Carmen Ortiz Releases Totally Bogus Statement Concerning The Aaron Swartz Prosecution
from the let's-work-through-this,-shall-we? dept
After staying silent or issuing "no comments" for nearly a week, Carmen Ortiz, the US Attorney in charge of the prosecution against Aaron Swartz has finally released a statement about Swartz, his suicide, and her possible role in the suicide. As you might imagine, the statement is highly questionable. First, here's the statement:The statement is complete hogwash, frankly. If what she claims is true -- that they recognized "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" then they would not have piled on more charges in the indictment in September. The original indictment, which had four charges against Swartz, had a maximum potential jail time of 35 years. And, Ortiz's own press release trumpeted that fact:January 16, 2013
STATEMENT OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY CARMEN M. ORTIZ
REGARDING THE DEATH OF AARON SWARTZAs 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. 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.
I must, however, make clear that this office’s conduct was appropriate in bringing and handling this case. 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. 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. 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. While at the same time, his defense counsel would have been free to recommend a sentence of probation. 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.
As federal prosecutors, our mission includes protecting the use of computers and the Internet by enforcing the law as fairly and responsibly as possible. We strive to do our best to fulfill this mission every day.
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.And, then in September, nine more charges were added, which brought the total possible time up to 50 years.
If Ortiz truly believed that his conduct did not warrant such "severe punishment" then she would not have trumpeted the 35 years in the first place, nor would she have piled on more charges. That would serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever if her claim here was true.
Furthermore, as Swartz's lawyers have made clear, Ortiz and her assistant, Stephen Heymann were pretty explicit to Swartz's lawyers that if he did not take their plea bargain offer, the next offer would be for more jail time, and if he still chose not to accept the offer, they'd seek at least seven years for Swartz in court. Tossing out that six month claim as if it were proof of some sort of fair dealing on Ortiz's part is flat out insulting to the intelligence of any thinking person, and downright offensive to the memory of Aaron.
How would Ortiz like it if her own child was accused on trumped up charges and threatened with 35 or more years in prison in press releases -- and then told to "settle" for just six months. I doubt she would find that to be "fair."
As Tim Lee explains, the whole "plea bargain" system is a farce, allowing prosecutors to effectively bring forth these massive "possible" punishments to effectively force someone into pleading guilty without ever going to trial. Going to trial is dangerous, because the prosecutors effectively make sure that anyone who does exercise a right to a trial is likely to get much more time in jail:
If Ortiz thought Swartz only deserved to spend 6 months in jail, why did she charge him with crimes carrying a maximum penalty of 50 years? It’s a common way of gaining leverage during plea bargaining. Had Swartz chosen to plead not guilty, the offer of six months in jail would have evaporated. Upon conviction, prosecutors likely would have sought the maximum penalty available under the law. And while the judge would have been unlikely to sentence him to the full 50 years, it’s not hard to imagine him being sentenced to 10 years.As he further notes, no judge would impose a harsher sentence on someone for exercising other rights -- such as taking the Fifth, hiring a lawyer or confronting an accuser. Yet, if you demand your right to a trial, the US Attorneys have effectively rigged the system so that defendants are punished. And that gives them immense power.
In this hypothetical scenario, those 10 years in prison would, practically speaking, have consisted of six months for his original crime (the sentence Ortiz actually thought he deserved) plus a nine-and-a-half-year prison term for exercising his constitutional right to a trial.
Thanks in part to this kind of coercion, more than 90 percent of defendants waive their right to a jury trial. For the majority of defendants, then, the plea bargaining process is the justice system. As a result, prosecutors wield an immense amount of power with very little accountability.This is not a new problem. A year and a half ago, the NY Times had a feature article highlighting this very problem, which it calls "the trial penalty."
It’s not surprising that Ortiz doesn’t see anything wrong with this system. Powerful people rarely see their own power as problematic. But the rest of us should be outraged—not just by Ortiz’s conduct, but by a system that treats thousands of defendants less famous than Swartz the same way.
Also, while Ortiz claims that the final sentence "would have been up to the judge" and even suggests that since defense counsel could have recommended just probation, the judge might have been more lenient, she must know that it is quite rare for judges to issue sentences more lenient than what prosecutors put forth from a plea bargain. In fact, judges will often issue harsher sentences than what the prosecutors "agreed" to with the defendant, since the judge is not bound to the terms of the agreement specifically.
Many countries do not allow plea bargaining, because they recognize how it can be used for coercion. Meanwhile, studies have shown that plea bargains quite frequently can lead to innocent people accepting a deal recognizing that it's much better to do that than risk a trial where the punishment would be much, much higher. Yes, more innocent people do stand up against such offers than guilty ones (according to the same study), but a large number of innocent people feel compelled to just take the deal.
Basically, this whole system is wide open to abuse, and it's clear from Ortiz's actions that she, too, was abusing the system in this manner: pushing for super high possible jail time as a huge and scary weapon to try to pressure Swartz into accepting a lower rate -- but also making him a convicted felon. Using the plea offer as some sort of "proof" of reasonableness is really quite incredible and despicable. It's like pointing a gun at someone, telling them that you're planning to shoot them... and then saying that if they agree to confess to something they don't believe, you'll just pinch them instead. And then, when they complain, you say "well, clearly, I just thought the pinch was appropriate." That's clearly a bullshit explanation. Ortiz was better off with "no comment" than trying to pass this off as a reasonable claim.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: aaron swartz, carmen ortiz, plea bargains
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That Ortiz has now confirmed, on the record, that she has no regard to even acknowledge the ramifications, and in fact stands by her choices is beyond deplorable.
I've been praying for a long time that we find a way, in this country, to fix what is a completely broken system, given how many over-the-line problems exist. Now, I pray that Aaron's death will help propel us as a nation to get to the fixing sooner rather than later.
How much more loss does there need to be? How much more tragedy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a reminder
I followed a case where she had a person locked up for translating what Al Qaeda said on YouTube videos.
For that, Tarek Mehanna was given 17 years. She has a career in being a tough litigator and locking people away for doing nothing more than what is supposed to be protected speech under the Constitution.
One person was locked away for speaking about terrorists.
The other was led to suicide for enriching the public domain.
She should be stripped of her right to prosecute our plea deal, the same as any other prosecutor. The system is rigged against anyone ever having a fair trial and that is beyond a travesty to our democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a reminder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just a reminder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a reminder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a reminder
http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/essay.html?id=83 http://www.scribd.com/tired_of_corruption
IMO 1 Court House Way Boston, Massachusetts needs to be converted into a federal prison and no one—ABSOLUTELY NO ONE—who works there should be allowed to leave! Read the full court file of the government’s prosecution of open government hacktivist Aaron Swartz
http://watchdogblog.dallasnews.com/2013/01/read-the-full-court-file-of-the-governments-prosecuti on-of-open-government-hacktivist-aaron-swartz.html/
US attorney Carmen Ortiz defends action in Aaron Swartz MIT hacker case
GLOBE HAS WRONG LINK TO ARTICLE AND HAS REPOSTED TO BLOCK INCRIMINATING COMMENTS see below
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/17/under-heavy-criticism-attorney-maintains-silence/DtDKH excFY1pfMq5BepPqM/comments.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just a reminder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just a reminder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just a reminder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just a reminder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just a reminder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a pattern here, but damned if I can put my finger on it.
Ortiz should be ashamed of herself.
Then again, she's a prosecutor who only considers the "wins", not the innocent people she sees on a weekly basis.
It's good to see pretty much the entire country putting pressure on her like this.
Justice was served, but sadly, at a cost much, much too high for any innocent person to pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is also the fact that intimidation/coercion to admit guilt to outlandish charges from the prosecution feels exactly the same as being coerced by thugs on the street or bullied by peers. It certainly can push someone over the edge if he/she is already depressed. Some consideration should be given to that we are all human after all. Pretending to follow rules like mindless machines is no excuse. It certainly won't bring Aaron back or appease the family's sorrow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
While I fully agree that plea bargaining significantly skews this measure, it would be a VERY NEGATIVE thing if a large segment, 20, 30, 40% of the people being jailed and prosecuted were ultimately not convicted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Try over 90%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In 1977, the year Judge Kane was appointed to the bench, the ratio of guilty pleas to criminal trial verdicts in federal district courts was a little more than four to one; by last year, it was almost 32 to one.
hmm, 1/32 = 3.125%. This means 96.875% of cases were pleaded out last year.
Oh, wait, you consider the NYT some liberal rag? How about WSJ, then?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443589304577637610097206808.html
Guilty pleas last year resolved 97% of all federal cases that the Justice Department prosecuted to a conclusion.
Hmmm...WSJ is consistent with NYT. Is that a sufficient citation for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I was interested to see that some countries do not even HAVE plea bargaining. I think perhaps that is the correct route.
Did you know the US jails a larger percentage of its population than any other nation in the world that can be verified? Including China, Iran, Russia?
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2013/jan/14/hank-johnson/does-us-have-highes t-percentage-people-prison/
It's a pretty sick list to be on top of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Do you still want to see a 40+% conviction rate?
Why don't you base it on, oh i don't know, public opinion on crime rates? If public opinion says crime is low and not a problem, you're probably doing a pretty good job.
If public opinion is howling about crime then you're probably not doing so well.
Or maybe you could measure how many cases a prosecuter could definitively prove one way or the other. If the case comes up, and all evidence is there, all legally obtained, everything checks out 100% That's a damn good job. If it turns out that the evidence doesn't match up, and it points to different conclusions, thats also a good job.
The way the system is now, there is no incentive to hold anyone innocent...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Aaron's Law" wouldn't have had any effect on Aaron's potential sentence. Woops. Funny how you don't report the truth. But then again, you and I both know that you don't care about truth. Note what Kerr said about the additional charges.
You're a total fake and coward, and you know it. And you're really disgusting in the way you're using this sad situation to your own advantage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only disgusting thing I see are people who blame the victim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Tl;dr: It's not a full fix, and we all know it. It's just the first cuts in the ice sculpture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If your home wifi access point was completely unprotected, not even with WEP, do you think it's reasonable to charge someone for a "terms of service violation" or "unauthorized access"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, says the Anonymous Coward. You really showed him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Though I guess that is what you get when trying to justify your own agenda, and using it towards your own advantage.
Though I doubt you have read the rest of Kerr's excellent though very much "walking on eggshells" post where he talks about the actual laws themselves and how they are totally outdated, rife with ambiguity, and allow double dipping of basically the same offence under different acts.
as for this whole response by the prosecution, its trying to pander sympathy, whereas I notice what she doesn't talk about is exactly what Kerr does talk about - prosecution discretion at ALL stages not just in the plea stage.
As I stated in another post that I thought was appropriate there in reply to ninja, I will repeat the quote again here since it is highly relevant.
Half the harm that is done in this world
Is due to people who want to feel important.
They don't mean to do harm -- but the harm does not interest them.
Or they do not see it, or they justify it
Because they are absorbed in the endless struggle
To think well of themselves.
- T. S. Elliot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rambling
Kerr admits the laws need to be redone even as he tries to defend the prosecution, but in the end states the laws are too punitive. He knows it's wrong, but as a lawyer tries to make it look less bad than it is, even though someone is now dead who was obviously being bullied by a prosecution he admits went too far.
It is rambling nonsense. He is making a mockery of his own career here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Having spoken to many people about this, I think we agree that the proposed change would not have directly impacted the charges against Aaron, but that ignores the larger political reality. First off, this is just a draft, and the final proposal is likely to be different. Lofgren took language that had already been approved in the past by the Judiciary Committee and put it out there while she seeks co-sponsors. It is expected that a final bill will include more.
Second, it is widely believed among Congressional staffers that even just passing the draft law proposed would send a serious signal to prosecutors to avoid these kinds of prosecutions.
You may accuse me of being dishonest and a "fake" -- and that's your prerogative. However, perhaps -- just perhaps -- I actually know something of what I'm talking about.
You're a total fake and coward, and you know it. And you're really disgusting in the way you're using this sad situation to your own advantage.
I am not under federal indictment or facing any of these issues. How is it to my advantage? I am hopeful that we can fix a broken system (which, by the way, is the same thing that Kerr says).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/16ryi4/effs_initial_improvements_to_aarons_la w_for_cfaa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/16ryi4/effs_initial_improvements_to_aarons_la w_for_cfaa
The fact is that your friend Lofgren was in such a rush to milk this scenario for her own private gain (just as you're doing with your incessant barrage of hate articles) that she proposed "Aaron's Law" without even doing the most basic research to find out if her proposal would have actually helped Aaron. Just imagine how high and mighty and hateful you would have been if someone pro-copyright suggested a fix to something that turned out to not actually be a fix. You'd write a scathing article, tearing them to pieces for being such an ignoramus. You'd remind us all about how smart you are and how dumb everyone else is. But when it's Lofgren, you have no criticism at all. Only praise. It's stuff like this that proves beyond a doubt that you're a zealot and a fake. You just jump on whatever sounds good. You don't care about reality. Not one bit. That's why you run away from substantive discussions about the details. You don't care about the details. You just want everyone to hate the world like you do, and you're not beneath milking this tragedy for every morsel you can squeeze out of it. You don't want reasonable discussion. You just want to bully everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This isn't just wrong, it's ignorant and offensive.
I know that you have Strawman Mike in your head, but just because you've built up an entirely false version of me, it doesn't mean you have the slightest idea what I actually do or think.
Nor do you know what Rep. Lofgren did or why.
Just imagine how high and mighty and hateful you would have been if someone pro-copyright suggested a fix to something that turned out to not actually be a fix. You'd write a scathing article, tearing them to pieces for being such an ignoramus. You'd remind us all about how smart you are and how dumb everyone else is.
Again, I am not who you think I am.
But when it's Lofgren, you have no criticism at all. Only praise. It's stuff like this that proves beyond a doubt that you're a zealot and a fake. You just jump on whatever sounds good. You don't care about reality. Not one bit. That's why you run away from substantive discussions about the details.
Again, it is impossible to discuss with you when you put false words in my mouth.
This is why we don't debate with you. You make up my side of the argument and do so by stating things that are completely false.
So weird.
You don't want reasonable discussion. You just want to bully everyone.
1. I keep comments open on my site because I want reasonable and open discussion.
2. I'm not the one making stuff up and putting words in other people's mouths, calling them names, using ad homs and other logical fallacies like a bully. You are.
I suggest you stop, for a second, breathe a little, and rethink your strategy. It's not particularly convincing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's almost like you're a Copyright Apologist zealot or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You think every system is broken and you don't actually want to discuss fixing anything. You just want to spread your hateful agenda. When it comes to discussing the details and nuances of anything, you run away every time. You don't want to talk anything through. You just want to complain about everything while telling us how smart you are and how dumb everyone else is. I wish you did just want to have honest discussions about things, but talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. A dishonest brick wall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
More hilarious irony from a walking, talking stuck record.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Having a constructive discussion with you that doesn't degenerate into you spewing forth vitriol and thinking there is a conspiracy under every word is like masturbating with a cheese grater. An amusing concept but ultimately futile and extremely painful
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok not really, but it was still clever....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Neither point is true.
You just want to spread your hateful agenda.
What hate?!?
When it comes to discussing the details and nuances of anything, you run away every time.
Oh, shit. I didn't realize it was *you*.
You still have this image in your head of Strawman Mike who you think I am, huh? We told you to drop that.
I'm happy to talk nuance on all sorts of issues. What I DON'T want to do is get bogged down in one of your childish semantic games in which you have no desire for honest conversation, but do wish to pretend that you're a genius.
You just want to complain about everything while telling us how smart you are and how dumb everyone else is.
I don't think I'm that smart, nor do I think everyone else is dumb. I think there are lots of people much smarter than I am, which is, in part, why I leave comments open on my site -- so that those smart people can share their knowledge.
I wish you did just want to have honest discussions about things, but talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. A dishonest brick wall.
Perhaps if you could argue without ad hominems people might actually debate with you.
Sorry, but it's difficult to take anyone seriously when this is your debate style.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I disagree with the second one in part because it seems to be mired in the notion that you have transgressed the law and even if you were right to do so, you must be punished because it was the law.
The notion that breaking an unjust law (one that you acknowledge as an unjust law) is something that needs deterrence is one that find both perplexing and fascinating.
Laws are never reformed until something brings them into the spotlight, therefore the notion that deliberately doing so deserves punishment even in the case where the need for reform is agreed up, makes no sense to me. It's essentially an argument that unjust laws should remain unjust because they are the law. As far as I'm concerned if the law is unjust then breaking it should, by definition, have no punishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Yes, the Swartz case does point to a serious problem with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. But that problem is not the definition of “unauthorized access,” as some people seem to believe. (That definition is a problem, but with the Nosal case from the Ninth Circuit and likely Supreme Court review in the next year or so, I think the Courts are likely to take care of it.) Rather, the problem raised by the Swartz case is one I’ve been fighting for years: Felony liability under the statute is triggered much too easily."
The article is extremely critical of the Swartz prosecution. It describes the plea bargain thuggery as SSDD, just like the Masnick article does.
My conclusion is that Swartz sacrificed himself to expose an unjust suspension of our right to communicate. Everyone seems to agree on this, no more, no less. Thanks, troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a parent and a sister
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer Speaks at the New York City Bar Association, New York, September 13, 2012:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: too big to prosecute petition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, then. You must be pleased about this latest news:
“Los Angeles Check-Cashing Store, Manager, Compliance Officer Sentenced” by Samuel Rubenfeld, Wall Street Journal, Jan 15, 2013
This company was not Too Big To Jail™.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why wouldn't anyone agree to that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
From her statement, is you replace "appropriate" with "routine" it all fits.
Just because actions that are wrong, or ethically questionable, have become institutionalized does not absolve the perpetrators of those actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Josh in CharlotteNC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The corporations are, in turn, used heavily by the consumer who gets bitched at for not having morals or ethics.
Hilariously poetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, this explains a lot.
And we wonder why the system is so fucked up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"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."
That is simply opinion that the task is difficult, much less they did so reasonably. I would understand that the prosecutors believed it to be reasonable, they had to justify doing it. I believe there are a fair number of people disagree about what is reasonable.
As for difficult task? That's quite subjective as well. Although I'm inclined to agree. I'd have to work REALLY hard to justify blindly enforcing laws that do not benefit the public and conflic with other oaths like protect and serve.
"and they recognized that his conduct – while a violation of the law – did not warrant the severe punishments"
So he was convicted?
I know the prosecutor should think he performed a crime, but to ignore that they could possibly be wrong takes a special kind of denial. Because from the charges of "unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer" is odd because he had permission to access the computer, and he had permission to access the information. As for "recklessly damaging a protected computer", I know having a computer read from it's hard drive is normal wear and tear damage so it's hard to see that as 'reckless'. And with the access permissions I don't see how "fraud, computer fraud" can be shown.
I can't say I'm surprised though. This kind of denial should be expected when they have to cope with doing such things. Although, sometimes it is better they just keep it to themselves..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Each one of the charges filed against Swartz carried far in excess of 6 months. Does it matter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a case that highlights how the "law" have problems and why is so important to have check and balances in place
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Government Won
The government won.
And this statement from Ortiz, IMO, is "spiking the ball".
"As a parent and a sister" - what bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Government Won
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The willfully blind have no interest in seeing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No one is saying Mr. Swartz didn't deserve some sort of punishment. What we're saying is that IP and MAC spoofing are not violent crimes and so Mr. Swartz did not deserve to be labeled a FELON.
You may also benefit from knowing that JSTOR, the injured party, specifically asked the prosecutors to drop the case. In other words, JSTOR thought the appropriate punishment was "NOTHING". That may give you pause about justifying the actions of this prosecutor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not only are they not violent crimes, they're not crimes at all. In fact, they're common practice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
FTFY.
Aside, what is "MAC spoofing"? Is that like changing the MAC address of your networking hardware? You know, like editing a setting? Like a standard feature in OSX networking config? How devious...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I have it set to spoof a random MAC on bootup in one of my init.d scripts, just on general privacy principles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What Mac Changer does is spoof. It doesn't change the actual hard coded MAC on the network adapter at all. (Usually pretty hard to do without messing with the adapter's firmware) It simply broadcasts a MAC other than the hard coded one to the network and resolves the difference between the two at the client level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And if MAC spoofing isn't a crime, then riddle me this. You have a wifi network and you use MAC address restrictions to authorize access to your network. An attacker eavesdrops on your communications, copies your MAC, and then spoof's your MAC in order to circumvent your access restrictions. Is MAC spoofing a crime this time?
Come on. Mr. Swartz crossed the line when he began evading the blocks that MIT and JSTOR implemented to stop him. It's a simple fact that he did something wrong. But it was misdemeanor wrong, not felony wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not that you care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But you simply cannot argue with the fact that MIT/JSTOR tried to stop him and that he engaged in spoofing in order to circumvent their blocks. That's just a fact. Come up with reasonable excuses for changing your MAC all you want, but we all know he was smart enough to know what was happening when they blocked his MAC.
Again, though, what he did was NOT A FELONY. But he clearly and intentionally was working around their weak attempts to block him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
======
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/01/aaron_swartzs_crime_and_the_bu.html
"medical device company decided to bypass FDA clinical trials and use bone cement in the spines of humans. Given that the cement wasn't properly tested, it should come as no big surprise that a number of people died as a result."
"Despite the fact that HSBC admitted to laundering billions of dollars for Colombian and Mexican drug cartels (among others) and violating a host of important banking laws (from the Bank Secrecy Act to the Trading With the Enemy Act), Breuer and his Justice Department elected not to pursue criminal prosecutions of the bank, "
"Lay those two cases down beside that of a 26-year old kid who did the online equivalent of checking out too many books out of the library. For doing that, Aaron Swartz was initially charged with four felonies. The prosecutors in the Synthes case agreed to charge the executives only with one misdemeanor each. In the instance of HSBC, they used their discretion to avoid pursuing criminal charges altogether."
If you are defending the prosecution on the Swartz case.... at all..
Please just go away now.
===========
Your arguments about what he did being "wrong" in any sense whatsoever fail to address the fact that it is both the policy of IP to hide information needed to keep the public informed, and that the egregious abuse of the prosecutorial power is regularly one sided in favor of the powerful and the rich.
If you want me to think more kindly of you, you will stop making excuses for high crimes and misdemeanors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
grrr
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I understand and share your feelings about the two-tiered system of justice, where the powerful pay cost-of-business level fines and no one goes to jail even for heinous crimes, while the powerless are imprisoned without mercy for trivial, victimless crimes. I find it as offensive as you do, and think that the sentences ought to be reversed, with Mr. Swartz paying fines and the executives getting incarcerated.
To be crystal clear, my opinion is that this matter should have been settled out-of-court by Mr. Swartz and MIT/JSTOR. It was handled by JSTOR pretty well - "give us the hard drive, kthxbye". I don't think charges should ever have been filed by anyone. But I do believe JSTOR and MIT would have been justified in requesting a small out-of-court settlement (no admission of guilt) based on the inconveniences they suffered (go read the indictment, cut out the trumped up bits, and he still did this over a long period of time)
I'm not quite sure how one mistakes a desire for accountability for everyone's actions and proportional punishment with excusing high crimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My understanding is he already apologized to them, returned(?)/deleted the downloaded articles, and even paid them some small settlement. This despite the fact that I imagine he feels much as I do that JSTOR is the one in the wrong, along with the entire IP infrastructure of our nation.
I do apologize for my tone inasmuch as it seems to have struck a nerve with you though. It just seemed the tack you were taking was one of trying to find some little shred of something to give two sides to the story, whereas I really do not think that is warranted.
Thanks for your response, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope. The MAC spoofing itself isn't the crime. The unauthorized access may be though.
Once again, you can't blame a tool for the way a person uses it.
I choose not to let any public wifi I use know my laptop's actual MAC address. Anonymity has always been upheld by US courts as necessity for a democratic society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And this has been addressed ad nauseum. If JSTOR wanted to push the issue, they could have. They didn't. What's your big motive behind prosecuting someone for violating a ToS agreement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. I consider it to be what it actually is - blocking a specific MAC address. Not much different than using CallerID to block a phone number. It doesn't stop that person from using *67 or using a pay phone to call you anyways.
Also I'm not sure how "authorization" really plays into this since MIT's network, in the words of one expert witness, lacked "even basic controls to prevent abuse". (Source). I'm not wholly convinced there was any "authorization" to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, because it seems like everyone thinks I'm on the prosecutor's side - I'M NOT. But Mr. Swartz was no angel in this matter and he deserved to be held accountable for what he did. I truly believe this could and should have been handled entirely in private by Mr. Swartz, MIT, and JSTOR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I know you don't think what Swartz did reached felony level and also are not happy with the DOJ's handling of this case. You also believe he did commit some sort of crime, albeit only a misdemeanor.
I'm still trying to make up my own mind if what he did was "wrong" in any form of the word.
I am what some would call a hacker at heart. It's in my very nature to push the limits of any technology. It's how I learn.
What Aaron did seems as natural as breathing to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And that's your problem right there.
Is MAC spoofing a crime this time?
No, but relying on inadequate security measures might well be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, MAC spoofing is not a crime this time. The intrusion may be, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Do you have a citation for that?
From my understanding MIT's network was extremely open (no DHCP authorization) and didn't require registration or even have a TOS clickwrap.
I know JSTOR's network guys were playing a game of cat and mouse (and sounds to me a bit like their geeks might have actually been enjoying the challenge) with Swartz, but I haven't heard about MIT actually doing anything or spending any resources on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok. Thanks for the source. Mr. Kerr states:
As for the first part about "costs and inconvenience" I would really like see some supporting evidence from MIT concerning that - otherwise it's only supposition on Mr. Kerr's part.
As for the second part - that's plain silly to include since there would have been no need for MIT to help the Secret Service at all if the DOJ wasn't pushing for criminal charges.
Reading further into Mr. Kerr's article he also says:
Was Swartz actually planning to release the articles on file sharing networks? I thought the answer to that was no or at the very least unclear. Where did Mr. Kerr infer that from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I will now retract this statement.
According to this article MIT did expend resources of their own free will prior to and after contacting the authorities.
That article also describes MIT's regret for doing so, after the fact, since it "appeared to run counter to its history of embracing computer hackers and open access to information on the Internet."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No one is saying Mr. Swartz didn't deserve some sort of punishment. What we're saying is that IP and MAC spoofing are not violent crimes and so Mr. Swartz did not deserve to be labeled a FELON.
Did MIT request that Mr. Swartz be prosecuted? I am not aware of any request from MIT on that matter, one way or the other. Even if MIT wanted him prosecuted, do you really believe his crimes rose to the level of FELONY?
Please, pretty fucking please, people, can we stop with the "he deserves some kind of punishment" straw man? NO ONE SAYS HE SHOULD GO FREE. NO ONE. NO. ONE. What we're all saying is that he shouldn't have been charged with felonies. Felonies should be for people who are a danger to society, like people who commit violent crimes. Not people who inconvenience a network administrator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As stated elsewhere, I think an out-of-court settlement where Mr. Swartz pays an undisclosed sum to MIT and JSTOR with no admission of guilt was the way to go. Charges should never have been brought.
But do you really think he should have suffered zero consequences, with no punishment at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't get the why he *must* be punished somehow, even if just to prove the point that he was a naughty, naughty boy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why people who get "caught" doing the equivalent of planting a bag of poo in your front door must have some sort of money settlement? Can't they just agree that the action was unwelcome and just promise not to do it again? (which basically is *what already happened*). Or is it to appease the God of Capitalism, that Coin must grease the Palms of Due Process or something?
I really don't get this point that someone "has" to be punished at all when the parts basically agree not to punish each other (except by involving the Spooks which pretty much everyone agrees was a bad mistake).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amen
"Or is it to appease the God of Capitalism, the Coin must grease the Palms of Due Process...." Awesome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.html
But we just wanted him to accept probation./s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's not like he was trading with the Iranians or laundering Mexican cartel cash. Wait. It is like that. No, wait, spoofing is just like doing business with drug lords so... a witch!!
id10t.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think it’s important to realize that what happened in the Swartz case happens it lots and lots of federal criminal cases. Yes, the prosecutors tried to force a plea deal by scaring the defendant with arguments that he would be locked away for a long time if he was convicted at trial. Yes, the prosecutors filed a superseding indictment designed to scare Swartz evem more in to pleading guilty (it actually had no effect on the likely sentence, but it’s a powerful scare tactic). Yes, the prosecutors insisted on jail time and a felony conviction as part of a plea. But it is not particularly surprising for federal prosecutors to use those tactics.
Make up some bullshit interpretations so that what AS did meets the standards of a Federal crime, go all medieval juris doctor on his ass to accomplish "special deterrence", then take a bunch of smug victory laps while while tut tutting the obvious foolhardiness of anyone challenging the might and majesty of the church of Rome Department of Justice.
All over something many people think rises to perhaps the level of stupid, let alone felonious.
Perhaps if AS had hidden his laptop in a special box designed to fit in the teller window at a bank he wouldn't have faced such a shitstorm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kerr at Volokh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Kerr at Volokh
Kerr is comparing Swartz to Gandhi and Rosa Parks, who deliberately broke unjust, oppressive laws and accepted the legal consequences to make their cases.
He's pretty naive about the costs of civil disobedience. He seems to think it's just another part of how the system works - make your point, serve your time, skip into the sunrise of a better day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Kerr at Volokh
Kerr is comparing Swartz to Gandhi and Rosa Parks, who deliberately broke unjust, oppressive laws and accepted the legal consequences to make their cases.
He's pretty naive about the costs of civil disobedience. He seems to think it's just another part of how the system works - make your point, serve your time, skip into the sunrise of a better day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I did benefit, thanks, but Kerr's articles support Masnick's. They emphasize different aspects of this heinous case.
Kerr and Masnick agree that the potential penalties in this case make current law tyrannical. Which was Swartz's point too. I'm convinced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's an abuse of the 5th amendment
However, sentences should be prescribed to reflect the severity of the crime, and must not be set purely to provide leverage to prosecutors to force an admission of guilt. That spits in the face of due process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it's an abuse of the 5th amendment
The problem is NOT that people should have to be proven guilty before being packed off to jail. Ok? It takes too much work to do their jobs? Is that the excuse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it's an abuse of the 5th amendment
The thing is, rich people can typically afford lawyers. Poor people are typically stuck with public defenders. There are some damned good PDs out there, and some awfully bad lawyers, but generally speaking you get better representation if you pay for it. An innocent person, given the option of a plea bargain, is more likely to go to trial if they're rich.
So, not only does the current system abuse the 5th amendment (I assume you're talking about the "indictment of a Grand Jury" part), it also disproportionately encourages poor people to plead guilty. Given the correlations between race and income in the US, not to mention the disproportionate imprisonment rates for certain racial minorities, I think this is a big problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: it's an abuse of the 5th amendment
Indeed, justice being best when it is blind to social status, it really should be applied to all people. The solution is ridiculously simple. Both the prosecution and defense should be public services.
Watch how fast the wealthy move to make sure the defense half of the equation gets its pay once they can't opt out of the public option.
The ultimate solution, though, is to do away with "welfare for the rich", and IP is a huge part of that. Communal systems do not work well. There is no motivation to try. You have one option, and they know it. Likewise, private systems with protections such as IP allow people to be lax, since the IP law means you have nowhere else to go.
It all boils down to tearing down the concept that there need to be artificially created benefits for excellence in order to promote excellence.
Excellence is its own reward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it's an abuse of the 5th amendment
Without the option prosecutors would refrain from PR cases and focus on those where they actuall have some evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it's an abuse of the 5th amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I tend to keep my distance from power even when I can clearly grasp it. It seduces. It corrupts. Some need vast amounts of power to get corrupt but in the end very few won't be corrupted by absolute power like Ortiz had.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You know, I think that's actually a more depressing thought than the alternative, which was that he was supposed to be driven to suicide for the deterrent value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Security
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Solution
Simply put, there should be NO penalty for insisting on your constitutional right to a fair trial.
The prosecutor's behaviour here is no different that when they insist on heavy-handed attacks on teens sexting; taking a law designed to take handle mercenary predators and applying it to innocent normal behaviour, simply to boost their "conviction numbers".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stephen Heymann slightly smarter than Carmen
By keeping his own mouth shut, he's letting her take most of the heat. One might wonder how long it will take her to catch onto what he's doing, and what her reaction will be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stephen Heymann slightly smarter than Carmen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stephen Heymann slightly smarter than Carmen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Carmen Ortiz and double standards
“Medical device and pharmaceutical companies can use post-market studies legitimately to obtain information about how their products work in the field, but they cannot use those studies, and the honoraria associated with them, to induce physicians to select their products. Cardiologists and electrophysiologists should make their decisions on which pacemaker or defibrillator to implant in a patient based on their independent medical judgment, not based on how much the manufacturer is paying them to implant the device,” said Carmen Ortiz, U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts.
Nope! Just fines. "St. Jude officials said they weren’t admitting liability"
How about when GlaxoSmithKline sold defective drugs?
“We will not tolerate corporate attempts to profit at the expense of the ill and needy in our society -- or those who cut corners that result in potentially dangerous consequences to consumers,” Carmen M. Ortiz, the U.S. Attorney in Boston, said at yesterday’s news conference.
Hey, at least someone was found guilty this time. His name was SB Pharmco Puerto Rico Inc. I don't think he had to serve any time in prison, though, and I doubt he had problems finding a new job, voting, or owning a firearm.
Hmm...maybe when Forest Laboratories sold drugs approved only for adults to children?
“Forest Pharmaceuticals deliberately chose to pursue corporate profits over its obligations to the F.D.A. and the American public,” Carmen Ortiz, the United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts, said in a statement Wednesday.
Hey, someone was found guilty of a felony this time! His name was Mr. Forest Laboratories. However, just like Mr. SB Pharmco Puerto Rico Inc. I don't think Mr. Forest Laboratories had to serve any time in prison, despite being a felon.
These companies actually hurt people. And yet not a single person served any time in prison. Aaron Swartz didn't hurt anybody, and the "victim" JSTOR even asked the prosecutors to drop the case - and yet they refused to give Mr. Swartz any kind of deal that didn't involve being labeled a felon and thrown in prison, as if he was some kind of murderer or rapist or money launderer.
This just proves that the "Justice" system is two-tiered. If you're large and powerful, you just get "cost of business" fines and nobody has to be convicted or thrown in prison. If you're small and powerless, the book will be thrown at you without mercy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know you're just abusing this situation to further your own ridiculous and disgusting agenda, but you should read what Prof. Kerr posted: http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-against-aaron-swartz-part-2-prosecutorial-disc retion/
"Aaron's Law" wouldn't have had any effect on Aaron's potential sentence. Woops. Funny how you don't report the truth. But then again, you and I both know that you don't care about truth. Note what Kerr said about the additional charges.
You're a total fake and coward, and you know it. And you're really disgusting in the way you're using this sad situation to your own advantage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, I have no idea where you're getting this information, but it's simply not true. Judges frequently impose sentences lower than what prosecutors seek. And it is rare, especially in Massachusetts, for prosecutors and defendants to come into court with a specific, agreed-upon sentence on which the plea is dependent (a so-called "c1c" plea). Judges understandably don't like these. Rather, what usually happens is that the prosecutor agrees to recommend a specific sentence in exchange for the plea. The defendant is free to argue for something lower, and courts can and do sentence lower than that recommendation, especially in case LIKE THIS ONE involving some novel and/or highly debatable legal issues.
And this:
Again, Mike, you're making these sweeping pronouncements even though you're not very familiar with the procedures of the criminal justice system. Prosecutors often get a superseding indictment (technically it's the grand jury that returns it, but the prosecutor drives the process) to fine tune and be more specific about what the charges are. Sometimes that means more charges or more serious charges, but often it's because prosecutors have had more time to review evidence and fine tune legal theories. What it looks like happened in Aaron's case is that prosecutors initially charged single counts of fraud for an entire series of acts. And they must have realized that some of their theories were stronger than others, so they broke them up into separate counts so that even if they lost on one theory, they might win on another. Even if you think all of the charges were bogus, I think most of us would agree some of their theories were less bogus than others. For instance, even if we all think the initial access through MIT's wifi was fine, some people are less sure about what happened later with the wiring closet. So, assuming you're a prosecutor who thinks this is a decent case, there's a perfectly good reason to get a more specific indictment with more specific charges. It's not necessarily vindictive. And even if it were vindictive, the way the sentencing guidelines and most judges work, adding more counts of the same charge would be very unlikely to change the eventual sentence. The prosecutors and Aaron's very good lawyers would know all this. The superseding indictment would be harder to win against at trial, because even if you won against some charges (like the early wifi access), you could lose on some of the other charges. But making charges more specific is actually a good thing, so dismissing it as "hogwash" is a mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As a foreigner, I'm surprised that Americans aren't more alarmed by the workings of their criminal justice system. I don't know what ought to scare me more about living in the United States--that I might be the victim of a crime (which happens), or that this ferocious prosecutorial system might one day turn its wrath on me. I'd rather be mugged than threatened with years in jail for something I didn't even know was a crime. Is this justice system actually on my side? I'm by no means sure--an astounding state of affairs.
At a conference I attended recently, I vented my preoccupation with rogue prosecutors, an ever-proliferating criminal law and the vanishing rights of the accused on a fellow attendee--a lawyer and former prosecutor. When I'd said my piece she said, "But you have to remember that nearly all of the people who are prosecuted are guilty." For half a second I thought she was joking and I started to laugh. But she wasn't joking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Me Too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reasons
In the wake of the end of the Cold War though, we have been a nation without a rudder, and all the power we ginned up in order to face down the Soviet Union is slowly being turned inward against our own people, and diverted on the international front towards promoting our banking industry's interests at the expense of people who have no chance of defending themselves from our massive military.
No one wants to admit that the problem IS the USA. The shame is too much to swallow. A lot of it is pride. So they make excuses, like the lawyer you spoke to.
That's obviously just my opinion, but it's the sense I have after watching it happen over the last 30 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 17th, 2013 @ 9:36am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get real
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/01/aaron_swartzs_crime_and_the_bu.html
Big Banks? Big Medicine? No worries....
Angering Big IP. Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass "Go". Do not collect....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thanks for the feedback. I am aware of multiple cases where judges went above and beyond what the plea deal was -- though, admittedly, those were not in Massachusetts. I did try to research stats on how often judges matched the initial plea deal, but could not find them. However, since I've seen it happen multiple times, it seemed not uncommon.
Again, Mike, you're making these sweeping pronouncements even though you're not very familiar with the procedures of the criminal justice system. Prosecutors often get a superseding indictment (technically it's the grand jury that returns it, but the prosecutor drives the process) to fine tune and be more specific about what the charges are. Sometimes that means more charges or more serious charges, but often it's because prosecutors have had more time to review evidence and fine tune legal theories. What it looks like happened in Aaron's case is that prosecutors initially charged single counts of fraud for an entire series of acts. And they must have realized that some of their theories were stronger than others, so they broke them up into separate counts so that even if they lost on one theory, they might win on another.
I can understand the reason why they would do this, but I stand by the initial assessment of hogwash. If they really believed this was such a minor deal, then they could have easily specified that and NOT told his lawyers that they were going to seek many years in jail and announced the maximum sentence in the press release.
The superseding indictment would be harder to win against at trial, because even if you won against some charges (like the early wifi access), you could lose on some of the other charges.
I'm not sure how that makes it "harder" to win. You seem to be arguing that it actually makes it easier to win, since they now have more theories to run up the flag pole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not suggesting that prosecutors thought the initial case was just some "minor deal" (if that's what you mean). It's just that you originally said Ortiz's statement (that her office didn't think Aaron deserved anything like the statutory maximum) was "hogwash" because if it were true, her office wouldn't have piled on more charges in September. I was offering one possible (and I think likely) alternative explanation as to why the office would add more charges, even if they weren't trying to put him in jail for many years. The truth, from various defense attorney quotes, is that the prosecutors eventually offered 4-6 months for a felony guilty plea, but that all along they were apparently telling the defense attorneys that if the case went to trial, they'd ask for something like 6 or 7 years. I don't know if that was true, or just bluster, but that is apparently what the prosecutors were telling them.
That was my confusing use of the second person singular. I meant that it would be harder for Aaron or another defendant to prevail against the superseding indictment with each of the government's legal theories and the alleged acts separated out into discrete charges. Because even if a judge dismissed, or a jury acquitted on, the weaker charges, the stronger ones might still lead to a conviction. In contrast, if the prosecution lumps multiple things into a single count, then if any part of the government's theory fails, then the defendant wins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fuck DOJ
The US Government has no Honour and no Humanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fuck DOJ
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-district-attorney-carmen-orti z-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fuck DOJ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time will judge her
While she may never see the consequences of her actions, time may judge her more harshly than if she was actually removed from office and stripped of her law license.
Please sign the Whitehouse petition to fire her.
http://boingboing.net/2013/01/14/whitehouse-gov-petition-to-rem.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There ought to be a law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ortiz is really sad because...
She just wanted to lock this terrorist up, chalk up another victory for her career stats and move on to the next victim...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Try This Sick Crap on for Size
"medical device company decided to bypass FDA clinical trials and use bone cement in the spines of humans. Given that the cement wasn't properly tested, it should come as no big surprise that a number of people died as a result."
"Despite the fact that HSBC admitted to laundering billions of dollars for Colombian and Mexican drug cartels (among others) and violating a host of important banking laws (from the Bank Secrecy Act to the Trading With the Enemy Act), Breuer and his Justice Department elected not to pursue criminal prosecutions of the bank, "
"Lay those two cases down beside that of a 26-year old kid who did the online equivalent of checking out too many books out of the library. For doing that, Aaron Swartz was initially charged with four felonies. The prosecutors in the Synthes case agreed to charge the executives only with one misdemeanor each. In the instance of HSBC, they used their discretion to avoid pursuing criminal charges altogether."
If you are defending the prosecution on the Swartz case.... at all..
Please just go away now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twisted
Well, we got change. Anyone needing more change, please exit through the nearest port.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Twisted
Don't get me wrong. I don't like Obama, at all. But if you're going to throw vitriol at him, at least be factual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Twisted
The vitriol is quite factual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Twisted
But do you REALLY want to play this game? Okay.
"everyone who snuck in gets free everything and we are not going to enforce any laws on immigration"
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/277799-dont-wait-for-presid ent-obama-to-act-on-immigration-reform
In the 2012 fiscal year that ended September 30, an unprecedented 409,849 people were deported
Hmm. 2012 was an election year. Nearly half a million people were deported. Does that sound like not enforcing laws on immigration?
Sorry, Shane, but AJBarnes is a partisan hack spouting falsehoods. Provable falsehoods. Obama's administration is deporting illegal immigrants faster than Bush's administration. It's somewhat important when trying to convince people that you don't spread lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Twisted
Obama is no useful change.
Yeah, I'll play with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Twisted
Regarding Fast and Furious, again, did you read the comment you're replying to? All I said was that the government was not shipping guns to Mexico. Again, that's not just hyperbole, it's partisan bullshit.
And finally...did you read the comment the other guy was replying to? In general, I don't like Obama. He's done some things that were okay, but on the whole I'd rather have someone else entirely. To start with, he assassinated a 16-year old American citizen because his father was allegedly a terrorist mastermind. That's disgusting and spits in the face of our nation. He wanted to move Gitmo's defining violation - indefinite detention - to Illinois; what use is shutting down Gitmo if you keep doing what makes Gitmo wrong? And launching cyberattacks on other nations...that's pretty wrong too. Relentless prosecution of whistleblowers like Kiriakou, Drake, Manning...failure to prosecute anyone on Wall Street (come on, even Saint Reagan and H.W.Bush managed to prosecute over 1000 people during the Savings and Loan crisis...)
Shane. Buddy. Pal. We're on the same side, man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Twisted
I just feel you are only disappointed in Obama insofar as he has not been liberal enough. I, on the other hand, am disappointed in him from every conceivable direction, and can relate to conservatives who have concerns like Barnes'. Of course, I never voted for him to begin with... I just happen not to have voted for Romney either. I left the darned spot blank for the first time since I was ... what, 25 I guess.
Sorry if I seemed huffy. I took a step away from the computer. LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why Aaron Did what he Did
If you wanted to educate yourself about the issue of prosecutorial discretion, you would run into many, many links such as the one above.
These sorts of artciles - scholarly articles with research to back them - are hidden from public view by the government through IP law. The scholars themselves are often at odds with the institutions they work with and the government. Most of them WANT their research to be used to educate the public, but the legacy industries FORBID IT.
THAT is why what he did was a moral imperative, and in NO WAY WRONG. We need to step up and stop the purposeful obfuscation of facts we need in order to be informed citizens.
All this blither about Aaron knowing he did something wrong and needing to be willing to pay the consequences is HOGWASH. What is wrong is that our government is working hand in hand with thieves and liars to destroy our self sufficiency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ftfy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The sad irony is that Aaron devoted his energy into helping people get access to information. If he had taken his very considerable talents with computer code and focused on accumulating wealth, as so many lesser people have done, he could have hired an army of slick lawyers with inside connections to defend him and the prosecutors would have backed off. (Just look at how aggressively they have prosecuted the bankers, NOT).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exactly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've just heard of this story today
So everyone write your legislator and send them simply written synopsis of cases like this and indicate that here's a place the US could save billions. If these kinds of resources are prosecuting "crimes" like this, we are dumping too much of our taxpayer dollars into this system. We should be fixing roads and railways, not paying for this. You have to cut the leg$ out from under them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously. If there was Justice, why would/should you plea to smaller charges if you are guilty of none?
Shows just how innocent most people are to how "Justice" works.
Money talks, bullshit walks (albeit not freely).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suicide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shame
An apology, admission of fault or resignation would do it. Alas, Carmen Ortiz shows no remorse, no shame. Her profession of sympathy is less than worthless, it is offensive
She is at best, incompetent since her actions manifestly do not serve the people; a less charitable view might consider her malicious. In any case, she is manifestly unfit for public office, a fact that future voters should be reminded of when she next surfaces.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shame
An apology, admission of fault or resignation would do it. Alas, Carmen Ortiz shows no remorse, no shame. Her profession of sympathy is less than worthless, it is offensive
She is at best, incompetent since her actions manifestly do not serve the people; a less charitable view might consider her malicious. In any case, she is manifestly unfit for public office, a fact that future voters should be reminded of when she next surfaces.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Carmen Ortiz' bogus statement
after all, we know how psychopaths are, without any empathy for other people.
If her name was Mrs. Javert (les miserables) or Smith (Matrix), it wouldn't also surprise me at all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ortiz, Heyman and Swartz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
White House petition to Remove UUSDA Carmen Ortiz from office
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-district-attorney-carmen-ort iz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_cam paign=shorturl
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets see her try to argue the charges are to much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There should be some jeopardy for prosecutors
Difficult to work out what it should be - but there has to be a disincentive to plea bargaining for all but the most clear cit cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jury Nullification
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brilliant evaluation of statement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More stand taking
http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/aaron_justice/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. I keep comments open on my site because I want reasonable and open discussion.
Like hell you do. Its one big circle jerk here. Anyone with a different view is berated to the point of insanity.
2. I'm not the one making stuff up and putting words in other people's mouths, calling them names, using ad homs and other logical fallacies like a bully. You are.
"Carmen Ortiz Releases Totally Bogus Statement Concerning The Aaron Swartz Prosecution"
Ummm, really Masnick?
I suggest you stop, for a second, breathe a little, and rethink your strategy. It's not particularly convincing.
Shouldn't the focus be mental health?, and the lack of real support for those who suffer with it.
It's disturbing to see the amount of articles and posts that have gone up on the net AFTER the guy killed himself; where were his "friends" BEFORE he ended his life?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Probably because most people who have a "different" view is the view of "moar copyright!", "SOPA and PIPA were good!", or "Paywalls are awesome!" Or they flat out attack people and troll.
"Shouldn't the focus be mental health?, and the lack of real support for those who suffer with it."
Agreed, problem is, that puts the country into a nanny state, can't waste our tax dollars on being "soft" on people. Nope, we have to be tough on crime.
That was sarcasm (most of it), if you couldn't tell.
Honestly, the problem with mental diseases is that... Well, no one really thinks it's a problem. You have a problem, but seeking help? Yeah, there's a pretty major social stigma for seeking mental help.
It's either suffer in silence, or get help and be branded a loon by society.
Got a drug problem and seek help? You're doing yourself and everyone a favor. Got a mental problem and you seek help? You're a freak and a danger to everyone around you.
So, until societal norms change, things like this are going to continue to happen, simply because no one goes to get the help they need.
"It's disturbing to see the amount of articles and posts that have gone up on the net AFTER the guy killed himself; where were his "friends" BEFORE he ended his life?"
Look up. That's the problem, we turn a blind eye to people who might be suffering because, well, if they need help, they'll ask for it, despite the fact that, most people don't ask for help when they need it when it comes to their mental health.
Ask yourself this, how many times, when you were growing up, did you get told these same things?
Don't talk to strangers.
It's not our problem, just ignore it.
Sit down, shut up and pay attention.
Those three phrases really indoctrinate people into thinking like each other. Don't talk to those you don't know, ignore problems of others that you see and just shut up and sit down, it doesn't concern you.
That's something we're taught as kids all the way through adult-hood, and then we turn around and teach that to our kids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do like
I have recently been thinking that, even worse, we as a species seem to have an ingrained pull towards humiliating people. It always reminds me of times I have seen a sick bird being mercilessly torn at by the rest of the flock. It's a very frightening and apparently innate biological drive common to many species to tear apart the weak.
Apropos of nothing I guess, except to say again how much I enjoyed your thoughts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
It's been brought up many times. The prosecution knew he was struggling, and yet they trumped up these charges and kept piling on the pressure.
I don't think it was his friends and family that let him down. I think he came far to late to an understanding of human nature, and before he could drag himself through the process of coming to terms with it, he ended up capitulating to hopelessness and ended his life.
That may just be me projecting, but he and I seem to share a lot of similar values, especially where access to important information is concerned. How can we have a free and open society of informed citizens without more open information? How can we elect the correct officials without more open information?
And then the government does something this overboard, and society just sort of keeps on rolling along.......
That will eat at you if you have not prepared for yourself an internal dialogue that gets you out of the downward spiral that such thoughts can create.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ silverscarcat
Agreed, problem is, that puts the country into a nanny state, can't waste our tax dollars on being "soft" on people. Nope, we have to be tough on crime."
A nanny state? You can't possibly think that to be true?
The focus (for many years now) has been on the fragility of the mental state.
And when does *real* support begin and end with Government?
Are you saying we as people can not support one another unless the Government says so?
"Ask yourself this, how many times, when you were growing up, did you get told these same things?
Don't talk to strangers.
It's not our problem, just ignore it.
Sit down, shut up and pay attention."
I grew up in a family of 10, and I can honestly say that the only part of what you wrote that ever applied to us was "don't talk to strangers".
In our home a problem was a problem regardless of who's problem it was. We all did what we could to find a solution.
"Sit down shut up" never, all our voices counted and were heard; not to imply that we always got what we wanted, but we were never silenced.
"Honestly, the problem with mental diseases is that... Well, no one really thinks it's a problem. You have a problem, but seeking help? Yeah, there's a pretty major social stigma for seeking mental help."
That might held some truth in the 1950's and 60's (even into the 70's?) but absolutely not in this day and age.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ silverscarcat
"That might held some truth in the 1950's and 60's (even into the 70's?) but absolutely not in this day and age."
I call bullshit on that.
If I said that I spent time in a mental psych ward, the first thing that would pop into your head was someone with a straight jacket on sitting in a completely padded room while doctors and nurses walked by.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ Shane
She did her job; whether you agree with the merits of the case or not.
"The prosecution knew he was struggling, and yet they trumped up these charges and kept piling on the pressure."
I would think most people facing serious charges are indeed "struggling".
"And then the government does something this overboard"
I think many would argue that it was Mr Swartz that went overboard Shane.
In fact if anyone knew the consequences of his actions it was Mr Swartz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ Shane
Yes, so what? Behaving in an immoral fashion is not excused because it's your job.
Many would, certainly. But I'm certain that most people, when they are informed of the facts of the matter, think that the DOJ was the one who was far more egregious.
What Swartz actually did was really very minor -- at worst, on the same level of severity as littering. The DOJ treated him like he has attempted murder or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lessig is to Blame -- and So Are You
It doesn't matter if charges are added as fit the crime because the discussion all along, as Ortiz and *even the lawyer* admit, was about either a plea for a very lenient sentence or some far lesser sentence if it were put to a jury trial. You're forgetting about the media circus YOU would have created around an actual jury trial -- and even Swartz and his family might have wished to avoid THAT.
You must admit: There has never been a hacker ever in the US or UK who has ever remotely served anything like these sentences -- in fact some of them get out of jail free with the Asperberger's card or other extenuating circumstances -- or they turn state's evidence like Sabu. So it is utterly irresponsible for you to keep scarifying with these literalisms AND you have to ask yourselves whether you are in fact aiding and abetting a climate of intimidation that could have acted on Swartz's psyche -- when in fact he would have known about the plea offer and the likelihood -- as Ortiz indicated -- that he could face even just probation! Shame on you!
You binary geek thinkers also refuse to consider how precedent law plays a role in our system; and how a judge is separate from a prosecutor and will reach his own conclusions about how to *apply* the law in a given case. There is absolutely no indication anywhere that Swartz would have served anything like 7 years, let alone 35 or 50, and you're just making this up in service of your despicable copyleftist cause.
If we're to blame people beyond Swartz for this tragedy, I blame Lawrence Lessig, Cory Doctorow, and all his other mentors who knowingly incited him to this act yet pulled back and didn't defend him at the end.
http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2013/01/lessig-and-the-internet-are-the-bullies-the -prosecutor-are-only-doing-their-jobs.html
When you like it or not, the plea bargaining system is in fact what enables enormous numbers of people to go free doing just community service or getting sentences to time served in pre-trial. You're writing about the system in an ignorant, tendentious fashion merely to serve your cause.
You're a terrible advertisement for the kind of justice we would live under if you were in charge. Oops, we've already seen that with your outrageous anti-SOPA crusade that succeeded in overthrowing Congress so that legislation didn't even come to a vote. And BTW, precisely because there isn't a good law to establish the line of criminality you refuse to reckon with regarding piracy and copying that prosecutors are going to feel entitled to "make examples" -- even with six months -- of people like Swartz. So you are to blame as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And this is why you fail.
Google-filled hysteria...
*points to the following link.*
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130117/14532121718/internet-freedom-day-watch-aaron-sw artz-explain-how-sopa-was-stopped.shtml
Have a nice day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And this is why you fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lessig is to Blame -- and So Are You
Just for starters, the plea bargaining system is not necessary. In fact, there are places where it is not allowed.
One fun way not to clog your court system is to not press charges against someone who is merely violating the terms of service of a company who has already settled the issue with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ silverscarcat
You watch way too many B-Movies silvercat; or, are over age of 60?
My generation is far less ignorant and stupidly judgmental.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ silverscarcat
The issue is that mental "illness" and behaviors authorities do not like can be conflated. It's a pretty well documented mental health issue, including privacy concerns for the mentally ill vs. safety concerns for the general public.
It has nothing to do with some generational gap, or your generations innate superiority to any generation before. To hear anyone even suggesting that is somewhat spooky to me, as it suggests a certain lack of perspective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ silverscarcat
What generation is that? Those who are 40? (BTW, I'm not even close to 40 yet)
Seriously, you think so? Just go ask random people in the street what they think about when they think of psychological wards at hospitals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"It has nothing to do with some generational gap, or your generations innate superiority to any generation before."
"generations innate superiority" Say what??
I think it's YOU that completely missed the point and LACK perspective.
For you to write that generations DON'T think differently is absurd and just stupid!!!
Couldn't tell it by reading you.
WHAT?!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ silverscarcat
I'm not sure what people you're referring to that still maintain a very dated stereo-type regarding mental health issues, so much so that they instill a belief that people "either suffer in silence, or get help and be branded a loon by society", fortunately for myself I know none.
If my age comment offended you, it was not my intention, I do however think your comments are very 'dated'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ silverscarcat
I don't think so.
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2013/01/14/what-prevents-people-from-seeking-mental-hea lth-treatment/
"“People don’t hesitate telling acquaintances about a trip to their dentist or physician, but most stay quiet about their therapy appointment,” said Ryan Howes, Ph.D, a clinical psychologist and professor in Pasadena, Calif. That’s because even though progress has been made, he said, there’s still stigma attached to seeking therapy.
“Many people feel embarrassed or ashamed of their symptoms because our society places illogical taboos on mental health issues over physical conditions,” said clinical psychologist Nikki Massey-Hastings, PsyD."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ silverscarcat
http://blog.beliefnet.com/beyondblue/2009/03/they-just-dont-get-it.html
"Like Styron, I was both enraged and saddened that friends and family were shocked to hear that two doctors sliced me open–before full anesthesia kicked in–to save little David’s life in an emergency C-section. Yet when I voiced the desperation of depression–which made the knife cut feel like a knee scratch–they often brushed it off, as if I were whining to win some undeserved sympathy votes."
Don't you get it yet?
People who deal with physical symptoms and suffer through it are macho and tough and can deal with anything.
Anyone who suffers through mental problems is a wuss and should be shunned.
THAT is what people who have depression go through with society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An egregious abuse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ silverscarcat
I'm certainly not discounting that there remains a handful of people who still discriminate.
"Anyone who suffers through mental problems is a wuss and should be shunned.
THAT is what people who have depression go through with society."
If that's truly how things are where YOU live, then I am beyond grateful I don't live where you do.
We have a very different experience it seems.
Be well silverscarcat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aaron Swartz and the voice of truth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ortiz's statement
No U.S. citizen is well served under such a system.
EVERYBODY is a potential target for repression of any action or idea.
Good luck with that 'freedom' thing, folks. You've got a steep climb to achieve it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scwartze
In general very very few innocent people charged with a crime actually make it to the court phase because of built in safeguards.
The article writer should have stayed away from this. Rw emotion clouds judgement. I will however read more on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scwartze
I disagree completely. We do not need the pleas bargaining system at all. In fact, it really needs to be specifically illegal to do.
We have so many court cases not because American cops are better at nabbing perps, but because the US criminalizes far too many things.
If our laws were rational and reasonable, the courts would not be so overloaded. That's the way to fix this problem -- not by making it easier for the law to continue to be abusive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scwartze
You have a great deal more faith in the judiciary than I do. I have seen very little that gives me that sort of confidence.
I suppose, but only if you count making a plea bargain (necessitating pleading guilty to crimes you did not commit) as one of those "safeguards".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plea Bargain BS
With this "bargain" there is definitely internet restriction or oversight which means there is no freedom at all, this is meant to effectively destroy any life built on the activism which Aaron lived and breathed. Along with this there is the never ending "reporting" to whatever authority, along with the intrusion - at any time, of the person in their home or work or wherever. Then there is whatever restitution or "service" demanded, ostensibly in this case telling "would-be" activists "never do what I did," etc.
This is why I call it the forever plea bargain, because you are hounded to the grave, and there is no such thing as having done your time - or for it to be over in any form. In the name of a "rehabilitation" there is a life destroyed. The judicial/prison system is abusive to the max degree, portends never ending persecution, and is meant to cripple or bury the so-called offender by any means necessary. Are you next, are you children next? The dragnet broadens exponentially.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Plea Bargain BS
Again, if you don't want cases to be pressured to serve the task of deterrent of criminal hackers, you have to be for SOPA/PIPA which would define these cases more clearly and make it harder to overreach. Oh, but you didn't want the rule of law, you wanted code-as-law and you wanted "the Internet" to overthrow Congress and the courts. So, you get what you get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um, 6 Months is Not Very Much
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Carmen Ortiz Releases Totally Bogus Statement Concerning The Aaron Swartz Prosecution by Mike Masnick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]