Web Update
http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N61/swartz.html
FRED BENENSON
Aaron Swartz was found dead on Friday, January
Aaron Swartz commits suicide
NEWS EDITOR; 2:15 A.M. 1/12/13; UPDATED AT 4:40 P.M. 1/12/13
Editor’s Note: See our blog for a summary of The Tech’s coverage on Aaron Swartz.
Computer activist Aaron H. Swartz committed
suicide in New York City yesterday, Jan. 11, according to his uncle,
Michael Wolf, in a comment to The Tech. Swartz was 26.
“The tragic and heartbreaking information you
received is, regrettably, true,” confirmed Swartz’ attorney, Elliot R.
Peters of Kecker and Van Nest, in an email to The Tech.
Swartz was indicted in July 2011 by a federal
grand jury for allegedly downloading millions of documents from JSTOR
through the MIT network — using a laptop hidden in a basement network
closet in MIT’s Building 16 — with the intent to distribute them. Swartz
subsequently moved to Brooklyn, New York, where he then worked for
Avaaz Foundation, a nonprofit “global web movement to bring
people-powered politics to decision-making everywhere.” Swartz appeared
in court on Sept. 24, 2012 and pleaded not guilty.
The accomplished Swartz co-authored the now
widely-used RSS 1.0 specification at age 14, founded Infogami which
later merged with the popular social news site reddit, and completed a
fellowship at Harvard’s Ethics Center Lab on Institutional Corruption.
In 2010, he founded DemandProgress.org, a “campaign against the Internet censorship bills SOPA/PIPA.”
English Wikipedia anti-SOPA blackout
To: English Wikipedia Readers and Community From: Sue Gardner, Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Date: January 16, 2012| In other languages | English • български • català • česky • dansk • Deutsch • فارسی • suomi • français • עברית • hrvatski • magyar • Bahasa Indonesia • italiano • 日本語 • 한국어 • Nederlands • polski • português • русский • српски / srpski • Tiếng Việt • 中文（简体） • 中文（繁體） |
|---|
Today, the Wikipedia community announced its decision
to black out the English-language Wikipedia for 24 hours, worldwide,
beginning at 05:00 UTC on Wednesday, January 18 (you can read the
statement from the Wikimedia Foundation here). The blackout is a protest against proposed legislation in the United States – the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate – that, if passed, would seriously damage the free and open Internet, including Wikipedia.
This will be the first time the English Wikipedia has ever staged
a public protest of this nature, and it’s a decision that wasn’t
lightly made. Here’s how it’s been described by the three Wikipedia
administrators who formally facilitated the community’s discussion. From
the public statement, signed by User:NuclearWarfare, User:Risker and User:Billinghurst:
-
- It is the opinion of the English Wikipedia community that both of these bills, if passed, would be devastating to the free and open web.
-
- Over the course of the past 72 hours, over 1800 Wikipedians have joined together to discuss proposed actions that the community might wish to take against SOPA and PIPA. This is by far the largest level of participation in a community discussion ever seen on Wikipedia, which illustrates the level of concern that Wikipedians feel about this proposed legislation. The overwhelming majority of participants support community action to encourage greater public action in response to these two bills. Of the proposals considered by Wikipedians, those that would result in a "blackout" of the English Wikipedia, in concert with similar blackouts on other websites opposed to SOPA and PIPA, received the strongest support.
-
- On careful review of this discussion, the closing administrators note the broad-based support for action from Wikipedians around the world, not just from within the United States. The primary objection to a global blackout came from those who preferred that the blackout be limited to readers from the United States, with the rest of the world seeing a simple banner notice instead. We also noted that roughly 55% of those supporting a blackout preferred that it be a global one, with many pointing to concerns about similar legislation in other nations.
In making this decision, Wikipedians will be criticized for seeming to
abandon neutrality to take a political position. That’s a real,
legitimate issue. We want people to trust Wikipedia, not worry that it
is trying to propagandize them.
But although Wikipedia’s articles are neutral, its existence is
not. As Wikimedia Foundation board member Kat Walsh wrote on one of our
mailing lists recently,
-
- We depend on a legal infrastructure that makes it possible for us to operate. And we depend on a legal infrastructure that also allows other sites to host user-contributed material, both information and expression. For the most part, Wikimedia projects are organizing and summarizing and collecting the world’s knowledge. We’re putting it in context, and showing people how to make to sense of it.
-
- But that knowledge has to be published somewhere for anyone to find and use it. Where it can be censored without due process, it hurts the speaker, the public, and Wikimedia. Where you can only speak if you have sufficient resources to fight legal challenges, or if your views are pre-approved by someone who does, the same narrow set of ideas already popular will continue to be all anyone has meaningful access to.
The decision to shut down the English Wikipedia wasn’t made by me; it
was made by editors, through a consensus decision-making process. But I
support it.
Like Kat and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation Board, I have
increasingly begun to think of Wikipedia’s public voice, and the
goodwill people have for Wikipedia, as a resource that wants to be used
for the benefit of the public. Readers trust Wikipedia because they know
that despite its faults, Wikipedia’s heart is in the right place. It’s
not aiming to monetize their eyeballs or make them believe some
particular thing, or sell them a product. Wikipedia has no hidden
agenda: it just wants to be helpful.
That’s less true of other sites. Most are commercially motivated:
their purpose is to make money. That doesn’t mean they don’t have a
desire to make the world a better place – many do! – but it does mean
that their positions and actions need to be understood in the context of
conflicting interests.
My hope is that when Wikipedia shuts down on January 18, people
will understand that we’re doing it for our readers. We support
everyone’s right to freedom of thought and freedom of expression. We
think everyone should have access to educational material on a wide
range of subjects, even if they can’t pay for it. We believe in a free
and open Internet where information can be shared without impediment. We
believe that new proposed laws like SOPA and PIPA, and other similar
laws under discussion inside and outside the United States, don’t
advance the interests of the general public. You can read a very good
list of reasons to oppose SOPA and PIPA here, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Why is this a global action, rather than US-only? And why now, if
some American legislators appear to be in tactical retreat on SOPA?
The reality is that we don’t think SOPA is going away, and PIPA
is still quite active. Moreover, SOPA and PIPA are just indicators of a
much broader problem. All around the world, we’re seeing the development
of legislation intended to fight online piracy, and regulate the
Internet in other ways, that hurt online freedoms. Our concern extends
beyond SOPA and PIPA: they are just part of the problem. We want the
Internet to remain free and open, everywhere, for everyone.
Make your voice heard!
On January 18, we hope you’ll agree with us, and will do what you can to make your own voice heard.
Sue Gardner,
Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Pemadaman Anti-SOPA pada Wikipedia bahasa Inggris
Kepada: Para Pembaca dan Komunitas Wikipedia bahasa Inggris Dari: Sue Gardner, Direktur Eksekutif Wikimedia Foundation Tanggal: 16 Januari 2012| In other languages | English • български • català • česky • dansk • Deutsch • فارسی • suomi • français • עברית • hrvatski • magyar • Bahasa Indonesia • italiano • 日本語 • 한국어 • Nederlands • polski • português • русский • српски / srpski • Tiếng Việt • 中文（简体） • 中文（繁體） |
|---|
Ini akan menjadi protes publik yang pertama kali bagi Wikipedia bahasa Inggris, dan hal ini bukanlah keputusan yang dibuat dengan sembarangan. Berikut ini adalah penjelasan dari tiga pengurus Wikipedia, yang secara formal memfasilitasi pembicaraan komunitas. Pada pernyataan publik yang ditandatangani oleh User:NuclearWarfare, User:Risker and User:Billinghurst tertulis,
-
- Komunitas Wikipedia bahasa Inggris berpendapat bahwa kedua rancangan undang-undang, jika disahkan, akan menghancurkan web yang bebas dan terbuka.
-
- Selama 72 jam yang lalu, lebih dari 1800 Wikipediawan ikut bersama-sama membicarakan mengenai usulan tindakan yang perlu diambil oleh komunitas dalam rangka menentang SOPA dan PIPA. Sejauh ini, pembicaraan ini, berdasarkan jumlah keikutsertaannya, merupakan pembicaraan komunitas yang terbesar yang pernah terjadi di dalam Wikipedia. Hal ini menunjukkan tingkat keprihatinan yang para Wikipediawan rasakan terhadap usulan undang-undang ini. Sebagian besar para partisipan mendukung tindakan komunitas untuk mendorong aksi publik yang lebih besar dalam menanggapi kedua rancangan undang-undang ini. Dari banyak usulan yang telah ditimbang oleh Wikipediawan, diputuskan hasilnya adalah “pemadaman” Wikipedia bahasa Inggris, bersama-sama dengan pemadaman serupa pada situs web lain dalam menentang SOPA dan PIPA, yang menerima dukungan yang terbanyak.
-
- Setelah mengulas pembicaraan ini, para pengurus yang mengakhiri pembicaraan menyatakan dukungan luas terhadap tindakan dari para Wikipediawan di seluruh dunia, tidak hanya dari dalam Amerika Serikat. Keberatan yang utama terhadap pemadaman global ini datang dari mereka yang berpendapat bahwa pemadaman ini seharusnya dibatasi untuk pembaca dari Amerika Serikat saja, sedangkan bagian dunia lainnya hanya ditampilkan panji pemberitahuan yang sederhana. Kami juga mendapati bahwa 55% dari mereka yang mendukung pemadaman lebih setuju terhadap pemadaman yang bersifat global, karena banyak juga yang menunjukkan kekhawatirannya terhadap undang-undang sejenis yang ada di negara lain.
Walaupun artikel dalam Wikipedia bersifat netral, keberadaannya tidaklah demikian. Kat Walsh, anggota dewan Wikimedia Foundation, baru-baru ini menulis pada salah satu milis kami sebagai berikut,
-
- Kami bergantung kepada prasarana hukum yang memungkinkan Wikipedia dapat terus beroperasi. Dan kami juga bergantung pada prasarana hukum yang mengizinkan situs lainnya menyimpan materi yang disumbangkan oleh pengguna, baik informasi maupun pendapat. Sebagian besar proyek Wikimedia adalah mengelola, merangkum, dan mengumpulkan berbagai pengetahuan di dunia. Kami mewujudkannya sesuai konteks, dan menunjukkan kepada masyarakat bagaimana memanfaatkannya.
-
- Namun pengetahuan tersebut haruslah diterbitkan di suatu tempat yang bisa ditemukan dan digunakan oleh siapa saja. Bila disensor tanpa proses lebih lanjut, hal ini melukai sang pembicara, masyarakat, dan Wikimedia. Bila Anda hanya dapat menyuarakan pendapat jika Anda memiliki cukup sumber daya untuk menentang secara sah, atau, jika pendapat Anda telah disetujui di awal oleh seseorang yang memiliki sumber daya tersebut, sekumpulan panah sejenis yang sudah terkenal, yang berisi gagasan-gagasan, hanya akan terus menjadi kepemilikan bagi mereka yang mempunyai banyak akses.
Seperti Kat dan seluruh dewan Wikimedia Foundation yang lain, saya telah secara mendalam memikirkan pandangan umum Wikipedia dan niat baik yang masyarakat miliki terhadap Wikipedia, yaitu sebagai sumber daya yang dapat digunakan untuk kepentingan umum. Para pembaca mempercayai Wikipedia, meskipun terdapat kesilapan, karena hati Wikipedia ada pada tempat yang benar. Kami tidak berniat untuk meminta imbalan atas apa yang masyarakat lihat, atau membuat masyarakat meyakini suatu hal tertentu, atau menjual produk kepada masyarakat. Wikipedia tidak memiliki agenda rahasia: Wikipedia hanya ingin bermanfaat bagi masyarakat luas.
Itulah kekurangan dari situs lain. Kebanyakan situs lain termotivasi secara komersial: tujuan mereka adalah untuk mendapatkan uang. Namun bukan berarti mereka tidak ingin membuat dunia menjadi tempat yang lebih baik—banyak yang ingin!—namun hal ini berarti bahwa posisi dan tindakan mereka perlu dipahami dalam konteks kepentingan yang saling bertentangan.
Harapan saya adalah bahwa ketika Wikipedia dihentikan pada 18 Januari, masyarakat akan mengerti bahwa kami melakukannya demi para pembaca kami. Kami mendukung hak setiap orang dalam kebebasan berpikir dan berpendapat. Kami pikir semua orang harus memiliki akses ke materi pendidikan dalam berbagai topik, bahkan jika mereka tidak mampu membayar. Kami percaya pada Internet yang bebas dan terbuka di mana informasi dapat dibagi tanpa halangan. Kami percaya bahwa undang-undang yang baru diusulkan seperti SOPA—juga PIPA dan hukum yang serupa lainnya yang sedang didiskusikan di dalam maupun di luar Amerika Serikat—tidak memajukan kepentingan masyarakat umum. Anda dapat membaca sebuah daftar yang sangat bagus dari Electronic Frontier Foundation yang berisikan alasan untuk menentang SOPA dan PIPA di sini.
Mengapa tindakan ini dilakukan secara global, bukan hanya di Amerika Serikat saja? Dan mengapa sekarang, ketika beberapa legislator Amerika tampak sudah mundur secara taktis?
Kenyataannya adalah bahwa kami tidak berpikir SOPA akan menghilang, dan PIPA pun masih cukup aktif. Selain itu, SOPA dan PIPA hanya indikator untuk masalah yang jauh lebih besar. Di seluruh dunia, kami melihat perkembangan undang-undang yang bertujuan untuk memberantas pembajakan daring dan mengatur Internet dengan cara lain, yang mengurangi kebebasan daring. Kekhawatiran kami tidak hanya terhadap SOPA dan PIPA: mereka hanya bagian kecil dari masalah yang sesungguhnya. Kami ingin Internet dapat tetap bebas dan terbuka, di mana saja, dan untuk siapa saja.
Suarakan pendapat Anda!
Sue Gardner,
Direktur Eksekutif, Wikimedia Foundation
Aaron speaking at the anti-SOPA rally in NYC on Jan 18th 2011
http://demandprogress.org/
We are deeply saddened by the passing of Demand Progress’s Aaron Swartz. Friends and family have issued a statement and created a memorial page, here.
Aaron was a dear friend, and an ideological brother in arms. As others have spoken to at great length, he was indeed a passionate advocate for access to information and for a free and open Internet. He believed in these things for their own sakes, but moreover as means towards the even deeper end of building a world defined by social and economic justice. He resisted the impulse to presume that he alone was responsible for his brilliance or should benefit therefrom, and he wasn’t a techno-utopian: He was a communitarian, somebody who was deeply aware of our world’s injustices and who understood the constant struggle that is necessary to even begin to remedy them. That’s why this organization exists.
We’ve worked closely with Aaron over the last two or three years, but have not known him for as long as have some others who’ve written profoundly moving tributes to him and his life’s work. We met him as a genius, but not as the boy-genius that Larry and Cory and many others knew, and we would suggest reading their pieces (below) for deeper insight into his personal and professional evolution. We first encountered Aaron through our executive director’s unsuccessful run for Congress in 2010. Aaron became a fixture in the campaign office, rigging up cheap ways to do polling and robo-calls and helping give the uphill effort a fighting chance. But it was never about just one campaign: He was honing skills and tools he wanted to use to build capacity for much broader social movements that would create fundamental, structural change. He’d taken to calling himself an “applied sociologist.” He was trying to hack the world, and we were happy to help in what small ways we could.
That campaign work quickly transitioned into Demand Progress and Aaron’s conception of the initial petition in opposition to the Combating Online Infringements and Counterfeits Act, and then the ensuing 18 months of activism that helped bring down SOPA and PIPA. There are so many stories to tell about that effort: trudging around the halls of the Capitol, getting under the skin of intransigent senators, generally scrapping away as we struggled to build a movement against all odds. Many of them are best told by Aaron himself, here. But Aaron’s legal troubles began approximately commensurate with the launch of that anti-COICA petition, and it was clear that his persecution by an institutionally corrupted criminal justice system weighed heavily on him throughout the last two years, and certainly more so of late.
We are working with Aaron’s friends, family, and colleagues to determine how best to pay tribute to him — it will surely entail engaging in political activism in service of making this world a more just one. We will be in touch with our members and the general public in the near future to offer suggestions about ways to move forward. Tragically, we’ll have to continue to stifle the visceral impulse to run our half-formed ideas by Aaron, to help us make them better ones.
Click here if you’d like to receive updates from us.
In the meantime, Aaron had deep respect for GiveWell. Those seeking to donate in his name might consider giving to the charities they recommend.
A handful of the myriad tributes to Aaron:
Cory Doctorow
Glenn Greenwald
Lawrence Lessig
Quinn Norton
4.5 Million People Signed Google's Anti-SOPA Petition
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/19/4-5-million-people-signed-googles-anti-sopa-petition/
Follow Comments
For opponents of SOPA and PIPA, Wednesday’s internet blackout and Google’s was a huge success. Eighteen Senators changed their position on PIPA, Paul Tassi reports; and 4.5 million people signed Google’s anti-censorship petition, according to the LA Times.
“There’s no need to make American social networks, blogs and search engines censor the Internet or undermine the existing laws that have enabled the Web to thrive, creating millions of U.S. jobs,” the petition reads. “Too much is at stake -– please vote NO on PIPA and SOPA.”
The LA Times notes that Google’s is far from the only petition opposing SOPA and PIPA:
I honestly can’t recall a similar effort – eighteen Senators changed their positions – or a similar instance of online activism. As Paul notes, it wasn’t out of the goodness of our elected official’s hearts either that made them run. They read the political writing on the wall, turned tail in the opposite direction.Of course, Google’s anti-SOPA and PIPA petition is not the only one out there on this day of mass online protest. As of this writing 1.458 million people signed a similar petition at the activist website Avaaz.org, and Fight for the Future said that between its two sites, Sopastrike.com and AmericanCensorship.org, at least 350,000 people have sent emails to representatives in the House and Senate.A graphic put out by Google shows that before today’s coordinated protests, 3 million Americans had signed various petitions against the two bills.
This isn’t purely online grassroots activism, obviously – Google is a huge corporation as are many opponents of SOPA – but to see sites like Reddit and Wikipedia, both largely user driven and community oriented, help start to change the political outcomes of major pieces of legislation is to take a glimpse into the future.
The playing field is shifting. Technology is helping to level that field. Bills like SOPA and PIPA threaten to return us to the status quo – not just in arts and entertainment and the issue of fair use, but in the way we are allowed to be free on the internet. We have the capacity to make a difference. Laws that threaten freedom of speech threaten that as well.
We can work to combat piracy and protect free speech all at the same time. I hope that yesterday’s blackout helped move us a few steps closer to a real conversation on these issues.
