I wrote about how I think the Swartz saga will turn out -- badly. The rule of law in the round will not be upheld; hackers and "the Internet" mob will succeed in overthrowing or at least undermining the institutions of justice with impunity; the copyleftist crowd will gain a new martyr and a new impetus to go on imposing technocommunism on the Internet and harming all our rights and liberties.
But how would I like to see it go instead?
1. It would be my wish that the Swartz family give up the path of revenge and attempting to avenge a death that may have been related to despair about a court case, but ultimately was about deep and dark depression that shouldn't be indulged. Hackers never make anyone or anything, least of all themselves, truly free. They always bring unfreedom in their wake, often for themselves. Really, the only thing that has liberated people is education. So the Swartz family should refashion their grief quest into one of establishing educational trusts, memorial, programs that celebrate what they see as the brilliant and creative sides of their son, instead of trying to make him into the Internet's Hussain.
2. Everyon3 should stop vilifying and harassing and blaming Carmen Ortiz and other prosecutors. They were just doing their job. And here, I think nothing short of the president of the United States can fix this. Obama appointed Ortiz; he needs to step up and say that those concerned about what they see as injusticies should not use the method of witch-hunting people applying the law in good conscience. Any other persons in authority, either in their professional capacity or in a political capacity, like the governor, should pronounce on this and tell people to stop seeking vigilante justice, that there are no grounds for suspecting overreach here. Anyone is welcome to file a lawsuit if they think they have a case, using the proper procedures, but hounding and harassing on the Internet, including by exposure of privacy, is not acceptable in a liberal democratic society. When Obama wants to, he interferes in everything -- pronouncing on the Koran's burning as wrong and saying that Trayvon could have been his son. He can defend his appointed prosecutor in this case, too.
3. MIT, in the form of both its president and its chief IT guy, have to step up and say while they feel sorry for the family, they cannot accept a regime that would involve them sacrificing the integrity of their computer system to satisfy this or that person's need for a political crusade at their expense. The privacy of their students also depends on this. Those who wish to create "commons" are free to do so without removing choice from others who want pay walls or walled gardens -- MIT should be at the forefront of reiterating this fundamental truth of propery law and the rule of law and political pluralism, or we really are doomed.
4. Abelson should concede that the prosecutors did their job, and if he is unhappy with laws he finds too strict for his prodigees and proteges, he should focus on changing the law in legal fashion. The same goes for Lessig.
5. People in authority have to emphasize the values the rule of law, all human rights for all, privacy, private property, and the integrity of business as a choice for many people. The cybercommand just added 4,000 people because the war in cyberspace is one that has to be fought whether you like it or not; the alternative is to concede that the communism that failed on the earth gets to have a new life in cyberspace as technocommunism, destroying people and economies along with it as it did on eaerth. It is a cold war that has to be fought on both the domestic and foreign front; it's not hypothetical or hysterical but real and those pretending it doesn't need to be fought, or shielding and minimizing those who actually began the war, like Anonymous, will have to be exposed as in fact threatening people's liberties. That's what it's about -- not taking away their freedom as the script kiddies always hysterically imagine it, but ensuring they don't take away other people's freedoms.
6. The Anonymous hackers who attacked ussc.gov and threatened the Supreme Court Justices have to be pursued and prosecuted. You don't get to threaten a branch of democratic government without consequences even if your act is symbolic or even silly. it must have consequences.
7. Danah Boyd has written sappy stuff about power and men and the Internet and MIT as part of the patriarchal power structure and blah blah. I have been waiting to get over my revulsion before blogging about it. She calls for the men who dominate the hacker/open source/copyleftist cult to start doing things more peacefully and essentially, although she doesn't put it this way, with less criminality, so as not to lose people in the war. I personally don't believe that calling on people bent on criminality to be less crimnal is such a viable plan; I think only containment, deterrence, isolation are possible until they really change or their methods become sufficiently discredited so as to reduce their influence.
8. CFAA should not be rewritten. And new SOPA/PIPA needs to be drafted and passed despite the loudest Internet ruckus so that the issues are defined, the measures of protection of liberty are put in place, and case law develops with sense.
I'll think of more, but these are the basics. They're essential because otherwise, the Internet will not be free.
Recent Comments