U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case
blogs.wsj.com
blogs.wsj.com
That's why you assign investigations to independent entities, and that's why butchers aren't allowed to do their own health inspection.
Whether it was appropriate or not is not for Carmen Ortiz to say.
"The prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his acts for personal financial gain, and they recognized that his conduct – while a violation of the law – did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases."
Is in direct conflict with Aaron's lawyer's account of the run up to last Saturday as well as other statements issued earlier, she may come to regret those words if he has documentation to prove his side of the story.
Aaron's lawyer claims they were threatening just the opposite if he did not take a guilty plea.
In particular:
"At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz’s attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum penalties under the law."
Is a falsifiable claim. I'm looking forward to Aaron's lawyers' response to this statement.
Scapegoating Congress now, she is truly shameless in invoking the Nuremberg Defense.
It isn't, though. That she comes out with this attitude afterwards is absolutely self-serving and cannot be relied on as an accurate description of her motivations. The "hey, well, that was just the press release" claptrap should be completely disregarded as a mitigating rationale for the ass-covering bullshit that it is.
This leaves us with the "hey, Congress passed these laws, don't look at me," attitude that, as Jacques astutely points out, removes her agency from her actions.
The concept and practice of prosecutorial discretion, however, casts the lie to that position. Barthes and Derrida's "death of the author" is not a force in the law, so Ortiz attempting to play The Cog role should be seen as nothing more than sarcasm.
He never said it was always inappropriate to mention it, nor that those who mention it are always wrong, etc.
The popularity of "Godwin's Law" (especially this incorrect interpretation) has lead to a lot of people denying that anything in the US (or any online discussion) could be accurately compared to anything that happened in Germany.
Which is silly, but just another case of "when america does it, it's different."
7 years is far less than the maximum sentence so she's still correct in saying they didn't push for the maximum (pending other evidence that might come out).
What do you think his punishment should be if caught?
"Actually changing things" may involve "criticizing congress" but I expect it to be rather more complicated. I think that all of the players in this case should have exercised discretion. The fact that so many people (including the citizens of America) allowed this situation to occur is the tragedy.
I think that the Aaron Swartz tragedy is not an example of an acute failure in America's legal system that we can blame on any specific element: the prosecutor, the congress that passed the law, or the court system that allowed this legal case to proceed as long as it did. I think the legal case is an example of a complete breakdown of America's legal system. In America we have 3 general wings of government that all have a hand in the legal system:
Legislative (e.g. Congress) that writes the laws.
Executive (e.g. prosecutor) that prosecutes potential violations of the laws
Judicial (e.g. the court and judge) that decides whether potential violations of the law are actual violations
I think we can justifiably criticize Ortiz and congress and the judge and Aaron and The American People for their roles in this mess, and I expect that all of them will need to improve before the situation does.
All of the players had opportunities to exercise good judgement and they all failed when presented these opportunities.
Thank you! I think this is the first time I have read a comment on HN about this whole mess that actually puts some of the responsibility back on Aaron. He had several opportunities to exercise good judgement. Like the first time he had to alter his virtual appearance to regain access after he had been discovered and cut off. They didn't yet know who it was. That was a huge missed opportunity right there. It all would have been over.
http://watchdogblog.dallasnews.com/2013/01/read-the-full-cou... page 344
> Nothing in the wire fraud statute or the cases construing it provides constitutionally adequate notice that manipulating IP addresses, spoofing MAC addresses, and gaining access to a free electronic communications network (MIT's) for the purpose of accessing another website to download journal articles which are free to those with access to the website, and for which access MIT had already paid, constitutes a federal wire fraud felony carrying a potential penalty of 30 years.
> Defendant's research has located no reported wire fraud case which is even remotely comparable to this one.
The defence lawyers may have been talking in hyperbole but they had some reason to believe that it was potentially 30 years. Perhaps because they had heard nothing to contradict that impression.
Aaron Swartz
TERMINATED: 01/14/2013
Sorry for the off-topic post.
Heaven forbid when someone 'kill's the Apache instance on aaronsw.com...
EDIT: Sorry, this might seem a bit harsh/shallow, but it was my attempt at pointing out that there is a reaction here that is, in parts, bordering on the hysterical - to use the parent example, "I'm sure the use of 'terminated' is probably just legal terminology"... as opposed to what, "Yeah, we got him, target terminated"?
The flip side to this is that sentences are normally given concurrently, or simply based on the most serious charge actually found guilty of during the trial.
> Is a falsifiable claim. I'm looking forward to Aaron's lawyers' response to this statement.
I agree with previous posts on the matter, which argued that the system of insane maximum penalties + plea bargaining is the modern, "civilized" version of inquisition, i.e. producing guilty pleas under the prospect of torture.
If you translate Carmen Ortiz' statement to "At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz’s attorneys that it intended to seek – to break the defendant's kneecaps" (translation, not equation!), you may get a better idea of why her claim may be absolutely accurate, and still entirely missing the point.
I wonder if he ever considered the fact that even if he did serve time, he would always be seen as some kind of folk hero who would have been welcomed with open arms by all his peers upon release. It would have been a situation of him, all his peers and everyone he respects against the system, which imho is not that bad a situation. Still a much better situation than for example the one Assange find himself in.
If you look at other cases, from the Pirate Bay to Wikileaks, you'll see that there are always options. Aaron didn't see any. I'd find it almost disgusting to make a judgement. Abstract reasoning can completely break down when you're facing a concrete, threatening situation. And the prospect of becoming "some kind of folk hero" may look very different if that's supposed to be you.
and they recognized that his conduct – while a violation of
the law – did not warrant the severe punishments authorized
by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in
appropriate cases.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/aaron-swartz-felony...
Federal prosectors added nine new felony counts against
well-known coder and activist Aaron Swartz, who was charged
last year for allegedly breaching hacking laws by
downloading millions of academic articles from a
subscription database via an open connection at MIT.
Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the
judge. At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell
Mr. Swartz’s attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum
penalties under the law.
http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR....
AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire
fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information
from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a
protected computer. If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ
faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three
years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a
fine of up to $1 million.
Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the
judge.
"Ultimately any sentence imposed would have been up to the judge" and had the judge thrown the book at him Ortiz & Heymann would have washed their hands: "Oh well, maybe the judge shouldn't have given him 8 years rather than 3, but that's what he gets for not plea bargaining." This of course disavows Ortiz's and Heymann's own complicity in drumming up PDF downloading into a federal case.
This woman really feels like her office's actions were justified, and that's the scary part. You get a sense of what Aaron was up against. She needs to feel what it's like to be in a no-win situation herself, with the choice being resignation or getting fired. That is only way that prosecutors across the land will get the message: that this was wrong.
Can we change that to 'being fired'.
There are hundreds of prosecutors in the US who routinely - even though against predominantly non-white and non-prominent defendants - seek much harsher sentences for much lesser "crimes", often with much more dubious evidence, and much lower chances for defendants to ever have their personal situation considered in a public forum like this one.
The need to "start somewhere" doesn't exempt you from seeing things in proportion. ("Proportion" with regards to Ortiz. Aaron's death must not enter equations or comparisons. It's absolutely out of proportion.)
Attacking a single prosecutor who was doing her job and obeying the law won't change anything. Attacking the laws she enforced will.
Remains the fact that none of the bright minds that congregate under news.ycombinator.com seems to have the slightest idea how "attacking the laws" is supposed to work. Apart from maybe a vague theory of erosion that appears far less convincing than pretty much anything most people here would dare to argue in the context of, say, a business plan.
How do you assure that president will not be corrupted or compromised as well? How will he be able to tell every single person who is invested in the laws you're trying to attack (from corporate interests that are so huge that they're usually awarded cabinet posts to the sheer drag of gigantic bureaucracies invested in existing career paths) to go away? How can he practically reach the most powerful political position without sacrificing this very ability?
Plus: Imagine what would be the smartest, most malicious attacks on your plan. How would you counter them?
(Edit: None of these are rhetorical questions, of course. I do believe these laws have to be attacked. But if you asked me, maybe I'd rather invest in something like the study of political tectonics, earthquakes. Why do they happen so rarely, what makes them so destructive, and how can one provoke them?)
If you tried to change a DA's office from the inside, you'd get about as far as if you tried to change an investment bank from the inside: you'd be fired, because your moral approach would have a definite negative impact on the number they use to measure your productivity.
You'd never get past making copies unless you assimilated. And even if you went 'deep undercover' and didn't assert your morality until you reached a position of influence, you'd simply be bounced from that spot, as you (and now your entire office or division) continued to deliver 'worse' numbers than those who would replace you.
I disagree, if Ortiz was looking for a future in politics, she's finished. At the very least, she'll have to change her party affiliation. This is a good thing. Otherwise she could've possibly carried on at a higher level.
Although the various public reactions have yet to make any change in law; recent events may discourage similar prosecutions, at least in the near term. Also, a good thing.
But just putting a temporary cap on Ortiz' career doesn't seem like a big win to me, in the grand scheme of things. I know nothing about Massachusetts politics. Who knows she's not the "good cop", compared to the person whose career, as a result, will advance faster?
How she compares to the next guy (who won't make the same mistakes) I can't say. There are an infinite number of possible outcomes.
We do: http://hcrenewal.blogspot.ca/2013/01/the-tragic-case-of-aaro...
That's definitely wrong.
Prosecutors go after crimes like this in a public way partly to deter others. The theory is that if they make a clear example of one transgressor, it will scare others into line.
If that theory is good enough for hackers, who aren't particularly good at responding to social pressure, I'm sure it's good enough for career federal employees, who are notoriously risk averse. And the government will certainly fire people who have attracted sufficient negative media attention; Shirley Sherrod is a clear example.
I'm with you on fixing the other injustices as well, but that's no reason not to go for a win with Ortiz. Indeed, getting a win here means you'll have a bunch of people feeling victorious who can be motivated to move to something bigger.
"Which brings me to my second conclusion — Aaron Swartz ran facefirst into a law-enforcement and prosecutorial culture that we have allowed to run amok for far too long. It began with drugs. It intensified with the "war on terror." Preventive detention — though they don't call it that — has been mainstreamed, due process sacrificed to efficiency. Investigation without cause has been normalized in our daily lives, through mandatory drug testing and roadblocks and a dozen other ways we barely think about any more. Personal privacy has been rendered less important than official secrecy in the general scheme of things. We want — nay, demand convictions, and all barriers to them be damned."
"Back when rogue prosecutor Mike Nifong went crazy and ginned up a rape prosecution against several members of the Duke lacrosse team, there was a great deal of horror at how "the system" could have gone so horribly wrong. But it didn't. It just got aimed for once at people with the financial and social wherewithal to fight back. There are minor-league Mike Nifongs in every precinct house and every federal law-enforcement operation and every DA's office and all throughout the branch offices of the Department Of Justice. There are "Duke rape cases" happening every day in alleys and on streetcorners of every city, and on the dusty backroads on the outskirts of nowhere."
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Case_Of_Aaron_Swar...
This was never a guarantee. As she said, the judge makes the final determination. The DA's suggestion has a lot of pull with a judge, but the DA can't promise anything.
Much popcorn was consumed watching theatrics in town of 1k people.
Previous mayor got into a fight about hours worked with the council, and then after passing a resolution, the council had a lawyer look at it and decide that they couldn't do what they just did.
Previous to that, the mayor used the word 'poopyhead' on a local internet forum, which was disbanded later due to the excessive flaming over land use regulations.
Small towns are lovely, except for the talent pool for leading them.
That quote in no way says what you claim it does. It makes a comment (as every DOJ press release does) stating the material fact of the maximum penalties available based on the charges laid.
It doesn't say anything about "prosecutors are seeking..."
It's quite clearly swinging around the threat of a big sentence. I can't see how that could possibly be more clear.
It's meant to intimidate and frighten, not just Swartz, but any one else who may come into conflict with the United States Attorneys. That's why it's there.
It's not merely a statement of fact, it's bragging and intimidation.
Wrong. It's up to the prosecutor which charges are filed, which are dropped, which are pursued in court.
If they are taking those charges to trial, and they were in this case, it means they are seeking those penalties. Now, they may ask the judge for a lesser sentence ... everyone wants to appear merciful after you beat the guy down, but they most certainly were seeking them to begin with.
Also, this entire "judge decides" is absolute bullshit. And it smells like bullshit to anyone who has been in a court room.
Technically, even if you accept the plea bargain, after you stand in front of the judge and say "guilty" ... the judge can easily ignore your plea deal, accept your guilty plea, and sentence you to the maximum allowed. Now, that almost never happens, since that would undermine the whole system ... but it can, since it's up to the judge.
Judges, frequently, give deference to the prosecutor on sentencing matters, unless they feel the defendant deserves a break. That puts the onus on the prosecutor to act in a just manner, instead of saying "oh, it's up to the judge, don't look at me".
I don't think this is true. I think they just want to make sure they can convict him if they can prove lesser charges but can't prove the main charge.
The implication in the press, and denied now by Orbitz, is that she told Aaron's lawyer that she was going to ask for, demand even, the maximum sentence. And she has denied that was ever the case. His lawyers can confirm or deny that.
There is more to hear about the intransigence of MIT in their willingness to accept a lesser sentence as well. As with many things, everyone reporting on this has reason to shade the words to advance their point of view, and so it takes a lot of work to be discerning.
Analysis on Volokh's blog: http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-agains... shows the number of the charges probably would not influence the sentence much, but greatly increases chances of conviction and creates serious chance for a long prison term if unsympathetic judge happens to be sentencing.
Two. People use leverage. They may or may not use it rightly but they do use it. Anyone who cannot set their opinion of the justice of that to one side, and get on to the business of the contest at hand, is not cut out for politics. Such people enter these contests at a great disadvantage and risk getting hurt.
If you cannot fight with your head then you really should not fight at all. You will very likely lose. You might get hurt, and you might get hurt badly. Politics ain't beanbag.
Three. If you think an attorney able to rise to the position US Attorney will be caught in a "falsifiable claim" on a matter of this prominence then you simply do not understand what you are talking about.
The system is so horribly compromised in the US it's hard to see how it can be meaningfully fixed. What a mess.
However, people moving between legislative and executive branches of the government is pretty common. State legislators become governors, governors become federal legislators, federal legislators run for president.
In the US, prosecutors are part of the executive branch. That's because their job is to represent the state. They are supposed to seek justice, but in the context of an adversarial system. Judges are nominally neutral umpires; prosecutors battle with defense attorneys. Both sorts of attorneys are expected to fight vigorously but fairly for their side. So the burden of fairness mainly falls on the system and the judges, not the partisans on either side.
But yes, that does produce a conflict of interest when deciding what crimes to prosecute. They have an incentive to pick cases that benefit both the state and themselves.
You cannot overcome Might by convincing it to be Right. Not reliably.
You overcome Might with Might. If you are Right, that actually increases your strength. But you still have to win. You still have to fight. That means strategy and preparation and readiness for loss.
Anyone thinking anything else isn't thinking, they're dreaming. They're going lose, and the higher the stakes the more they'll get hurt.
In the we live in the real world sense, absolutely.
The US gets to enforce US law around the world because they have more guns. You'll notice that when the USSR was around there were a group of countries with a vastly different system because the USSR had enough guns to force the people of those countries to play along.
The International Criminal Court is an even better example, the US is not a signatory to the ICC but can recommend other non-signatories to be prosecuted by the ICC while at the same time denying the ICC rules apply to the US.
Might absolutely makes right because those with out might are unable to enforce their decisions. Ortiz lives by politics she can die by politics, I'm sure she's experienced enough to realize the realpolitik ways of the world. She's no innocent bystander in the corruption of the American justice system.
It's what makes debating with ideological idealists so contentious IMO. There's no way to convince them to settle for anything other than "what's right", even if the only way to get to that state is to first settle for gradually less-wrong states in between.
Even RMS had the pragmatism to start developing GNU on a proprietary OS with proprietary tools.
This becomes very tricky when you have the power to enforce your opinions on other people.
I think that knowing the letter of the law is not enough and people who work as judges or prosecutors should also have profound sense of justice - without it, any law can be twisted and tortured into unjust persecution when there is a will. Even the best humanly possible law is not immune to that. It's always easy to find a stick when you really want to beat the dog.
The way I see it, if Cameron Ortiz were to prosecute herself the same way she apparently prosecuted others, she would be facing death penalty right now. But I'm sure she would be offered some 'acceptable' deal.
But there is a huge difference between "you are wrong because x, y and z", and "you simply shouldn't think that in the first place."
Some choice samples: Nixon: I'm not a crook. Oliver North lying to congress and many many others besides.
Officials at all levels make falsifiable claims all the time and sometimes they trip themselves up. Ortiz is under extreme pressure at the moment and very likely to trip herself up.
Even getting rid of incriminating emails is worse than keeping them for inspection. North and John Poindexter (sp?) exchanged emails, deleted them when they realized they were in hot water and those emails were subsequently recovered.
I'm surprised no-one else is commenting specifically on the use of these words. Forgive my lack of knowledge/experience but isn't the point of the courts etc to go through the process of 'innocent until proven guilty'?
If this basic premise is broken and no-one's talking about it then things must be in a really bad way.
It's almost the opposite : the U.S. attorney is not an employee of the justice system, she's an employee of the executive (she represents Obama's interest as head of state - nothing else). She is a lawyer that is in the service of the white house and should therefore defend whatever opinion the executive has on the matter.
In simple terms : if the white house thinks you're guilty the attorney's job is to prove that beyond reasonable doubt. Assuming it goes to trial (which this case did not do) it seems extremely likely that the prosecutor thinks you're guilty, otherwise, why would she start a court case that's likely to publicly humiliate the executive ?
Please keep in mind that the opinion of Carmen Ortiz did not really come into the picture. Once the complaint was filed, and the complainant (MIT and JSTOR) demanded damages, her opinion did not matter in the least - her job is to find a settlement acceptable to all parties involved or bring the case to court (because it's a criminal case). She proposed a number of settlements, which were refused by either Aaron Swartz or MIT, and informed them she would bring the case to court, at which point she informed the defendant of the charges (and included the maximum penalty for them - maximum penalty seems unlikely to have been applied in this case, but that's of course my personal opinion, and I'm not the judge). After that the guy killed himself.
Of course, speaking in general, any attorney would probably like to have good relations with MIT, a place that trains more than a few people who later become judges.
I'm curious. How is it you've determined that Ortiz is lying on multiple accounts, but that Aaron's lawyer must be dispelling gospel truth?
Where did it say that?
If Aaron's lawyers statement disagrees with Ortiz' then there will hopefully be some factfinding to determine who tells the truth and who does not. If they both agree then the falsifiable claim turned out to be true.
Falsifiable does not mean 'false'.
The absolute dishonesty of this statement has only further convinced me that firing this political appointee to prevent her from further harming citizens is the only appropriate action for our government to take.
This 35 year (or 50 year) thing mentioned in many blogs might be questionable. To be frank I feel myself a bit fooled by this information, reading yesterday that 6 month have been proposed to Swartz. When talking about things as serious as death, we seem to assume that every information is depicted really carefully, but this is far from being true.
It's not just in blogs, it is also in DOJ press releases attributed to Carmen Ortiz, linked elsewhere in this thread.
"If convicted on all charges, he could have spent more than 50 years in prison."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/internet-pioneer-...
The key words there being "could have."
The additional charges added later (after this press release) are the source of the 50 year estimate.
6 months was offered IF he agreed to plead guilty. If he went to trial, the prosecutors claim in the above press release that he faced 35 years; in private communications they have claimed they intended to press for 7 years.
There are exceptions, but most of the blog articles I have read on the subject have been extremely well sourced and well researched.
People have shown a great ability to leap into conflating the two, a statement of intent versus a statement of fact.
At no point in this sentence did I say "If you do not pay us 10% we will burn down your business." However prosecutions have successfully argued, and any reasonable person would agree, that the first sentence is a threat, is coercive, and is criminal. Making a statement about what "could" happen can be interpreted (often correctly) as a threat. Making a statement about what could happen when the person making it is instrumental, even a required agent, in the future event, is most certainly evidence of a threat. Making such a statement while offering a lesser harm (or sentence) is most certainly a threat.
You may post as many replies on this thread that "threat" doesn't mean what we think it means but the law, common sense, and understanding of English, proves you wrong.
"I didn't intend to burn down their business, judge. I just pointed out that it could happen. Whether or not I would have intended to do so after they decided not to accept my plea-bargain^H^H^H pay my protection fee is immaterial to the case. You are conflating the two, a statement of intent verses a statement of fact. The fact is I did not burn down their business and you have no record of my saying that I intended to."
From United States v. Kelner (1975) -
"... the threat on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution..."
The "threat" made by the prosecutor in Swartz's case wouldn't meet the conditions of unequivocal, unconditional, or immediate thereby rendering it not a threat. A layman may feel that they were threatened or that someone else would feel threatened by the statement in the press release, but the law does not consider it one.
If I go on TV and make threats, then sure, the prosecution would have to meet that standard. If I meet you in dark alley with what you believe to be a gun (but aren't sure) and I make implied remarks about what might happen to you if you get caught wearing that watch, and maybe you can leave it with me and I'll be sure to return it to you when you're safe, then I'm going to jail. I don't have to say "Give me that watch or I will shoot you". If I imply that sleeping with me might get you that promotion, even without saying so, and I'm in a position to make it happen, then I'm guilty of sexual harassment. I don't have to say "If you fuck me I'll promote you".
Lets be clear. I'm not expecting Ortiz to be drawn up on extortion or racketeering charges. The examples were to demonstrate that a "true threat" does not require the defendant to say "I intend to X on date Y" for it to be taken as a threat or proof of intent.
The examples you have provided in both of your posts include ominous characters and "dark alleys." More importantly, both of those situations involve an agent telling the other person they should take some action or there will be some consequence, implying that if the action is not taken, then there is a risk of the consequence. In the press release by the prosecutor, there was simply a statement of consequence, not a prescribed set of choices or a consequence if Swartz didn't take a certain action. There may have been threatening outside of the press release, but those facts are still murky and it is outside of the scope of what I am talking about.
If you are picking a bone with plea bargaining and how it is used to threaten people and coerce them into guilty pleas, then that is fine, I'm not arguing with you there - just with the perception that the prosecutor's statement was threatening.
Stating "Charges X, Y, and Z could result in 35 years" is not a threat. Stating "Charges X, Y, and Z could technically result in 35 years, and I will seek at least 7 years" is a threat of 7 years. Stating "I am charging you with X, Y, and Z which could result in 35 years." and putting that out in a press release... that is threatening 35 years.
[1] http://m.dictionary.com/d/?q=threat&submit-result-SEARCH...
http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR....
Legal jargon is very specific and it may seem overly analytic to draw such a fine line, but that is exactly how law works and such specific distinctions must be drawn in order to understand exactly what is being said.
http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-agains...
> Why are you hearing that Swartz faced 35 or 50 years if it was not true? First, government press releases like to trumpet the maximum theoretical numbers. Authors of the press releases will just count up the crimes and the add up the theoretical maximum punishments while largely or completely ignoring the reality of the likely much lower sentence. The practice is generally justified by its possible general deterrent value: perhaps word of the high punishment faced in theory will get to others who might commit the crime and will scare them away. And unfortunately, uninformed reporters who are new to the crime beat sometimes pick up that number and report it as truth. A lot of people repeat it, as they figure it must be right if it was in the news. And some people who know better but want you to have a particular view of the case repeat it, too. But don’t be fooled. Actual sentences are usually way way off of the cumulative maximum punishments.
Little known fact here. When you accept a plea bargain you do not accept a sentence as part of that. Often times you agree to plea to lesser chargers which have a lower maximum penalty but you still run the risk of being sentenced to the max.
There is also the chance the judge will give a longer sentence with enhancements. It's possible you will have not been convicted, tried, or even charged for those enhancements. This has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. However that doesn't stop judges from doing it anyway. When you are crushed, broke, and in jail what are ya gonna do, sue?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard#Sentencing_and...
Sure. You have 24 hours a day of free time, a law library, and nothing to lose.
She should get fired for doing exactly what she was put in to office to do? IE: Follow the federal sentencing guidelines like she should? In no way was there ever going to be some 30 year sentence. Six months maximum is not over reach.
It's a form of kindness. If you make them crush their self-confidence and make them feel like shit, they learn their lesson. They lose that blithe self-confidence and begin to realise they have to play by the same rules as everyone else. And then, they will hopefully turn into constructive, positive-minded members of society.
The practice varies with the character of the kid, the ugliness of their crime, etc. I'm not saying this is what Ortiz and co were thinking with Aaron necessarily but I wouldn't be surprised if it was an element. Aaron's behaviour was very removed from the situations I'm talking about, so the participants and response was very different. But he sounds like quite an... intense person, so maybe they decided they needed to put a lot of pressure on him to crush his spirit.
Of course, usually the kids don't kill themselves - but then usually it's not the justice department slapping them on the wrist. They should have realised that people like Aaron are very fragile. I won't apologise for that. A more delicate touch was required, because this outcome is just awful and a disaster for all parties. A real shame. But I do want to point out that their actions in frightening him were not necessarily without reason.
By the way, I have spent a night in a cold concrete cell sobering up and feeling like the world's biggest idiot. My escapade cost me $2700 and a lot of self-respect, and though it was awful at the time I am thankful and realise I learned my lesson very economically. Hearing Aaron's story is really painful.
No one will ever know why Aaron killed himself fully, and that is unfortunate. Most of us only learned of him fully through his suicide. When I watch youtube videos of the guy, he seems so damn intelligent, eloquent, literate... It's hard to imagine that he wasn't smart enough or brave enough to truly ask the community for help.
That all said, one of the main things I've learned through my own past escapades and more so through tragic news like this, is that the justice system is inherently fucked up. It is designed to destroy the plaintiff. I have lived through this and it was the most miserable experience of my life (thanks ex gf I used to love for 5 years). Once you are in the 'system', or they are after you, if they have a reason (in their own mind), you are fucked.
Unless you are a multi-millionaire who can afford to pay your way out, and even still, you're most likely getting fucked from one direction or the other.
I think that is what this entire thing boils down to. Overreach of the Federal Government. Punishment does not fit the alleged and unconvicted crime.
Aaron might have had depression issues (a whole different beast in itself), but from all the empirical evidence available to the public, it seems like he was truly pushed into a corner and a high risk for suicide - and unfortunately he fulfilled that presumption.
I hope we as a society can learn from this.
He did.
This is a list of campaigns by Demand Progress: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_Progress#Campaigns
Isn't that maybe where proportionality comes in though?
It seems like they did indeed put on enough pressure to crush his spirit but maybe what they needed to do was give him a little wake up call/warning.
I don't believe there's any evidence at all that this on average has the intended effect. If there is, I'd love it if someone has a reference.
He was told. If you can even imagine that he wasn't, you need better news sources. This kind of anti-reality nonsense sounds an awful lot like Tea Party conspiracy crap. To effectively critique the law, everyone needs to learn how it works.
They still believe that? Sorry but they're unfit for the job. They need to go. There was nothing reasonable about their actions on this case.
> a sentence that we would recommend to the judge of six months in a low security setting.
Six months in jail for downloading files that were accessible to him? All he did was violate terms of service! Are we going to start arresting under-age Facebook users or gamers that cheat next? Should they get six months too?
This statement is just icing on the cake that proves that Ortiz is inappropriate for that job/role.
Downloading four million files, apparently. And if by breaking terms and services you mean illegally distributing protected content and threatening the business model of JSTOR then yes, I suppose that is true.
Aaron never did that. He may have been planning that but nobody can say this for a fact.
Ah worked it out, someguy did it a while ago, http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/6554331/Papers_from_Philosoph... and released his version as a tribute to Aaron. Mystery solved.
JSTOR indicated that they had settled everything the needed to settle privately with Aaron. This was all on MIT and the Prosecution.
He never distributed anything. No clue where you got that from?
Additionally "threatening a business model" within its self isn't a crime. In fact one might argue that it is a very good thing. Monopolies have often fallen to disruptive technologies, should we go arrest the people behind VoIP because they went after the telecos? Or the inventors of the printing press because they put scribes out of business? Or the inventor of the light-bulb because nobody had to light all of those candles each night?
The only "crime" here was violating terms. For that they want to hit him with between six months and thirty five years of jail (plus costs, fines, and a criminal record). If this same over-reaction was applied to all terms violators we would have half the country in jail right now.
Anyway, I've used JSTOR a lot as a university student. It's a really good service. They don't create the economics of the journal industry, they just try to work within it.
And no, I disagree with you, Aaron's actions strike me as extreme and out of the ordinary.
I know there is his manifesto from a couple of years ago but we can't be sure what he was going to do with them.
"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."
Now here's the funny thing: The first two arguably aren't illegal or infringing. If something is out of copyright then you can copy it. If you interpret buying a secret database as actually buying the distribution rights to it, neither is that. And if you read it in that context, you can imagine circumstances in which the same could be done to journals in specific circumstances, e.g. as a call for academics or their universities to retain their copyright so that they could do so with authorization, or with the subset of journals that charge for access but still allow liberal redistribution by those who have paid, etc. On the other hand, he's talking about civil disobedience, which implies lawbreaking. It's a conflicted piece.
So you have that, and then you have the fact that he was known to do work on text processing that may require a large corpus of articles for a database, which provides a rational alternative justification for downloading the articles other than to post them to file sharing networks -- or perhaps he intended to do that and also post that subset of the articles downloaded which could legally be posted, either because they're in the public domain or were appropriately licensed.
The point is we don't know, and the prosecution has the burden to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. So even if you think it's more likely than not that he would have posted them all to Pirate Bay, do you think so beyond a reasonable doubt? Because if I was on the jury, to me, the above doesn't feel like beyond a reasonable doubt.
The notion that publicly funded research works are behind paywalls is absurd.
In any case, we will never know, because he never got around to actually distributing or doing anything with the downloaded products of public funding.
Not to mention, let's say we're talking about stuff funded by the U.S. taxpayers... are you sure they would want those scientific articles to be freely available outside the U.S.? Similar questions apply to things funded by the U.K., France, etc.
Who gets to make that choice? In Aaron's world, he anointed himself Caesar and said that he gets to do so...
No, but we also don't know if his 'keepgrabbing' script was checking whether or not an article was in the public domain. This metadata is somewhat present on the JSTOR pages so it's conceivable that he might have been checking.... or not.
This is about headstrong young white men deciding that the rules do not apply to them any more.
Anyway, I don't care how accomplished you are, you don't get to decide that you don't like an arbitrary subset of the social contract and hence should be exempt from it. You are welcome to construct an argument against those rules and attempt to persuade others to your cause. But an argument for exceptionalism is no excuse for bypassing normal, democratic channels for political change.
Honestly I don't see why this point is so hard to understand. Aaron thought he had the answer to society's ills. You know what, everyone thinks that. Grumpy old men pissed off at immigration think they have the answer. The Unabomber thought he had the answer. It is one of the key advantages of democracy that we do not let individuals who think they have the answer just march in and change things as they see fit.
Should the user of adblock be facing multiple criminal charges if they visit a website whose terms disallow its use? It's absolutely ridiculous to allow these terms to be used for criminal prosecution.
Civil disobedience is a valid form of protest, and such a minor act of disobedience is ridiculous to throw dozens of frivolous charges on.
The democratic process for change in the US is long dead. Aaron had powerful enemies in Washington.
What conflation? Do you think criminal charges for violating a website's terms are not ridiculous? Do you use adblock?
If you think democratic forces in the US are still working properly, I can see why you'd find realism to be melodramatic.
And finally, if you think powerful enemies in the US amount to nothing, you are again extremely naive.
In any case let's hope you aren't caught using adblock and violating a website's terms and being completely financially ruined in the pretrial stages of a frivolous prosecution.
No one even knew it was Aaron until he finally was arrested. Give it a break.
Academia does not publish articles. Publishers do and they are anything but cash strapped, check out Elsevier for instance.
(1) this is an organization, not a person
(2) they're not being 'mugged' (see below), it's us that are being mugged every time we want to read about some piece of research
(3) whether or not they 'need money' isn't a factor
(4) use of the word 'mugging' implies violence, which was not applicable here
The law has long recognized that there is such a thing as 'the public good' as well as 'the public domain'. That didn't stop Disney from getting rich over stories already in the public domain and it won't stop publishers from making money on content.
There is no innate right to wall off a chunk of human heritage and claim ownership, even though lobbying power and money have distorted the balance of power substantially.
That I agree with, along with our problems with the public domain and copyright reform. I just don't like the reasoning couched in language about how much benefit a particular party has obtained.
E.g. we might decide that copyright period of, say, a year is hurtful and should be extended because overall (or on average) not enough benefit is obtained overall for those with copyright protection, causing an overall hurtful effect to society. But we wouldn't base that decision just on party A or B.
I understand you may simply have been using a specific example to speak for the general principle though, and if that's the case I apologize for jumping on your argument like that.
On another note, why is there only one 'kind' of copyright? Why do the same rules that apply to work written for profit apply to work written for scientific edification? Some differentiation there would go a long way towards solving these problems.
I believe there is no circumstance under which a release of the articles would have threatened JSTOR's business model in any significant way. And I think JSTOR believes that as well, which is why they told the feds not to pursue this.
I keep on hearing this, and it continues to make no sense to me, so forgive me for reposting one of previous posts (s/commercial value/business model/ if it helps):
It seems implausible to me that publishing the contents of JSTOR in such a way would actually destroy any substantial amount of JSTOR's value. What university would actually drop their JSTOR subscription in favour of a bunch of unlicensed PDFs they torrented? JSTOR, in addition to keeping you on the right side of copyright law, gives you all their systems for querying their data, and keeps itself up to date. Maybe a university in a developing country would drop their subscription, but any in the US? I find it unlikely. Such a torrent would be far more useful to an individual who didn't have access to an organization that subscribed. However it seems these pay-per-download fees only account for a fraction of a percent of JSTOR's operating budget (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5064408). So it looks like there is some feasible harm there, but by no means destroyed commercial value.
http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/
http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-agains...
I also disagree with his view that (I paraphrase) "we shouldn't criticize special cases, we should criticize what goes on every day". Yes, we all agree that you shouldn't "be good" only at Christmas, but the reality of this world is that legislative bodies quite often (if not all the time) will only act on the impulse of particular cases. This is what is happening now, which is good. Also, I'm sure that not "every day" prosecutors callously dismiss proven suicidal tendencies in pursuit of career-enhancing convictions, if anything to avoid ending up in a mess like this -- except for Heymann, who clearly won't give two shits about the wellbeing of young hackers. One case is a mistake, two is a pattern, and Heymann and his boss should take responsibility for their behaviour.
Further, while it is possible that circumstances could arise in which a 4 month plea from Swartz could be ignored by the judge, those circumstances are extremely unlikely. Not only do judges rubber stamp plea deals, but in a case involving 13 felonies, Swartz would very likely have arranged a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea in which the judge's refusal to accept the plea simply would have resulted in a trial.
Yeah well, lots of things were unlikely here, and yet.
Most honest defense lawyers will really have the best interest of their client at heart, and just dismiss themselves if they feel they can't work with a certain prosecutor; they might even recommend their own replacement. After all, it's in their own best interest not to get what they feel is a sub-par result on their CV.
The fact that Swartz went through three lawyers, coupled with what the last one of them said, might as well indicate that all of them felt the prosecution was being unreasonable, and were hoping that a different person might have obtained better results.
Do they? The first analyses the law given a stated set of assumptions about the facts. If Swartz was able to successfully dispute some of those alleged facts (many of which came from the indictment), it could completely change the outcome. And the second basically punts on the specific issue of whether the plea offered was appropriate or not, describing the legal standard but declining to apply it to the case.
Both posts are excellent if you want to get a feel for the law surrounding this case from someone who legitimately knows what he's talking about, but whether what the prosecutors did was appropriate depends substantially on the actual facts, which Kerr has no better access to than the rest of us.
To hear Aaron's defense counsel tell it, the facts show that he was completely innocent. And if you accept that version of the facts rather than the one in the indictment, it seems especially difficult to conclude that what prosecutors did was appropriate.
Conrad Black did 30+ months. Kevin Mitnick did several years. Even Martha Stewart managed 5 months.
Also, with his profile and past history, his felony conviction would not seriously impede any career he wanted to undertake.
Finally, the whole point of civil disobedience is to break a law, and get caught, punished and make (to a certain extent) a martyr of yourself to draw attention to your cause.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/14/us/14defenders.html?_r=2&#...;
Check out the British version of government prosecutions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Prosecution_Service
Where "controversial" is "oooh, should we change the name?!?".
How's the system in Iceland ? Or Norway ?
From all the information that I've seen so far it looks as if the legal fees were plenty excessive already.
The other side of the table are the banks, the military, dirty politicians, a propaganda machine, useless bureocrats and the science "industry"; all these have no morals, contribute to nothing and get the most rewards.
I can't even imagine how it would be like to live in Aaron shoes. Country with cowards in power.
This is assuming that his intent was actually civil disobedience -- what if he didn't think what he was doing was even illegal? His lawyers apparently didn't. And he wasn't even charged with copyright infringement, which is ostensibly the law he would have opposed.
Had Aaron Swartz been found guilty, there is no way he was going to face the maximum penalty. There is a high probability that the penalties associated with the charges would have been run concurrently.
Once found guilty, US Probation writes a Pre-Sentencing Report which calculates the time the defendant is facing. This calculation is based upon numerous details, including but not limited to actual damages, criminal history, and offense level with points that range from from 1 to 43.
If a defendant agrees with the government that he or she is guilty and pleads accordingly, he or she will generally get fewer points for offense level. If a defendant contests the charges and exercises his or her constitutional right to have his or her case heard by a jury and is found guilty, US Probation will increase the number of points. (Imagine that. The government gives you more prison time for exercising your right to a trial under the Constitution). The more points calculated, the more time a defendant is facing.
Good time is applied to a sentence by the federal prison. An inmate is supposed to do 85% of their time if he or she has no infractions, but since the federal prison system has an interest in keeping people imprisoned, the bureaucracy has found a way to deliberately mis-read the good time statute and apply it in a way so that a defendant actually does 86.2% of their time. A sentence of one year or less will not have good time applied. Anything above one year and the good time calculation is applied.
The biggest risk in taking a case to trial are the members of the jury. The government educational system has done a great job of dumbing people down so that they follow the government's bidding. ie., "If he's on trial, he must be guilty." Few people actually think for themselves and question what is told to them by an authority figure.
The law (edit: and system ) is set up so that a "good prosecutor" would work to prove Aaron was guilty of breaking those laws. The final sentence, which is the responsibility of the Judge would have to take account of everything especially his motivation, to give him an appropriate sentence.
"I'm just doing my job, and the final sentencing isn't in my hands"
---
Fine - that's her version, and frankly - its exactly as expected. There really are few if any other ways that Ortiz could explain her actions.
Strangely its also pretty much the exact defense that the Financial industry has used so far. AKA these are the rules, hate the game not the player.
Sometimes people from the outside are required to point out that somethings are obviously morally wrong. Especially when Insiders end up missing it.
This is typical of many prosecutors in the US, unfortunately, who attempt to terrorize defendants into accepting their plea deals. It's not much different than the way torture was used in the Middle Ages to extract confessions and secure convictions.
It's pretty sad to see a press release that attempts to obfuscate the truth like this.
It's obvious that the investigation was a contributing factor to Aaron's decision to take his life, but to what extent? Was this at all investigated by the media, or have everyone just made the connection, because it was the easiest explanation?
Either that's an incredible coincidence, or Aaron decided to take his life as a political statement. Given his past actions, that's an easy assumption to make.
Also, his request for a plea deal was denied in very harsh terms two days before Aaron took his own life, so even knowing just that and the fact that he really did not want to be labeled a felon, it's easy to make the connection.
Finally, Aaron's own family, partner and legal representation believe they were related, i.e. those closest to Aaron believe the federal trial was a major cause.
Of course, he also had a history of dealing with depression; I don't think anyone's denying that.
There's no way to know, but it's probable that it's a large contributing factor based on what Lessig et al. wrote.
Someone has already noticed that bankers did also act 'with the law on their part'...
And all the rating agencies, they suddendly 'just offer counsel and advice', they are in no way suggesting that a product is fit for buying or selling...
Is there a conscience out there?
And the rules are that other people are always to blame and that the law, no matter how corrupt, is the law.
The problem is that especially these people (civil cervants) are chosen on this fallacy, are only loyal to their families and peers, all others don't exsists or are there to pull a leg out.
There is a huge Us vs. Them attitude amongst most people (not all, gladly) serving any government.
That is terrible writing. Ms. Ortiz should be doubly ashamed.
> AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million.
http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR....
Maybe us common folk don't understand that when the Department of Justice says 35 years they don't mean 35 years? Do the defendants in these cases understand how many years they are actually being expected to serve?
No. This is intentional.
The prosecutors press release says that they didn't intend to push for maximum penality.
These two statement are perfectly compatible with each other.
So they may not have been seeking the technical maximum but they were definitely beating their drums quoting that maximum where ever they could. Now that that makes them look terrible they're backpedaling on that but there is enough documentation out there to make this look like what it is: full-on damage control.
The Aaron Swartz story is starting to get some serious play in mainstream media and that is something that worries people like Carmen Ortiz more than anything else.
In court the prosecution may well argue for, say, a 5 year penality under the given circumstances, and ultimately it's up to the judge.
Likewise she focused on the plea bargain offer of side of 6 months but not on the fact that this would have involved admitting guilt to 13 felonies. For someone with honour who really believed themselves not guilty (at least of serious crime) that could be as much of an issue as 6 months low security detention. For lawyers it seems to be a game and the sentence and number of convictions is the score; unfortunately the victims of the law take it more seriously.
Always look at what isn't said not just what is said.
Jesus, that's slimy. I'd say Ortiz is still in denial about the fact that she just lost her chance at the governorship just for playing the game by the normal rules. Corruption sucks when it comes back to bite you.
It's obvious that the communication to Aaron was "up to 35 years", he wasn't told "up to 7 years" or "up to 3 years", the communication he received was "up to 35 years in prison".
To argue that the prosecutors didn't intend to push to maximum penalty would be to do so without any basis in fact - it would be mere speculation and of 0 value compared to the recorded facts as they stand.
"Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the judge. At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz’s attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum penalties under the law."
At best you could say that her statement contradicts the one of Aaron Swartz' lawyer (I don't know, I don't have a reference for his statement), but ignoring the existence of one statement while elevating the other one to the level of truth is dishonest.
Which occurred after the unfortunate events and as such constitutes nothing more than back-pedalling at full speed.
When Aaron was suffering through this, what information did he have to make his decisions on?
What her office said, did, failed to say or failed to do before the events is what matters.
and adding to that, his legal fees would have also cost millions?
everything about their stance said "we are going to destroy you, grind you to bits", with all the "up to this" and "maximum that", it seems like only the very luckiest outcome would have left him with his life and that of his family somewhat in tact.
apart from the legal fees, those would go down the drain regardless, just for buying the chance to fight back.
can someone explain that to me btw, I've heard it a few times, but how can legal fees become so exorbitantly high? In other cases I've heard about numbers like $100k, which is also crazy high, but normal for the US, but for Aaron's case I've heard numbers quoted like "millions in legal fees", how is it possible that those legal fees are suddenly 10x more than the already high numbers I normally hear about? Does the price go up because he's rich? What happens to people that cannot buy justice?
Being forced to sink a million dollars will ruin most people's lives as well. The worst part is, as legal fees, it's not even part of the punishment, officially. As an individual, $100k is a tough pill to swallow, but a debt you can work yourself out of over the years.
There is something extremely wrong here but that is how it works at the moment.
...because the penalties are so high. That's the actual reason. Because when the maximum penalty after a trial is a 30 day misdemeanor, you hire a lawyer and pay them two months of your salary and you make your case, because that's about the point past where spending more money to defend the case is no longer worth it against the possibility of losing.
But when the maximum penalty is a 30 year felony, or even a 10 year felony, you spend every dime you have, because the penalties are that high. And then, because criminals are so consistently charged with enormous penalties like that, which makes them consistently go all out on their defenses, the prosecutors go to Congress and say "we don't have enough resources to fight these people who have these high priced defense attorneys" and they get multimillion dollar budgets for individual cases.
Which brings on the arms race. So now you're not just spending every dime you have, you're spending every dime your parents have, every dime your friends have to prove that you didn't do it, every cent you can borrow from a bank or a loan shark, because the alternative is even worse. And the more defendants spend, the more prosecutors get to outspend them, because "we can't have criminals with more resources than prosecutors."
Scale back the stakes and you scale back the resources needed to fight over them.
> AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million.
We can compare this to United States Attorney Carmen Ortiz, who, facing the ruination of her career over her actions, says in this new announcement on Wednesday, "At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz’s attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum penalties under the law." This new statement does not align with the documented history of statements made by the DOJ as evidenced in the above link. Perhaps though she is trying to argue that she, as the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, is somehow not part of the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts that issued the press release which says "SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million". This would be a difficult argument to make given that the press release itself specifically names U.S. Attorney Ortiz as the person who made the press announcement.
The cover-up is always worse than the crime and this Statement only makes me wonder what else is out there. She should resign.
That one word, "setting," puts her squarely in bullshitter territory. The obvious and honest word is "prison". But that's too dark a color for the painting she's holding up for us.
But having the involved US attorney then basically lie about it all in a very public statement is something that I find particularly offensive."
-- Linus Torvalds, https://plus.google.com/102150693225130002912/posts/ggzfzKyr...
"Yesterday (as reported by the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere):
"At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz’s attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum penalties under the law."
And July 2011 (as posted by justice.gov itself):
"SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million""
Stating that a person faces x amount of years is not the same as saying we are seeking to put you in jail for this many years.
Correct me if I am wrong, but this is how anyone who allegedly broke the law would be treated. The law you broke states you can face up to x, y, and z for breaking it, but hardly anyone gets that maximum sentencing. Hell, even murderers rarely get the maximum sentencing.
Unless you can improve on the silence, don't open your mouth...
Before this statement I had hopes Ortiz had regrets...Now I know she doesn't...where did I leave my pitchfork?
Well said
Well, Ortiz, lemme tell ya sumthin' -- it ain't gonna work.
First of all, the statement reeks of PR tinkering. When every single source points to Ortiz and her cronies pursuing maximum sentences and intimidating Swartz, she comes out with a sorry excuse of an apology that denies it. Also, the 6 months plea deal would be only under one condition, and that is if Swartz acknowledged everything that the gubmint charged him with, which was still a major tarnish to his rep. So what did Swartz do? He had integrity and stood up for what he believed in, and then Ortiz pushed on with defiance. I recommend watching this YouTube video -- seems like Swartz' position is eerily similar to the other protagonist's (and if you haven't watched the movie, you simply must): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKAxnB6Ap4o
If only Aaron had Al Pacino standing up for him...
By the way, this isn't the first time Ortiz has been a major pain in the neck. A quick Google for "Tarek Mehanna" should be enough to affirm the opinion that Ortiz is a tyrant.
Protecting? Just like they protect "free knowledge"?
I'm guessing this is a very carefully worded statement.
I have noticed that government agents are relatively quick to assign blame when there has been no conviction. The charges were filed & ultimately dropped, so there has been no determination by the government that this was a violation of the law. I've been a victim of this myself. When launching the first online notary service, the CA secretary of state published an erroneous notice that we had committed a crime. When we spoke with their office, they indicated that there was no evidence of any crime. It ultimately took 2 years, and the threat of a lawsuit, to remove the false statements.
In Swartz's case the sad thing is he probably never expected this outpouring of support. To him it probably seemed as if the world either didn't care or didn't support him. Just read the old HN post he made for legal fund donations. It's unfortunate he can't realize how most people are on his side.
If that had been different I think a lot more people would have support Aaron earlier.
STATEMENT OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY CARMEN M. ORTIZ REGARDING THE DEATH OF AARON SWARTZ
As a parent and a sister, I can only imagine the pain felt by the family and friends of Aaron Swartz, and I want to extend my heartfelt sympathy to everyone who knew and loved this young man.[Sympathy - a good start but no apology.] I know that there is little I can say to abate the anger felt by those who believe that this office’s prosecution of Mr. Swartz was unwarranted and somehow led to the tragic result of him taking his own life.[Acknowledges anger and public feeling. No comment on their actions.]
I must, however, make clear that this office’s conduct was appropriate in bringing and handling this case.[States that they were correct to bring and handle the case. May be read as they handled the case correctly BUT does NOT actually state that.] The career prosecutors handling this matter took on the difficult task of enforcing a law they had taken an oath to uphold, and did so reasonably. [Claims the career prosecutors were reasonable. Were all involved 'career prosecutors' or is someone about to be hung out to dry? Alternative reading is that 'career prosecutors' is just trying to make them sound better.] The prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his acts for personal financial gain, and they recognized that his conduct – while a violation of the law – did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases. [OK. Then why would they (note Ortiz is not taking responsibility for this judgement) want to seek 7 years if it went to trial] That is why in the discussions with his counsel about a resolution of the case this office sought an appropriate sentence that matched the alleged conduct – a sentence that we would recommend to the judge of six months in a low security setting. [not stated also admission of 13 felonies or that if he wanted a trial because he believed himself not guilty the appropriate sentence to seek would have been 7 years. Thats what you get for believing you have a right to a trial and not just doing what we say.] While at the same time, his defense counsel would have been free to recommend a sentence of probation. [Not stated: for 13 admitted felonies.] Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the judge. [Not our responsibility really.] At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz’s attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum penalties under the law. [We were really generous and told Mr. Swartz's attourneys that we intended to seek something between the maximum and ten times what was appropriate (by our admission) if he didn't plead guilty]
As federal prosecutors, our mission includes protecting the use of computers and the Internet by enforcing the law as fairly and responsibly as possible. [Sounds reasonable but does it match their actions?] We strive to do our best to fulfill this mission every day.[But we aren't commenting on the rest of our mission or how we have done matching this mission in this case.]
I can't imagine how hard finding an apartment in SF (already hard) becomes if you have to disclose that you're a convicted felon with time spent.
What were they protecting them against? That Knowledge might've been spread to those who hadn't the monetary resources to read a bunch of Journals?
Also, I don't think the law was enforced fairly and responsibly, and it was the exact opposite of what occurred -- A bunch of overzealous prosecutors at the helm pushing for a maximum sentence for civil disobedience.
This quote esp. got me:
"I must, however, make clear that this office’s conduct was appropriate in bringing and handling this case."
Strongly disagree, and I hope the docs come out to prove against this point and burn them.
Ortiz framed a brilliant, selfless young man as a criminal who should be locked up behind bars. She and others inflicted mental torture on him until he couldn't bear to live any longer.
She is no doubt a wordsmith, but she is not a nice person, no matter what the gullible fools on HN say. She shouldn't be working with and against people anymore, or for the government.
To think that a carefully calculated statement could 'clear the deck' and make everything even-steven is ludicrous.
I agree with you on all the other points, but apparently you haven't been following this thread too closely.
Law is about drama? There's plenty of drama and hyperbole in your post. He broke the law. Which means he is a criminal.
If you think the laws are retarded, then how you protest that is your prerogative. If you choose to protest by blatantly and purposely breaking the law, unless you are 99.999% certain that an obvious interpretation of the law violates the constitution, you should expect to get charged and convicted of breaking said law.
Prosecutors aren't hired to be nice, they are hired to represent the state and bring charges against people who violate the state's laws. If you seriously think that he shouldn't be charged with breaking the law because 'he didn't deserve it', 'he did not have malicious intentions' or 'the law is dumb', then by extension no one should be convicted of any crime, because there will always be some point of view where you could think that of anyone.
I've refrained from posting here as I'm in the UK, not my issue &c but I do work with young offenders and adults in retraining &c.
'criminal' is not a 'type' or irrevocable condition. It is a social status that exists in the mind of people and state records, especially in this case with little measureable damage to anything or anyone.
He allegedly broke the law. According to network security expert Alex Stamos, an expert witness in the case, the worst thing you can say about Aaron's actions is that they were "inconsiderate", not criminal.
http://io9.com/5975592/aaron-swartz-died-innocent-++-here-is...
The prosecutor's case was pretty tenuous. Basically, by accessing a network that intentionally has no real access control in an unusual way, and accessing JSTOR in an unusual way through that network -- a network for which a JSTOR subscription is available -- Aaron supposedly committed a crime (or was it 13 crimes? Or 4 crimes?). Unless you want to make the argument that doing strange things is criminal, it is hard to see how exactly any law was broken here.
"If you seriously think that he shouldn't be charged with breaking the law because 'he didn't deserve it', 'he did not have malicious intentions' or 'the law is dumb', then by extension no one should be convicted of any crime, because there will always be some point of view where you could think that of anyone."
If you think every violation of the law should be prosecuted, prepare yourself for some jail time; it is a near certainty that you have committed at least one felony offense in your life, and it is likely that you have committed more. Can you seriously claim not to be a criminal -- have you actually read all laws that you are expected to follow?
This conservative "the law is right and absolute" perspective is truly scary. Laws are passed by people, and are often severely flawed. Laws are often misapplied -- laws meant to protect banks and the government from hackers are applied to people who download too much knowledge, laws meant to protect children from pedophiles are applied to comic book collectors, etc. The far-right law-and-order attitude is the reason America is the world leader in both arresting people and imprisoning them -- not just per-capita, but on raw numbers, we arrest and imprison more people than China, and that even accounts for the recent decline in the prison population.
It really isn't that simple.
Which law? Spoofing your MAC address law?
First of all, he hasn't been convicted of ANY law breaking. Secondly, if Ortiz wanted a lesser sentence and was 100% sure he was going to be convicted (the criminal part), she could have brought one count to avoid the stiffer sentencing.
http://www.mainjustice.com/tag/carmen-m-ortiz
A sense of pride has long been important to Ortiz who “knew
all along [she] wanted to be a lawyer.”
“I never thought about doing anything else. Maybe it was
watching trials on TV, and thinking it was exciting to be
in front of a jury arguing a case. That fascinated me. (At
George Washington University Law School)
That is an idiotic thing to say, and it only raises doubt about all of your other statements.
Aaron was chronically depressed for years. People who are chronically depressed tend to kill themselves, or at least try to. Their external circumstances are rarely the cause of their suicide. It's up to you to prove that this lawsuit caused him to commit suicide, and he wouldn't have otherwise.
For example, why did David Foster Wallace kill himself? He was at the top of his career, critically acclaimed author, had a loving partner, and yet he still took his own life.
2) he did it on the anniversary of the start of the lawsuit
3) the actual trial was to start shortly
4) So far when under outside pressure he held up pretty good, but this was pressure far exceeding his previous exposure
Now, none of that is conclusive proof. But I don't see any reason brought forward other than the lawsuit why he killed himself. Absent such proof I tend to believe strongly that this was the reason why he did it.
If you don't want to believe that then that's fine with me but it does mean that you are ignoring some evidence right in front of your eyes.
Aarons parents are under no obligation to acknowledge their sons mental state because he has acknowledged so himself in lots of places. That does not mean that this absolves everybody else from blame.
No-one is saying anyone is absolved of 'blame' or being a factor in Aaron's decision.
Consider a hypothetical example. I'm not sure if this ever really happened in the Civil Rights movement (or if it did, that it was reported), but you can imagine that a black man, on the brink of death, was refused care at a "white only" hospital. He dies on the way to the "negro hospital". The public, faced with this stark story, see the deep injustice of it, and clamor for segregation to end and for the resignation of the hospital personnel responsible for the man's death.
Yeah, and you added another 9 felonies after he refused the felon label to help him out.