Re: Jacob Appelbaum in Germany
On Jan 3, 2014 5:34 AM, "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
At 04:38 PM 12/31/2013, James A. Donald wrote:
In practice, it is pretty obvious that most practitioners of civil disobedience believe they are above the law, that they usually *are* above the law, and that in particular Swartz believed he was above the law, and was shocked to find that he was not.
On 2014-01-03 11:53, Ulex Europae wrote:
You seem to be laboring under a pernicious misapprehension: that there is a legitimate mandate to obey laws that are unconstitutional and/or unjust. There is a mandate, but it is just as illegitimate as the unconstitutional or the unjust law.
If someone was to hide a laptop in one of my cupboards, to steal such large amounts of information from my home network as to disrupt its functioning, I would take a sledgehammer to his laptop, and when he showed up to collect his laptop, a sledgehammer to him.
Swartz committed a crime against people more powerful than he was, incorrectly thinking he was more powerful than they.
Just who did he commit the crime against, both MIT and JSTOR wanted prosecution dropped. In your example "your house" represents both MIT and JSTOR. The rest of your argument makes me think your either a deciple of Authority or here to troll, or both.
The Swartz situation was more complicated than the prinicipal legal parties involved. A comprehensive legal attack implicated a slew of people and institutions in Aaron's circle, some who were frightened into pulling away from him, some of who were forced to testify much to their later shame and embarassment when that was made public. It is not unusual for supporters to run from the scene when pressure comes down through federal investigators digging into private affairs, intimidating witnesses, friends and familiies with fruits of those findings, turning poeple against each other, bamboozling journalists and publishers who pretend opposition to authority. Swartz's case parallels what happened to Jim Bell, and to Carl Johnson. Prosecutors are highly adept at creating fear in supporters with grand jury subpoenas for evidence and closed testimony, then later subpoenaed for trial. This was done with several cypherpunks, me among them. During two trials and his imprisonment not a few cypherpunks came down on Jim Bell, cowardly sorry motherfuckers, some of them once admired for courage, shown to be candyasses out to avoid risk beyond rhetoric (as with Manning and Snowden). Not a few came down on Aaron Swarz, cowardly sorry motherfuckers, some of them still lamenting the loss of a brave man while hiding their abandonment of him, stigmatizing his loss of adorableness, his loss of lovers, true friends and supporters, his lonely withdrawal from social affairs, his hiding inside his apartment pondering the rest of his life betrayed by those blaming him for their chickenshitedness. Swartz died more likely murder, enforced suicide, a killing by officials and those unable to match Aaron's bravery. Jim Bell and Carl Johnson were not so easily buffaloed. Although there continues to be bountiful cowardly motherfuckers who fucked them as was Manning, as were the Anonymous 16, and will likely be Snowden, led by the media which takes no chances beyond rhetoric and hypebole. At 10:10 AM 1/3/2014, you wrote:
On Jan 3, 2014 5:34 AM, "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
At 04:38 PM 12/31/2013, James A. Donald wrote:
In practice, it is pretty obvious that most practitioners of civil disobedience believe they are above the law, that they usually *are* above the law, and that in particular Swartz believed he was above the law, and was shocked to find that he was not.
On 2014-01-03 11:53, Ulex Europae wrote:
You seem to be laboring under a pernicious misapprehension: that there is a legitimate mandate to obey laws that are unconstitutional and/or unjust. There is a mandate, but it is just as illegitimate as the unconstitutional or the unjust law.
If someone was to hide a laptop in one of my cupboards, to steal such large amounts of information from my home network as to disrupt its functioning, I would take a sledgehammer to his laptop, and when he showed up to collect his laptop, a sledgehammer to him.
Swartz committed a crime against people more powerful than he was, incorrectly thinking he was more powerful than they.
Just who did he commit the crime against, both MIT and JSTOR wanted prosecution dropped.
In your example "your house" represents both MIT and JSTOR.
The rest of your argument makes me think your either a deciple of Authority or here to troll, or both.
On 2014-01-04 03:02, John Young wrote:
The Swartz situation was more complicated than the prinicipal legal parties involved. A comprehensive legal attack implicated a slew of people and institutions in Aaron's circle, some who were frightened into pulling away from him, some of who were forced to testify much to their later shame and embarassment when that was made public. It is not unusual for supporters to run from the scene when pressure comes down through federal investigators digging into private affairs, intimidating witnesses, friends and familiies with fruits of those findings, turning poeple against each other, bamboozling journalists and publishers who pretend opposition to authority.
Swartz's case parallels what happened to Jim Bell, andto Carl Johnson.
The difference is that Jim Bell never had delusions of grandeur, never intended to become a civil disobedience case. Eric Snowdon never thought he was part of the ruling elite trampling over those no good contemptible peons. That Eric Snowdon covered his tracks and prepared his flight shows he truly intended civil disobedience. He spoke truth to power. He correctly saw himself as powerless, and those he took action against as powerful. The civil disobedience of the Aaron Schwartz is that of Greenpeace, that says "You must obey our laws, but we do not have to obey our own laws" Aaron thought he was the powerful, and was horrified to find he was not. Bradley Manning was and is simply batshit insane. Snowden, on the other hand, genuinely committed civil disobedience. And who is Carl Johnson?. Googling for Carl Johnson prosecution, I get a string of black murderers, all of them habitual criminals, who should have been executed long before the crimes for which they eventually became notorious.
On Jan 3, 2014, at 5:02 PM, James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
Carl Johnson
Country singer. X-rated. :-) Cypherpunk. Kinda. AKA Toto. Xenix chainsaw massacre author. http://cryptome.org/jya/irs121098.htm http://marc.info/?l=cypherpunks&m=95279506822241&w=2 &cet. Cheers, RAH
On Sat, 2014-01-04 at 07:02 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
The difference is that Jim Bell never had delusions of grandeur, never intended to become a civil disobedience case. Eric Snowdon never thought he was part of the ruling elite trampling over those no good contemptible peons.
That Eric Snowdon covered his tracks and prepared his flight shows he truly intended civil disobedience. He spoke truth to power. He correctly saw himself as powerless, and those he took action against as powerful.
The civil disobedience of the Aaron Schwartz is that of Greenpeace, that says "You must obey our laws, but we do not have to obey our own laws"
Aaron thought he was the powerful, and was horrified to find he was not. Bradley Manning was and is simply batshit insane. Snowden, on the other hand, genuinely committed civil disobedience.
I'm a little unease with all these labels you use to portrait people. Our paths in life are not in our complete control neither are our conditions. These labels seem only to bring unfairness to their cases and do not help ours. The things for which they became targets are more important to us all than a moralized narrative of their public characters. Manning for me is far from insane. These kind of words I'd use to describe some pompous pricks who could never understand Hans C. Andersen.
And who is Carl Johnson?. Googling for Carl Johnson prosecution, I get a string of black murderers, all of them habitual criminals, who should have been executed long before the crimes for which they eventually became notorious.
-- 010 001 111
"James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
Swartz committed a crime against people more powerful than he was, incorrectly thinking he was more powerful than they.
On 2014-01-04 01:10, John Grubbs wrote:
Just who did he commit the crime against, both MIT and JSTOR wanted prosecution dropped.
You are making his argument: That he and people like him are the important powerful people, and that the people whose activities he disrupted, the people who spent a lot of time and energy figuring out what was happening and locating his laptop, the people who keep the world working, are the unimportant powerless people, who don't matter and whose lives should be ignored. You are wrong, and he was wrong.
In your example "your house" represents both MIT and JSTOR.
He was charged with breaking into someone else's network and disrupting it, not with making JSTOR public. "My house" represents the buildings in which the network servers were located, and the people operating that network.
--On Saturday, January 04, 2014 6:44 AM +1000 "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
In your example "your house" represents both MIT and JSTOR.
He was charged with breaking into someone else's network
James, shouldn't you be posting in some 'tea party' right-wing american fascist mailing list, where bogus 'property rights' are used to defend government criminals and their accomplices, like you're doing here? If you believed in the typical conservative "my house, my rules" garbage, why would you post in this mailing where people are supposed to subscribe to anarchistic and anti-intelectual 'property' views?
and disrupting it, not with making JSTOR public. "My house" represents the buildings in which the network servers were located, and the people operating that network.
On 2014-01-04 07:04, Juan Garofalo wrote:
If you believed in the typical conservative "my house, my rules" garbage, why would you post in this mailing where people are supposed to subscribe to anarchistic and anti-intelectual 'property' views?
Schwarz was not charged with violating other people's intellectual property, but other people's physical property. He needed killing, just as much as Martin Trayvon did, for much the same reasons as Martin Trayvon needed killing. If an anti state protester, protest state power, not property. If you are protesting property, you are a pro state protestor Which is why Schwarz thought he was part of the powerful, and thought those he harmed were part of the powerless. Because he was striking at physical property, not intellectual property.
participants (6)
-
James A. Donald -
John Grubbs -
John Young -
Juan Garofalo -
Luther Blissett -
Robert Hettinga