Aaron Swartz was Murdered

Aaron Swartz killed himself after the sudden realization he was a "macfag."
Murderers of Aaron Swartz tried to disguise his death as a suicide.

NEW YORK — After reports of Aaron Swartz’s apparent suicide circulated around the Internet this weekend, investigators found evidence of foul play. A former architect of Reddit, the online forum scandalized earlier this year by child pornography and “creepshots,” Aaron Swartz was widely known for his contributions to anti-copyright activism after stealing millions of files from MIT.

Hackers from Anonymous released a statement on Sunday, “Heavy-handed prosecutors raped the beautiful mind of Aaron Swartz. He later ‘killed himself.’ Are the draconian copyright laws selectively applied to those who threaten the inertia of entrenched power? Certainly. Will they use their sockpuppets and judicial torture system to make YOU kill yourself too? Of course. Will they kill you if you go too far?”

Chronicle Reporters also questioned Julian Assange, sick from months of exile in the Ecuadorean embassy, about the death of Aaron Swartz. “I am not convinced that Aaron Swartz was such a coward he committed suicide due to fear of prison,” said Mr. Assange. “Read his words, and decide for yourself, but I believe Swartz was murdered by a team of copyright assassins who made it all look like a simple suicide. Watch what you say, or you may end up like Aaron Swartz.”

Swartz gave a talk in 2008, mentioning his intention to ” download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks.”

Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves. The world’s entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of private corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the sciences? You’ll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier.

There are those struggling to change this. The Open Access Movement has fought valiantly to ensure that scientists do not sign their copyrights away but instead ensure their work is published on the Internet, under terms that allow anyone to access it. But even under the best scenarios, their work will only apply to things published in the future. Everything up until now will have been lost.

That is too high a price to pay. Forcing academics to pay money to read the work of their colleagues? Scanning entire libraries but only allowing the folks at Google to read them? Providing scientific articles to those at elite universities in the First World, but not to children in the Global South? It’s outrageous and unacceptable.

“I agree,” many say, “but what can we do? The companies hold the copyrights, they make enormous amounts of money by charging for access, and it’s perfectly legal — there’s nothing we can do to stop them.” But there is something we can, something that’s already being done: we can fight back.

Those with access to these resources — students, librarians, scientists — you have been given a privilege. You get to feed at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world is locked out. But you need not — indeed, morally, you cannot — keep this privilege for yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world. And you have: trading passwords with colleagues, filling download requests for friends.

Meanwhile, those who have been locked out are not standing idly by. You have been sneaking through holes and climbing over fences, liberating the information locked up by the publishers and sharing them with your friends.

But all of this action goes on in the dark, hidden underground. It’s called stealing or piracy, as if sharing a wealth of knowledge were the moral equivalent of plundering a ship and murdering its crew. But sharing isn’t immoral — it’s a moral imperative. Only those blinded by greed would refuse to let a friend make a copy.

Large corporations, of course, are blinded by greed. The laws under which they operate require it — their shareholders would revolt at anything less. And the politicians they have bought off back them, passing laws giving them the exclusive power to decide who can make copies.

There is no justice in following unjust laws. It’s time to come into the light and, in the grand tradition of civil disobedience, declare our opposition to this private theft of public culture.

We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world. We need to take stuff that’s out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open Access.

With enough of us, around the world, we’ll not just send a strong message opposing the privatization of knowledge — we’ll make it a thing of the past. Will you join us?

Aaron Swartz
July 2008, Eremo, Italy

Chronicle.SU is WRONG

Adrian Chen hates satire
Adrian Chen attempts to block the view of Tlingit masks he said are "also wrong."

I’m Adrian Chen, and I know many things. I mean, there are a lot of things I know. I know stuff about politics, the Internet and hacktivism because I myself am a troll hacktivist. I try really hard to know as much as possible about what Anonymous tweets, and especially LulzSec, Sabu and reddit.com. But what I know most of all to be most factual and more true than any other fact on the Internet, is that the Chronicle.SU is wrong.

They are wrong about many things, especially the stuff I know more about than they do. I write for a website called Gawker, which is never wrong, and always right. In fact, since I can’t seem to find any satire websites with balls enough to tackle hacktivism on the internet, I am thinking about starting my own satire site, in which I replace the word “write” with “right” – because I am always right! (I’m a righter! Get it?)

One of the things Chronicle.SU is wrong about is Sabu of LulzSec and #AntiSec being a brown guy named Hugo. They are especially wrong about that because they wrongly Photoshopped an image of Hugo’s face as the leader of #ANTISEC, the group competing against Anonymous for most lulz. WRONG! He’s not the leader, fucking idiots! Sabu is! And Sabu isn’t Hugo! Jesus.

Adrian Trolls
Chen: "Chronicle.SU was also wrong when they said I was wrong about who invented Anonymous porn. I knew Chronicle.SU already invented Anon porn. I wasn't wrong. I was just trolling them behind their backs because that's how Adrian rolls."

You know, if the Chronicle.SU was a satire website, this would almost be forgivable, even though LulzSec is no laughing matter, but this is an egregious error on the part of Chronicle.SU Editors, right on up to the executives and I’m speaking out!

If I were the owner of that newspaper, and it wasn’t some socialist experiment of a defunct military state like the Soviet Union, I’d call a company-wide meeting to talk about fact-checking and making sure we never run anything wrong, ever again. Because like I said earlier, Gawker has never run a single wrong thing – not with MY name attached to it, they haven’t. The Chronicle.SU is the most inaccurate, least factual source of information I’ve ever read. And yet, I keep coming back for more! It’s sickening.

I have a message for you Chronicle.SU readers out there who fall consistently for their lies and disinformation. You ready for it? Here it is, BIG NEWS BABY HERE WE GO:

The Chronicle.SU is a propaganda tool of the disinformation arm of the United States Government.

During Psy-Operative campaigns by the CIA, the Chronicle.SU was imbedded in IRC chats distributing pro-wikileaks articles and information so biased toward truth we jokingly called it truth-propaganda around the Gawker office. And they released DDoS instructions, toolkits and PHP-based starter kits to help lies spread faster, no matter what they were; they even helped build the Louise Boat. Simply disgusting.

Get a clue. Avoid Chronicle.SU

Moralfag Anonymous decidedly fucked

hubrisTHE INTERNET–Hubris is taking the power back. The new Anonymous are a collective, sure, he said. A collective of “moralfags” – a name anonymous dare not apply to us lest it be applied to themselves.

We challenged the most recent bastardization of Anonymous to stand behind their big talk and actually hit hard targets like the revolutionaries they claim to be – picture 100,000 Che Guevaras sitting behind firewalled PCs wearing Guy Fawkes masks clicking off the gate security buttons at the Mubarak compound.

After comparing themselves to the protesters in the streets of Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen, they could only hit a few websites and that of Westboro Baptist Church by downloading the same picture over and over again. Shameful, but that’s what the world can expect from script kiddies whose sole source of determination lies at the bottom of a freshly consumed Mountain Dew: Code Red.

Funny thing is, I was only trying to help “Anonymous,” whoever they may be, by asserting the possibility – no, the fact – that Anonymous is infiltrated, influenced and even operated by the United States Government. Since the 1960s, the FBI has been doing this with groups like the Black Panthers and even environmental activist groups, but especially groups for social change; what makes Anonymous think they’re some kind of special impenetrable force of good? The fact they are such nerd-raging moralfags, that’s what.

So in an effort to defend the integrity of their bullshit do-nothing collective, they inadvertently defended the United States Government by “attacking” me for pointing out what is obvious to everyone: that anyone can go anonymous, even federal agents, even chronicle.SU. Even Hubris, who took it a step further by proving that ‘Yes you can be fooled by the very social engineering techniques the better parts of your group employ.’

Reactionary script kiddies who are just thirsty enough to point the LOIC at something are hardly a force to be reckoned with. The only power they’ve gained yet stems from that handed down by the 24-hour fearmongering news cycle, always following some shithead stunt pulled off under the guise of “hacktivism” – a term so full of shit they had to combine two words to keep it from spilling out into paragraphs of contradictory mayhem.

To fully illustrate the connection between their limited but exaggerated power, and the swirling news cycle of fear from which their true – and only – power comes, I’ll proceed to explain how it works with the following anecdote:

Three easy steps into the Internet hate zone

  1. We pissed off the fake news source of the fake arm of Anonymous we love attacking
  2. Their reader-base – consisting of “white knight” Anonymous coattail-riders – reacted, by gathering “dox” on me, the results of which were then posted as a comment on a chronicle.su story. [One achieves dox by way of Google searches; between two and four search submissions return a name and hopefully an address or phone number; this is no different than the kind of footwork journalists or federal investigators conduct on a daily basis.]
  3. Thanks in part to fearmongering on behalf of nightly television news – and redneck neighbors’ concerns I’d gotten their kids into what they called “hacker shit” – my aunt and uncle refused to believe that the people we pissed off are not actual hackers, but just the kind of wormy shit-for-brains kids who frequent anonnews.org and jerk off to hentai with their LOIC pointed at Westboro Baptist’s website. My family was absolutely certain I’d pissed off one of those as-seen-on-TV “international hacker groups,” and asked me to leave before their personal computers “get hacked” and they lose their jobs. So I moved. No shit.

Failing physical threats of rape and murder, which came later, that’s literally the worst they can do.

[Editor’s note: in case you’re wondering, I’m fine. I missed a few days of work during the move, but I now live on one of the most beautiful mountain ranges in the world. Things actually got better for me after government agents threatened my life and my family. Springtime here smells sweeter than many women I’ve known. I watch clouds kiss the landscape with my coffee.]

Anonfags think they were doing something good by providing others with the means to bring harm against me and my family, because they saw me as the enemy after I threatened the integrity of the fake news source of the fake arm of Anonymous, effectively calling out their embarrassing superficiality. They really fed me right back to the government, because they liked the lies that they heard better than the truth I was offering.

Just like FOX News viewers, they collectively believed and repeated enough of what spilled out of that fake news source until they became ever-higher and mightier caricatures of themselves. And now this is happening.