skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Not a whole lot of information available about Heymann, but what little I can find doesn't make me like him more. Here's something that turned up from 1996, where he tried to get Harvard to authorize warrantless surveillance:

Stephen Heymann, deputy chief of the criminal division in the U.S. attorney's office in Boston, wanted Harvard to put an electronic banner on its intranet telling users they were being monitored. The banner, implying consent, would let law enforcement do the data tap without having to get a court order.

From the sidebar ("case in point") here: http://books.google.com/books?id=2xcEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA65

edit: He also apparently wrote a law-review article in 1997 entitled "Legislating Computer Crime", which might give a more accurate and perhaps nuanced account of his views on the subject. I'd link it, but it's paywalled.
Very sorry to hear this. I understand how being in pain all the time can drive one mad. Try to find some help or some relief. Don't give up.
Go dedicate a year to read about a small fraction of MIT's contributions to the world, and then post an update to your comment. We aren't talking about ITT or U of Phoenix here.
At the risk of antagonizing an upset crowd - to me, no, he wasn't.

A hero is someone admired for courage and/or other noble qualities.

It's also a word greatly overused in culture today.

Swartz was accomplished, certainly. Though to me "co-founded the website reddit.com, co-wrote one of many specifications for syndicating content and repeatedly hacked and trespassed to download content to which he was not authorized" does not a hero make.
As a former criminal defense attorney, I will say that based on what has been published about her on HN and other websites she's actually very good at her job as a prosecutor, precisely because she is overzealous. In fact, if her fellow prosecutors are to be believed, she's one of the best federal prosecutors still working for the government--after all, she runs the Boston federal prosecutor's office, easily one of the top 4 most prestigious postings a lawyer can hold in the executive branch of the federal government.

From my point of view, she is no different from Jack Dorsey, or Steve Jobs, or all those other techheads who are revered for their overzealous and overbearing behavior. The difference is that most people on HN don't, can't, or refuse to understand what her job is and the legal and ethical obligations that come with it.

To put things in perspective: you probably feel the same way about this prosecutor as I feel about the guys running AirBnB.
AaronSw (1986 - 2013)
Did you read the Wiki article? He claimed he wasn't responsible for the TJX hack, yet they were going to scapegoat him.
You could call them and ask for an update on your job. Ask if they've sent all the CVs, has there been feedback from the hiring manager & have any interviews been scheduled.

Or you could always be cheeky and find out the name of the recruiter responsible for your job and call them up all flustered and say "oh hey can you put me through to such&such I'm just returning a call"

I worked in this industry a while back and I guarantee they call so many people per day it's hard to know who you have called. Plus if they think they called you first then they're more likely to give you the time of day.

Unfortunately the hard bit of the job search isn't filling in all the forms it's navigating the recruiters, where your resume can get accidentally deleted at the press of a button.

With a bit of persistence you'll get there. Good luck!
"Decisions made by officials in the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney’s office and at MIT contributed to his death...The US Attorney’s office pursued an exceptionally harsh array of charges, carrying potentially over 30 years in prison, to punish an alleged crime that had no victims."

It's nothing personal, just business. They use these cases to run for higher office by "being tough on crime" and other nauseating BS.
How is it a crime to access (force access) content that belongs to the public? It was created using tax payers money and should have been available to the public without the hurdles in the first place.

Note the same content is now available over the Internet for free legally. So what has changed, and what was lost?
Wow. Brandishing submachine gins sound more reckless than brandishing an LED.

That fellow Pare seems awfully proud of himself for not accidentally murdering an innocent citizen.

When exactly did MIT first jump the shark? It wasn't like this 15 years ago.
In loco parentis wasn't the problem. There was a time when the MIT president would bail students out of jail in loco parentis. The rest of your comment is on target though.
The fact that the family chose to come forward with such a clear and bold statement condemning particular institutions on the day of their loss alone is proof enough that they strongly believe MIT and the DA's office played a critical part in what happened.

Families usually say things like this the same day a loved one dies, so their statements today are proof of nothing. It is their statements next week or next month that indicate how they feel about MIT and the USDOJ's role in Aaron's death.

"depressed about the case and the upcoming trial" (indicating perhaps that his depression and the pressure brought by the indictment are inseparable),

Of course they are inseparable--most defendants do get at least a little depressed when they are facing criminal charges. But the one thing that 99.9999% of defendants have in common is that they don't kill themselves, especially not before they are convicted, unless they have a serious mental illness. The number of white collar federal defendants who have committed suicide prior to trial in the past decade can be counted on a single hand.

Let's get this straight: I do think that the criminal case pushed Aaron over the edge and if you go far enough back in my posts I am usually blaming prosecutors for the overzealous and unethical behavior. If this case had gone to trial, I would probably be railing against the egregious prosecutorial misconduct of the case. But I place the blame for Aaron's death solely on his shoulders, because he is the one who made the decision to kill himself.
Well said, and thank you for posting this. Really
Three Felonies A Day - How The Feds Target The Innocent
I think you mean't "To dispose of any presupposition as irrational, simply for the sake of logical consistency, is an responsible way to live." Not to, is irresponsible.
What's The Oldest Tech You Have to Deal With at Work?
> So how about you save your emotionally charged call for an internet brigade until everything has settled down, yes?

Hey guys! You might be effective if you do this now, so don't do it! Wait for no one to care before you start trying!
Many people have wondered who to point the finger at within MIT. I find it incredibly enlightening that he chooses to point a finger by linking to MIT's Office of the General Counsel.
Yeah, what do academics have to say about law, government, management, or medicine, anyway? These important fields should be left to professionals, why are schools sticking their noses in?
He didn't break into anywhere.
MIT had an open network.
Can I use my neighbor's open wireless network without it being a crime?
All signs point to yes.
The 9th circuit, followed by the 4th, has been limiting the CFAA's scope precisely due to the concern about prosecutorial abuse and criminalizing simple unauthorized system access. I wonder if this case would have moved forward if the alleged events happened in San Francisco.

From US v. Nosal, 676 F. 3d 854 (9th Cir.):

"The government assures us that, whatever the scope of the CFAA, it won't prosecute minor violations. But we shouldn't have to live at the mercy of our local prosecutor. Cf. United States v. Stevens, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 1591, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010) ("We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the Government promised to use it responsibly."). And it's not clear we can trust the government when a tempting target comes along. Take the case of the mom who posed as a 17-year-old boy and cyber-bullied her daughter's classmate. The Justice Department prosecuted her under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) for violating MySpace's terms of service, which prohibited lying about identifying information, including age. See United States v. Drew, 259 F.R.D. 449 (C.D.Cal.2009). Lying on social media websites is common: People shave years off their age, add inches to their height and drop pounds from their weight. The difference between puffery and prosecution may depend on whether you happen to be someone an AUSA has reason to go after.

In United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 108 S.Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788 (1988), the Supreme Court refused to adopt the government's broad interpretation of a statute because it would "criminalize a broad range of day-to-day activity." Id. at 949, 108 S.Ct. 2751. Applying the rule of lenity, the Court warned that the broader statutory interpretation would "delegate to prosecutors and juries the inherently legislative task of determining what type of ... activities are so morally reprehensible that they should be punished as crimes" and would "subject individuals to the risk of arbitrary or discriminatory prosecution and conviction." Id. By giving that much power to prosecutors, we're inviting discriminatory and arbitrary enforcement."

*disclaimer: I am not a lawyer