Aaron Swartz v. United States (2011)
blogs.law.harvard.edu
blogs.law.harvard.edu
Carmen M. Ortiz, US Attorney, should be called before Congress to account for this.
And this not even considering the recent tragic event. :(
Except, you know...the fact that Congress passed a law a while ago that made this a crime.
This should come up in Congress because what Aaron did should not be a felonious act. At best, it should be an infraction (i.e., the lowest type of civil misconduct, like jaywalking).
But the fault lies with Congress for making this a crime, not Ms. Ortiz for enforcing the laws is ethically and legally bound to enforce.
This was because Aaron was a bit of a gadfly, and had gotten out of the PACER situation earlier, so he was already on their enemies list.
Congress was also at fault for passing a bunch of stupid laws, but that doesn't excuse Ortiz. It also doesn't excuse Aaron for killing himself and not getting help. There's plenty of blame to go around.
As a consequence of prosecutorial "discretion" exercised during the jim crow days of the segregated South, federal prosecutors do not have discretion about which laws to prosecute. Once they have been presented a case, they are required to prosecute if the presentation of evidence is sufficient to suggest that a crime has been committed.
Only upper management of the DOJ (i.e., above Ms. Ortiz) or the president can issue orders not to enforce certain laws.
Thus, this does excuse Ms. Ortiz. She's just doing her job. If you don't like that, change the scope of her job by getting her superiors to end enforcement of the laws at issue.
As far as I can tell, CFAA was not violated, at least under the narrow (i.e. correct) interpretation of the 9th circuit. There is a circuit split right now. 1st hasn't ruled at all, so she could easily have looked to the 9th for guidance on this and not included CFAA charges.
There was no "protection" at MIT or at JSTOR, so I don't see how fraud or unauthorized access, etc. applied. He scraped a website. He may have trespassed at MIT. If net-18 restriction is considered "protection", wtf (certainly a server on a secure LAN is protected by being only on the secure LAN, but a server limited to US-only access and accessed via a proxy is not. IMO Net-18 is a lot closer to national restrictions at YouTube than a security policy, since any guest could walk in and have access.
I don't see "recklessly damaging a computer" as applying at all. Wire Fraud is essentially free always.
Turning these into multiple counts for the same offense is also BS.
Justice.gov. Verbatim quote "The USA is invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority."
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit...
The United States Attorney, within his/her district, has
plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters.
This authority is exercised under the supervision and
direction of the Attorney General and his/her delegates.
The statutory duty to prosecute for all offenses against
the United States (28 U.S.C. § 547) carries with it the
authority necessary to perform this duty. The USA is
invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney
General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of
such authority."The USA [US Attorney] is invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority."
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit...
The United States Attorney, within his/her district, has
plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters.
This authority is exercised under the supervision and
direction of the Attorney General and his/her delegates.
The statutory duty to prosecute for all offenses against
the United States (28 U.S.C. § 547) carries with it the
authority necessary to perform this duty. The USA is
invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney
General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of
such authority.
The authority, discretionary power, and responsibilities of
the United States Attorney with relation to criminal
matters encompass without limitation by enumeration the
following:
Investigating suspected or alleged offenses against the
United States, see USAM 9-2.010;
Causing investigations to be conducted by the appropriate
federal law enforcement agencies, see USAM 9-2.010;
Declining prosecution, see USAM 9-2.020;
Authorizing prosecution, see USAM 9-2.030;
Determining the manner of prosecuting and deciding trial
related questions;
Recommending whether to appeal or not to appeal from an
adverse ruling or decision, see USAM 9-2.170;
Dismissing prosecutions, see USAM 9-2.050; and
Handling civil matters related thereto which are under the
supervision of the Criminal Division."Since his arresting the early morning of January 11, 2011 — two years to the day before Aaron Swartz ended his life..." http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bull...
The fact that he has a mentally ill mother is strong evidence of this, since mental illness has a genetic component (especially depression and schizophrenia).
His family and partner, perhaps the people who have been closest to him in recent times, seem to disagree with you [1][2].
> The fact that he has a mentally ill mother is strong evidence of this
Is that indeed a fact, or did you just happen to incorrectly infer that from my sentence? I was talking about Appelbaum's mother, not Swartz's. My point in citing Appelbaum was to denote that Swartz is not an isolated case; the US justice system has been systematically acting as an instrument of oppression against dissidents (and increasingly more frequently, against those active in the production and critique of technology) whom it perceives as adversaries of its federal and corporate sponsors.
Also, the family does not say anything that disagrees with what I said. They state merely that the criminal case "contributed to" Aaron's death. That is an actual quote from [1].
That's some rather selective reading on your part. You ignore the context in his mother's statement on HN that he was "depressed about the case and the upcoming trial" (indicating perhaps that his depression and the pressure brought by the indictment are inseparable), and cherry-pick a particular sentence to support your own view, rather than try to hear the tone and spirit of the statement. 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.
> But I place the blame for Aaron's death solely on his shoulders
Quoted for emphasis.