Turing & Swartz

intro

Alan Turing and Aaron Swartz were brilliant men who wanted to make the world better through their work. Despite their contributions, both faced unfair treatment from their governments which ultimately led to their tragic deaths (by suicide).

It took the British government more than 50 years to apologize for how they treated Turing. The apology finally came in 2013 - the year that Swartz died.

It’s closed-loop stories like these that remind me of the following by Irshad Kamil:

तिरकिट ताल से लो चली कहानी

पनघट काल से लो चली कहानी

अनगिन साल से है वही पुरानी

तेरे-मेरे इश्क़ की ये नई कहानी

वासुदेव ने कान्हा को जमुना से पार लंघाया

दरिया से फ़िरऔन की बहना ने मूसा उठाया

post

Turing started off as a mathematician/cryptographer - during World War II he played a key role in cracking the German Enigma code, which helped save countless lives and shorten the war. Turing then worked in a field which is now known as “computer science” - his 1950 paper on “The Imitation Game” or “Turing Test” is one of the seminal pieces work in modern computing. However, in 1952, he was convicted of “gross indecency” because he was gay, which was illegal in the UK at the time. He was forced to undergo chemical castration as punishment and tragically died by suicide in 1954. He was 41.

Swartz on the other hand was a young programmer and activist in the United States. He co-created Markdown (with Gruber), co-created RSS (a format to share web content like this blog) and was one of the co-founders of Reddit. Aaron believed in open access to information and fought to make research papers, especially those paid for by public money, freely available to everyone. In 2010-2011, he downloaded millions of articles from a major publisher’s database using MIT’s network. While the publisher did not press charges, the U.S. government prosecuted him, threatening him with up to 35 years in prison. Aaron, overwhelmed by the legal battle, took his own life in 2013 at the age of 26.

Both Turing and Swartz were driven by ethical beliefs. Turing didn’t choose to be gay, but he lived his life honestly despite the laws of the time. Swartz believed that information, especially research paid for with public funds, should be free for everyone to access. Neither of them intended to harm others; instead, they wanted to make the world more open and just. But both were punished for violating rules or laws that didn’t align with their values.

Despite Turing’s enormous contributions to the war effort and modern technology, the British government focused on his personal life, which they deemed illegal, rather than celebrating his achievements. Similarly, the U.S. government focused on Swartz’s method of downloading articles instead of recognizing his passion for open access and the good it could bring.

Turing was forced to undergo chemical castration, a humiliating and inhumane punishment for simply being gay, which led to his suicide. Swartz, facing decades in prison and heavy fines for his non-violent actions, was under immense pressure, which also contributed to his act. In both cases, the punishments were extreme and did not fit the nature of their actions.

After their deaths, both Turing and Swartz have become symbols of unjust treatment. Turing was posthumously pardoned by the British government in 2013, and today he is widely celebrated as a hero of both World War II and computer science. The nobel equivalent in the field of Computer Science is named after him - the Turing Award. Swartz’s case sparked a movement to reform digital laws, especially the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which many believe gives the US government too much power to harshly punish people for online activities. Similar laws have since been passed in all countries of the world so our fight against injustice like this only gets harder from here.

outro

MIT played a key role in Swartz’s case because he used their network to download the JSTOR articles. While JSTOR decided not to pursue charges, MIT remained neutral and did not take steps to support Swartz or ease the legal pressure on him. If MIT had been more vocal or involved, the outcome could have been different. By apologizing, MIT would admit that its “neutrality” in Swartz’s case was a mistake. While MIT acted within legal boundaries, they could have done more to protect a young kid whose work aligned with MIT’s own values of knowledge-sharing. Swartz’s fight for open access is now a global movement, and many academic institutions, including MIT, have since taken steps to make research more accessible to the public. An apology would signal MIT’s recognition of Swartz’s vision and his contribution to this cause.

Laws and societal norms are not static; they evolve over time as people challenge what is considered acceptable or just. Turing was persecuted for being gay at a time when homosexuality was seen as immoral and illegal, but today, many countries recognize LGBTQ+ rights, and Turing is celebrated as a hero. Similarly, Swartz was prosecuted for downloading academic papers in violation of the law, but his actions were driven by the belief that knowledge should be free for all. Just as views on homosexuality changed over time, the criminalization of Swartz’s actions may also be reexamined in the future. Laws only change when people push for what they believe in, and today there is a growing demand for open access to knowledge and the embrace of open-source principles in all areas of society. This movement reflects a belief that the free exchange of information is not only ethical but necessary for innovation and progress.

See my last post on what happens when an organization goes against the open-source ethos.