On 15-Jan-2013, at 5:51 PM, Pranesh Prakash <the.solips...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Vijay Anand <vi...@vijayanand.name> wrote: >> So, did someone say that we dont use this forum to have debates on >> what goes on in the world anymore? I know there are some authors here >> and some folks from the Academic world. >> >> What is your take on Aaron? It looks like with Julian, and now Aaron >> (liberating data is the new form of activism) - and not the long route >> of creating an organization and lobbying for years and opening it up, >> but bruteforce opening > > This is a rather naive and uninformed summary. Aaron had been > involved with, and has founded, multiple organizations (including the > Sunlight Foundation, and running watchdog.net and founding the online > advocacy platform Demand Progress) that work on transparency-related > lobbying. His posts on the difference between democracy, > accountability and transparency are worth[1] reading[2], and > > [1]: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/transparencybunk > [2]: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/usefultransparency > > Why is using technology to 'liberate' data in any way a lesser route > than using laws? This also seems to presume that the tech route and > the 'lobbying' route of changing policy are not complementary, and > that the tech route involves short cuts if not actual breaking of > laws. > > And what of those cases where the law holds that information *is* > public (case law, for instance) but are independent of the law behind > a paywall like PACER? What law was broken by that? Further, what law > (as opposed to a unilaterally-imposed non-negotiable 'Terms of > Service') was broken by downloading those millions of articles from > JSTOR? > > The Open Access movements have a long history, and a history of more > than a decade in their modern form. Various organizations around the > world are involved in seeking changes in public policy (including the > Centre for Internet and Society, the organization I work for) and when > it comes to open access to scholarly literature, in the practices of > academics and non-governmental research funders as well. Aaron was a > part of the open access to law movement (see his work with Carl > Malamud), as well as the open access to scholarly literature movement. > > And further, it is incredibly short-sighted to see Julian Assange as > some sort of start of 'data liberation'. > >> (and facing the brutality of it when it >> backfires) is what the masses are backing after. It somehow brings me >> mental images of public execution of the old powers during the French >> Revolution - a bit hasty and bloody for my taste. > > I've completely lost you here. What exactly conjures up images of > public execution? The anger of people at the wrongful hounding of > Aaron Swartz looks like baying for blood? Do you condone such > flagrant misuse of laws by state prosecutors?, and would you rather > that people not get angered by it? > >> What are your thoughts? >> >> PS: No intents to smear the living or the dead. But it looks like that >> we are on the crossroads of information, access to it and ethics here. >> And this issue is only going to grow, not go away. > > I'm sorry if I come across as being rude, but Aaron is someone I > admired and looked up to for many years, and his suicide is something > I feel very strongly about. > Ill add to this once a few others have had a chance to chip in. no issues mate, I am not offended in anyway. Im sorry to hear about your loss. Thanks for your two cents and perspective.
