While I don't know that this was case with Aaron's case (I assume it was), most federal cases are incredibly complex and take a competent attorneys weeks just to get up to speed. Justice is not about arriving at a decision quickly, but arriving at the correct decision.
> Why can't we create have a hacker legal defense fund that would keep cases like this from bankrupting defendants?
Nobody says you can't, but I know I wouldn't put money into it. You don't get to do something like that and cherry pick who gets to use it. Criminals will use it to pay for a better attorney.
> Why should expert legal advice be only available to those who can afford it?
Because expert legal minds are not content to earn $50,000 a year, and with what it costs to attend the best law schools (and even mediocre undergraduate institutions) it's ridiculous to expect them to.
> What should we tell a friend who is planning to commit a crime on behalf of a cause?
That if they're not willing to pay the full price they probably shouldn't do it.
> Was Aaron's cause worth anyone's life? This should be a question for everyone, not just prosecutors.
This is where I start to get twitchy with the general consensus on HN. Aaron was not murdered. His death was not an accident. He chose to take his own life, so clearly to him this cause was worth that, or at the very least it was preferable to him going to prison.
> Is any middle ground possible in the conflict between rights holders and advocates of free information?
Not so long as rights holders are hell bent on perpetuating a business model from the 1920s, and not so long as free information activists are hell bent on not respecting the personal (intellectual) property rights of others, including corporations.
While I don't know that this was case with Aaron's case (I assume it was), most federal cases are incredibly complex and take a competent attorneys weeks just to get up to speed. Justice is not about arriving at a decision quickly, but arriving at the correct decision.
> Why can't we create have a hacker legal defense fund that would keep cases like this from bankrupting defendants?
Nobody says you can't, but I know I wouldn't put money into it. You don't get to do something like that and cherry pick who gets to use it. Criminals will use it to pay for a better attorney.
> Why should expert legal advice be only available to those who can afford it?
Because expert legal minds are not content to earn $50,000 a year, and with what it costs to attend the best law schools (and even mediocre undergraduate institutions) it's ridiculous to expect them to.
> What should we tell a friend who is planning to commit a crime on behalf of a cause?
That if they're not willing to pay the full price they probably shouldn't do it.
> Was Aaron's cause worth anyone's life? This should be a question for everyone, not just prosecutors.
This is where I start to get twitchy with the general consensus on HN. Aaron was not murdered. His death was not an accident. He chose to take his own life, so clearly to him this cause was worth that, or at the very least it was preferable to him going to prison.
> Is any middle ground possible in the conflict between rights holders and advocates of free information?
Not so long as rights holders are hell bent on perpetuating a business model from the 1920s, and not so long as free information activists are hell bent on not respecting the personal (intellectual) property rights of others, including corporations.