Aaron Swartz might have been assassinated
For a few decades now, it has been the general propensity of the North American towards individual psychologization when attempting to explain social events--a propinquity which focuses on the individuals as opposed to broader social phenomena at hand. We can see this tendency in the recent case of the death of Aaron Swartz, an alleged suicide. In order to account for this death, a great deal of effort has been placed at looking at possible evidence of some type of mental derangement, specifically depression. His last blog entry on the last Batman film is taken to be evidentiary of his mental state. While this is something of a stretch of the imagination, it is not nearly as bad as the use of a 2007 blog entry wherein Swartz discusses the direct confrontation of misery in the world. The claim for its evidentiary role is exaggerated, given that suicidal acts tend to reveal themselves in a relatively brief span of time after the suicidal tendencies/expressions have emerged--as opposed to half a decade , rendering moot the suggestion of its being evidentiary of Aaron Swartz's state of mind. Perhaps a photo of Swartz as a baby crying could also be used to 'prove' his deranged mental state of depression. Such are the gaps of the psycho-analysis that one tends to see in the media.
There can certainly be no doubt that Aaron Swartz was under a great deal of pressure. While the charges vary from news story to news story, from 35 years to 50 years of prison sentence, as well as varying fines of up to $ 1 million, it does seem that Attorney General Carmen Ortiz actually did increase the state attorney's prosecution of Swartz AFTER he had actually handed in all of the 'criminal booty' of 4 million or so academic articles--which only intellectuals and other academics would appreciate and actually seek. (You don't see mass revolutions seeking access to university libraries, for example.). It is well known that JSTOR had chosen NOT to file criminal charges against Aaron Swartz, or any other charges for that matter. Nonetheless, it does appear that the small fortune Swartz had made as a result of the sale of REDDIT had been consumed in the 2 year conversation with federal authorities. Ortiz bled dry Swartz's coffers, in what YoungTurks has appropriately shown to be a most egregious abuse of power. While preparing a nuclear weapon with Al Qaeda might lead to a 20 prison sentence, Ortiz was threatening the young Swartz with more than double--or what is basically a lifetime sentence of 50 years. Any allegations that women are more humane and peaceful in positions of power go right out the door on this one.
Yet, we might ask, would Swartz have committed suicide? On a more detailed basis, this is improbable. Note that in all the stories, the family simply did not expect him to take his life. It is also usually the case that the primary age group that tend to commit suicide tend to be teenagers (15-21) and very young adults with little experience in the real world or very dismal futures ahead of them. The absence of the experience of control over the world that all adults experience, an ignorant projection of an uncertain future, and the reversion to certain child-like traits wherein helplessness are appeals presumed to result in the acquisition of parental resources often lead to these nefarious results. Yet, if we look at Swartz's actual personality profile, he fits none of the above descriptions. Swartz had been extremely successful career-wise, contributing directly to the current internet infrastructure, having a firm and core set of beliefs with regard to the social order, and finally he was very actively engaged in the public arena defending these beliefs and establishing organizations to meet these ends. Even if he had lost so much money, he was so well-connected, so well-known, so beloved by so many different individuals in the tech world and outside of it, that the case for 'suicide' is greatly weakened.
What is NOT usually seen in a discussion of the case is what incentives might have existed to actually kill Aaron Swartz. Again, the well established facts of his life and surrounding circumstances point to the likelihood that criminal activity might have played a part. Why would anyone have wanted to kill Swartz?, and more specifically, why would they want to have killed him specifically on that particular friday (January 11, 2013)? Again, details of the case suggest both the motive and the possible perpetuator(s).
Obfuscation is a technique well-known to CIA operatives and, broadly speaking corporate covert agents; this was precisely the same technique used by McAfee during his escape from Belize a few weeks ago. McAfee gave off false signals in order to confuse his pursuers, dressing up as a maid, establishing a blog with predetermined entires, etc--techniques which worked very effectively to many people's surprise, particularly to the surprise of the Belize police. We might note that it was precisely the circumstances of Swart'z 'predicament' which provided a window of opportunity in which to kill him without raising direct suspicion.
Specifically, we may note that two days prior to his death, Larry Lessig had actually received a mail from JSTOR claiming that they were going to make public 4.5 million documents--roughly the same amount that Swartz had downloaded from their website to (presumably) make public. This news had not reached the general public yet. Lessig noted that although he was not formally Swartz's lawyer, he had acted informally as his attorney; he was busy and was expecting to give Swartz the good news the following weekend when they were likely to meet again. Why is this piece of news so important? Because it would have rendered moot the entire federal case against Swartz; no crime would have been committed for good that were actively being given away to the public. If you put yourself in the mind of the criminal, the 'logic' of the crime becomes obvious. Had they waited a few more days to commit the murder, it would have been very implausible to make the case for suicide, hence rendering his death a very likely case of a possible homicide. In other words, the criminal actors needed to act immediately before that 'window of opportunity' vanished--a window which was only open for a period of 1-2 days.
Yet, presuming that we have a valid argument supporting the case of homicide of Swartz, 'who then would have been the criminal?'. This is not too hard to answer: the very same companies and/or government agencies which stood to lose as a result of the overturning of SOPA. Again, it is well know that Swartz was DIRECTLY responsible for its overturn, which seemed improbable early in its campaign. It was not JSTOR or MIT that 'killed' Swartz--an absurd claim in part because Swartz's father himself worked at MIT. (Also note that, given the role of both institutions in their creation of public academic space, it immediately precluded such a grotesque conclusion, and hence the immediate suggestion that he might have been 'assassinated' by the actors whom he was in direct personal conflict with at the time.) Rather, it is our estimate that the likely culprit would have been the film industry, which is so fearful of loosing the immense revenue streams which have been gradually eroded as a result of P2P file sharing. Taking a clue from the music industry, which is perhaps the most 'affected' the new technological state of affairs, the film industry realized that Swartz was one of the key players they needed to get rid of. He had the technical know-how; he has the public support; and he simply had the moral standing to continued wage an effective camping against their perceived interests.
Wait a minute, you might ask yourselves. Are you mad? The Film Industry hiring thugs to kill Swartz in what would publicly appear to be a suicide?! That NEVER happens you might claim; corporations are 'angels'. Well, part of the problem with that point of view is that in this deluge of information in the computer age, we have forgotten the history of corporate espionage and wrongdoing that was so well known and pervasive during the 1970s: Nixon, Kissinger, ITT, Chile, Allende etc etc etc. What would have been a natural claim and reaction at the time, has since been eroded from the 'public domain', in part because corporations realized that public assassinations tend to have a negative impact on their brand image. (This might sound preposterous, but its in fact what has happened over the years.) If you are going to kill someone, you need to do it in such a way that the arrow of culpability points elsewhere. If true, this gives an entire new meaning to 'passive-aggressive' behavior.
We have forgotten that very important lesson of the 18th century: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
PS. What is most ironic of all of this is that, if true, it has occurred under the tenure of a President was awarded the Noble Peace Prize--a factor which broadly tends to remove culpability from state actors (but is merely the projection of a single individual onto the entire state bureaucracy). If the suicide had occurred under the George. W. Bush administration, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the level of suspicion over government behavior would have been much more elevated, and would probably have led to an even greater reaction by the public given George W. Bush's clear links and ties to the Republican Corporate community.