

Perhaps Jeff Atwood Should Stick to the Code - supervacuo
http://supervacuo.com/blog/2013/jan/22/jeff-atwood-stick-to-the-code/
Better late than never, right?
======
ajross
I don't think this kind of dialog really helps. Jeff's post was, I thought,
sincere and understandable. It's not really the same way I saw things, but I
can see what he meant. It clearly wasn't intended to be disrespectful, and
reading that in and then flaming about it publicly isn't helping anyone.

If Jeff was angry at Aaron for "taking the easy way out" (again: not my
personal reaction, but one I think I can understand), he has the right to
express that without being told he should "stick to the code". Dealing with
"inconvenient" emotions is part of grief, and that process deserves respect
too.

Basically: lighten up. This is _really_ not an appropriate subject to pick a
fight over.

~~~
raganwald
_If Jeff was angry at Aaron for "taking the easy way out" (again: not my
personal reaction, but one I think I can understand), he has the right to
express that without being told he should "stick to the code". Dealing with
"inconvenient" emotions is part of grief, and that process deserves respect
too._

It is extremely common for people to feel anger at the death of a loved one,
especially a death so complicated to process as a suicide.

People take years to unravel the knot and come to accept what has happened. I
took it as Jeff being human.

------
Zimahl
I get what both are saying but from a pragamtic, unemotional side I think
Atwood is right. Atwood's simple premise is that if you are going to be an
activist, you better realize that those in power are going to throw everything
at you so you better be ready to accept the consequences. In even simpler
terms, 'don't do the crime if you can't do the time'.

I know this is a bad example, but I watch 'Whale Wars'. Those folks know
exactly what they are doing and walking a very, very fine line where they
could be guilty of many offenses in multiple countries. But they don't care
and a few have served time for what they have done. They don't seem to whine
about it because they feel it's worth it.

What Atwood says appears cold and insensitive. But I think he's getting a
little tired (like a lot of us) of the constant 'Swartz did nothing
wrong'/'prosecution for no reason'/'visionary bullied into suicide' meme
(nothing else to call it). He absolutely broke the law in a couple ways. Was
the prosecution overzealous? Maybe. We don't know what the outcome would've
been so we can't say whether it would've been fair.

~~~
supervacuo
"The law" isn't some monolith, though -- it's defined by every institution
(every person?) enforcing it, and every decision made in carrying out
"justice".

It's a crime under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to port-scan Google. Are
you really saying that you'd be getting tired of people talking about it if
someone who'd done just that was facing years in jail (a perfectly _legal_
consequence).

~~~
Zimahl
_"The law" isn't some monolith, though -- it's defined by every institution
(every person?) enforcing it, and every decision made in carrying out
"justice"._

There are laws which may or may not be levied against us in certain
situations. You are implying that Swartz shouldn't have been prosecuted just
because you feel what he did wasn't wrong. Your feelings are completely
irrelevant. Someone felt wronged and brought it to the attention of those who
could prosecute the crime.

 _Are you really saying that you'd be getting tired of people talking about it
if someone who'd done just that was facing years in jail (a perfectly _legal_
consequence)._

If it were receiving as much biased anti-law exposure as this case is
receiving then absolutely. Swartz was facing years in jail, yes, but he might
have (most likely) received a much more minor sentence.

What ardent Swartz supports need to realize is:

1) He made the decision to break the law - which it appears he clearly knew
what he was doing was illegal. 2) He knew there were consequences - although
probably not of the severity he thought. 2) No one forced him to do it. 3)
There were other options for changing the system. 4) It was his choice to kill
himself.

If you feel that the maximum punishment didn't fit the crime you should do
something about that to possibly save others in the future. But please don't
expect us all to have outrage over Swartz being punished. It's a shame he
killed himself but that's tertiary to the issue of the entire case. Just
because he killed himself doesn't mean he's less guilty or more innocent.

~~~
supervacuo
I think your first sentence perfectly illustrates my point:

> There are laws which may or may not be levied against us in certain
> situations.

Evidence (including Swartz's case) strongly suggests that this discretion
leads to an unjust result.

It's obvious that not every legal action is socially desirable (or "moral",
for the sake of brevity) and not every illegal action is immoral
(whistleblowers, protestors, etc.). So, like I said before, the criminal
justice system is composed of laws _and_ the people who make the call as to
whether to prosecute, which in this case includes a powerful company (JSTOR),
an academic institution (MIT), cops, the FBI and finally Ortiz and her office.

A few more characters than you might immediately list when you think of "the
law", right?

When you say "Someone felt wronged and brought it to the attention of those
who could prosecute the crime", you make it sound like it's an automatic
process from one to the other. As someone who has both suffered and carried
out actions which are illegal according to the letter of the law, I assure you
that nothing could be further from the truth.

Read my article: HSBC broke a whole bunch of laws (to the tune of a trillion
dollars a year), and got a sweet plea deal and no individual prosecutions.
Good luck getting similar treatment if you shoplift an iPod, particularly if
you're anything other than white.

~~~
Zimahl
You can pick and choose any number of 'wrongful' or 'unjust' litigation.
There's a ton. HSBC is irrelevant to Swartz.

 _It's obvious that not every legal action is socially desirable (or "moral",
for the sake of brevity) and not every illegal action is immoral
(whistleblowers, protestors, etc.)._

Irrelevant. Social desire and morality has nothing to do with it. BTW, those
are very subjective. I do feel that Swartz should've gone a different, more
legal route if he wanted to cause change. I have no issue with him being
prosecuted. So who is right, you or me?

JSTOR is not the law. MIT is not the law. They are involved in the criminal
matter but do not determine whether something gets prosecuted. Is it arbitrary
and sometimes political? Sure, but we shouldn't be outraged over Swartz being
prosecuted. Very few gave a shit about the case until he killed himself. Where
was all the outrage over the prosecution up until then?

 _When you say "Someone felt wronged and brought it to the attention of those
who could prosecute the crime", you make it sound like it's an automatic
process from one to the other._

Absolutely not. If JSTOR and MIT didn't think it was an issue it wouldn't have
gone anywhere. If a crime is not reported it can't be followed up on by law
enforcement. Obviously JSTOR and/or MIT brought this illegal activity through
the proper channels and law enforcement took over. Maybe the FBI/Justice Dept
was using Swartz as an example but he still broke a law.

 _As someone who has both suffered and carried out actions which are illegal
according to the letter of the law, I assure you that nothing could be further
from the truth._

You can feel free to rape, murder, and pillage all you want. If there's no one
to report the crime, no one willing to report the crime, or no authority to
report to, then, sure, you won't be prosecuted. But don't be outraged if you
get prosecuted when you break the law.

~~~
supervacuo
> Sure, but we shouldn't be outraged over Swartz being prosecuted.

WTH not? It was pretty outrageous. I'd be interested to hear your argument
that he deserved even 6 months in prison for copyright violation.

> If a crime is not reported it can't be followed up on by law enforcement.

... which is not to say that if a crime _is_ reported, it _will_ be followed
up by law enforcement. Many reported crimes are not acted upon at all; some of
them get a huge overreaction (like Swartz's) and some get an under-reaction
(like HSBC).

That's the link: that justice is only just if the rules are the same for
everyone, and they clearly are not.

~~~
Zimahl
_WTH not? It was pretty outrageous. I'd be interested to hear your argument
that he deserved even 6 months in prison for copyright violation._

Outrageous to whom? You?

I feel the punishment doesn't fit the crime, however, that's the punishment. I
wouldn't want that punishment so I do not steal copyrighted material. That's
Atwood's point in it's entirety: Swartz knew there were strict penalties and
wasn't willing to accept the consequences if caught.

 _... which is not to say that if a crime is reported, it will be followed up
by law enforcement._

This depends on a lot of factors and you know that. But there isn't some
Illuminati deciding whether every case is important enough to prosecute.

 _That's the link: that justice is only just if the rules are the same for
everyone, and they clearly are not._

Prosecutors prosecute what they think they can win. Swartz was a win for
obvious reasons, HSBC wasn't for reasons unbeknownst to me. Our system is what
it is. If you can't accept losing, don't play ball.

------
rosenjon
There is a real danger that other people see what Aaron did, and the resulting
response, and conclude that the most effective activism is martyrdom/suicide.
I think Jeff was trying to push back against this idea with his post, while
also taking responsibility for not doing more to help Aaron while he was
alive. He also points out that activism frequently coincides with jail time,
and that the most effective activists (ie MLK), frequently end up there.

The point of your article seems to be that Jeff Atwood should stick to coding,
because he isn't an activist and can't comprehend how bad being on the wrong
end of our flawed criminal justice system can be. "Jeff Atwood is apparently
saying that Aaron Swartz was taking an underhand route to escape the
consequences of his activism, and that he was being a bad activist in so
doing."

Let's be frank. Jeff Atwood is saying you shouldn't commit suicide. At no
point does he characterize this as an "underhand route"... that is your
language. But furthermore, I agree with Jeff Atwood. You shouldn't commit
suicide. Even if the corrupt and incompetent federal government charges you
with 50 years in prison for downloading journal articles. Don't commit
suicide.

So I don't really understand why you're piling on Jeff Atwood. In the past
Jeff Atwood has deserved some piling on for his writings... this is not one of
those times.

~~~
supervacuo
> I think Jeff was trying to push back against this idea with his post

If you want to make the point that suicide is bad, find a way to do it without
insulting a recently-deceased campaigner, especially if a) you have very
little personal experience of equivalent situations and b) you have done
comparatively little to help others (a fair guess, given that Swartz was so
much more active than most people).

> But furthermore, I agree with Jeff Atwood. You shouldn't commit suicide.
> Even if the corrupt and incompetent federal government charges you with 50
> years in prison for downloading journal articles. Don't commit suicide.

If Jeff's article had read like your comment, we wouldn't be having this
conversation. I have no problem with you saying that suicide is either morally
wrong, or an ineffective campaign strategy — although I happen to disagree
with you on both points (citing euthanasia as a sometimes-moral suicide and
Thích Quảng Đức & Mohamed Bouazizi as suicides which changed the world for the
better).

------
TylerE
You don't get off to persuasive start when you call everyone who disagrees
with you (before even making it clear what you're disagreeing ABOUT) a moron.

~~~
mcherm
You are misreading the first line of the article. The article's author is
lumping himself AND Jeff Atwood (not to mention nearly the entire population
of Hacker News) into the same bucket here: ALL of them saddened by the passing
of Aaron Swartz.

He then disagrees with Jeff Atwood about a further point: whether Aaron should
have "accepted the penalty" for his activism.

Personally, when I first read Jeff Atwood's original essay I felt that I
understood what he was getting at ("I'm disappointed that Aaron 'quit' on us,
and I hope no one else does."), but I felt (as does this author) that his
suggestion that civil disobedience requires one to accept the penalties for
breaking the law. I am neither sure that Aaron Swartz intended to engage in
civil disobedience, nor am I sure that meekly accepting the state-imposed
punishment is a necessary component of civil disobedience.

~~~
supervacuo
> I am neither sure that Aaron Swartz intended to engage in civil disobedience

This is an interesting point: I would develop it to talk about _levels_ of
disobedience.

Like Andrew Auernheimer, I think Swartz knew he would get "in trouble", but
didn't appreciate the scale -- which is understandable, as I say in my
article, because the details of "trouble" are deliberately obscured.

~~~
dfxm12
From a NYT article on the matter: _A respected Harvard researcher who also is
an Internet folk hero has been arrested in Boston on charges related to
computer hacking, which are based on allegations that he downloaded articles
that he was entitled to get free._
(<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/us/20compute.html?_r=0>)

It is also reasonable for one to think they wouldn't get in trouble for this.
Either way, at the root of civil disobedience and activism is the desire to
change.

I think Dr. King's quote is being taken out of context in these discussions.
Dr. King doesn't mean to simply "grin and bear it", Dr. King means that
fighting for our freedom is hard, and thus activists must, in order to have
any chance of producing change, be prepared for the worst, in some form of
self sacrifice.

Atwood is saying (I feel erroneously) that Swartz came so close to creating a
change, but gave it all away when he "ragequit".

The point is, what happened happened, and I hope we never have to have a "next
time", but I'll bet that if there is a next time, it will play out _very_
differently, and for the better, _thanks to Swartz_.

------
tzs
> 22 January 2013

?

Why wasn't this submitted last month, when Atwood's post was being discussed?
It seems odd to submit it nearly a month after discussion of that has pretty
much ended.

------
VikingCoder
"I say this not as a person who wishes to judge Aaron Swartz. I say it as a
fellow gamer who has also considered playing the same move quite recently. To
the point that I – like Aaron himself, I am sure – was actively researching
it."

Atwood is saying that he's considered suicide - recently, and that he doesn't
want to judge Aaron. Most importantly, he's grieving, and different people
grieve in different ways.

I think you're being overly harsh in your post. Especially since you have two
messages for Jeff: stick to code; alter your message. Which would you prefer?
Either way, you're judging his grieving process, which I think is unfair.

I think you should express your own grief (and outrage) in your own way.
Pointing fingers at others who are grieving isn't nearly as constructive, I
think.

~~~
supervacuo
Sure. But "respecting Atwood's grief" was outweighed by "challenging his
dangerous ideology", especially since (as he says in his post) he'd never met
Swartz.

Don't think his suicidal thoughts are relevant to his chosen topic of noble
activism. If anything, Atwood mentioning it came across a little " _I_ beat
suicide... but this guy couldn't".

~~~
VikingCoder
Someone's dealing with suicidal thoughts, and your message is "shut up."

I think your post is the dangerous one.

~~~
supervacuo
"Dealing with suicidal thoughts" and "scaring off potential activists by being
nasty" are two separate activities.

~~~
VikingCoder
So respectfully empathize with him, and point out your differences about
activism.

Telling him to "stick to coding" makes you an insensitive clod, and sends a
dangerous message to others with suicidal thoughts that their feelings are not
welcome.

~~~
supervacuo
> So respectfully empathize with him, and point out your differences about
> activism.

There's no moral problem with being slightly irreverent to someone in such a
strong position: Atwood is apparently financially successful and has a large
readership. He is also — unlike the target of his own criticism — alive.

So maybe your concern is strategic. I happen to think "respectful empathy"
would have been a worse way of making my point.

Finally, I think my article is pretty clear. The category of person I want to
"stick to coding" is "Jeff Atwood", or, more specifically, "Jeff Atwood
talking about something he knows nothing about in a socially-damaging way". I
don't think anyone would come away with the impression that I don't want to
hear from people who've thought about suicide (hence why I didn't mention that
aspect of Atwood's post at all).

~~~
VikingCoder
> being slightly irreverent to someone in such a strong position

You're also telling everyone who happens to agree with Atwood to shut up. And
they don't all have the same strong position.

You're not WRITING AN EMAIL TO ATWOOD, you're broadcasting to the world that
everyone who agrees with him is wrong. And you're doing it disrespectfully.

> (hence why I didn't mention that aspect of Atwood's post at all).

Don't you think, given the topic, that you should have specifically mentioned
that category of people, and shown empathy? Perhaps starting with Atwood, and
generalizing from there?

Fuck it - you don't care what I think, and you're casual about telling people
to shut up, so my efforts are completely pointless.

------
lgcooper
In a way, I agree with Jeff, and I wonder what would happened if some other
famous activists have taken the path Aaron took.

