial accountability) because you happen to personally have sympathy for Mr. Schwatz.

Re:The school is not responsible. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581139)

As if you give a flying fuck about "slashdot bandwidth" you worthless piece of shit. Anyone looking at your posting history knows exactly what you are, a troll and a shill. Couldn't even spell a fucking acronym properly (MPIAA anyone?), now you're bitching about "wasted bandwidth" on Slashdot. Here's a waste of bandwidth for you:

http://www.myspace.com/mumblestheclown/photos/8257059#mssrc=SitesPhotos_SP_AllPhotos_ViewImage [myspace.com]

You look like a homeless, redneck child molestor. No go crawl back into whatever hole you came out of before you get squashed, insect.

Re:The school is not responsible. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581487)

Someone disagreed with me, time to rage and personally attack them. Hurr durr.

Not GP. Swartz was a mentally unstable faggot. He's no hero.

Re:The school is not responsible. (5, Insightful)

tibit (1762298) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581145)

You seem to think that just because something is breaking the law, it should be punished to the fullest extent. Protips:

1. Most people break the law many times each day. The accumulated penalties for those crimes, in most any western country, even if you took the minimum sentences prescribed by law, would immediately put many a country's population behind bars for millenia or make them owe millions of dollars in fines. Mostly both. Just like that.

2. There's this thing called prosecutorial discretion. As in the prosecutor has full control over what cases they want to prosecute. Just like that.

3. Copyright violations, while a matter of criminal law in the U.S. and thus prosecutable ex officio, require participation of the injured parties. If no party claims that a copyright law violation took place, then there's nothing to prosecute. This is where copyright violations differ, from, say, murders. In an attempted murder, it doesn't matter all that much that the victim forgave the attacker and doesn't want them punished. The prosecutor is free to ignore that. In a copyright violation, the victim has pretty much full say in keeping the legal action going, and it's up to them whether it keeps going or stops. Same goes with regard to criminal trespass -- if the injured party says that there was no trespass, the prosecutor has no leg to stand on. Anything else is vigilante justice and amounts to harassment of the defendant. Just like that.

So there.

Re:The school is not responsible. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581751)

There's this thing called prosecutorial discretion. As in the prosecutor has full control over what cases they want to prosecute. Just like that.

Aha, so this is how they can go after Assange even though there are no charges against him. It's just all evil psychopaths manipulating media, the law and politicians. Brilliant!

Re:The school is not responsible. (1)

Skiboy941 (2692201) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581381)

It's not "copyright law" that should be changed because somebody committed suicide.

Copyright law should be changed anyway, not just because someone commited suicide.

Re:The school is not responsible. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581493)

You know, most of the discussion is not about whether a crime should not have a punishment, but up to what level do you pursue prosecution of an offense the plaintiffs themselves consider of no harm and are willing to drop and if the punishment you are after is proportional to the offense.
Your post sounded like coming from Javert. He was right, Valjean stole bread so chose to engage in an illegal activity and he justly he got 5 years for that according to the law of the time, and another 14 years for trying to escape.

Not suicide (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581073)

What is Schwartz was murdered?

Why is no one considering that maybe they wanted him dead so set an example.

Extortion By Any Other Name ... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581133)

MIT had no role, nor did any other party. Instead of facing the consequences of his actions, like a mature human being would do, he chose to kill himself. The motivation, as well as the blame, was his alone.

A frustrated child may scream: "I'm going to hold my breathe until I turn blue!" The wise parent, however, will not succumb to the ploy.

Why have we decided to accept suicide as a tool for extortion? Swartz in no way can be construed as a helpless victim; rather he is the sole perpetrator of his own destruction.

Suicide is an act of cowardice and weakness, and the responsibility for it belongs solely to the one who carried out the act.

Re:Extortion By Any Other Name ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581397)

1.) It is not entirely sure that he would be found guilty if he would have enough money for defense.
2.) He was running out of money for defense, so whether what he did was legal or not would most likely play only minor role.
3.) You do not have money for strong defense and prosecutor does not like you, you are going to jail for long regardless of what you have or have not done.
4.) "The victim" (JSTOR) declined to go against him because they did not felt much harmed. The expected consequence of an act that basically harmed anybody is 35 years in federal prison according to you?

What you wrote amounts to "You can use lies and exaggerations to destroy mans life, but that does not make you guilty if he decided to die after that. After all, if it is possible to abuse law and send someone out for 35 after action that cause minor of no harm, everyone should be men enough to face that time if prosecutor does not like him".

Disgusting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581135)

Sorry, but I see a bit of whitewashing effort here..

Untimely death (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581231)

Can we please stop using the untimely before the word death? Placing that adjective in front implies that there are timely deaths, which is never the case.

Now? (1)

AndyKron (937105) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581293)

Seems a little late now, doesn't it?

Seriously? (0)

Skiboy941 (2692201) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581367)

For a school known for basically "creating" and making hackers, It's kind of sickening that they would take legal action against him. If he got into their network just like that, they should have talked to him about his reccomendations for better security. And this is extremely strange from the school that does Open CourseWare. What he did was justified. Scholarly articles should remain free, not stay hoarded on JSOR and other databases.

Let's call an investigation! (2)

bwalzer (708512) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581387)

This is classic institutional behaviour. Something happened that could in some way cause the administration to look bad? Do something to delay outside scrutiny until public interest moves elsewhere. Immediately announce that a really really serious investigation is already underway. The result is unimportant. The actual goal is to prevent outsiders from poking around in your kingdom and causing blame.

Is there actually any question as to exactly what MIT did? What new questions remain to be answered?

Aaron Swartz law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581459)

There should be a law requiring the publishing of public funded research and information(not included those used for national security) without a paywall. We should name if after Aaron Swartz. The White House has a petition site(https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/). All we need is a lawyer to craft it.

What if Aaron had taken a different route? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42581557)

I think an investigation in the school's role is worth taking a look at. What if instead of committing suicide, Aaron got pissed off and decided he had enough of this crap and decided to get a semi-automatic weapon and go postal? We'd all be reacting differently right now if that were the case. Nobody would feel sorry for him, and nobody would care weather or not he were harassed and bullied.

Or would they? If you recall in that movie "The Dark Knight", one of the memorable quotes by the Joker was: "I took Gotham's white knight and I brought him down to our level. It wasn't hard. You see, madness, as you know, is like gravity. All it takes is a little push!"

People's personalities are shaped by their experiences in life. If we single them out and make their lives as difficult as possible, its pretty arrogant to think that we're not at least partially to blame for their change in personality.

Reflection (4, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581597)

".... Now is a time for everyone involved to reflect on their actions, ..."

Seems to me that before his suicide would have been better timing.

We've started an investigation into ourselves..... (1)

Eightbitgnosis (1571875) | about a year and a half ago | (#42581603)

Good news everyone! Our self investigation shows we were not at fault for anything
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>