White House Responds To Petition About Aaron Swartz By Saying Absolutely Nothing

from the that's-a-response? dept

Fri, Jan 9th 2015 2:30pm — Mike Masnick

Soon after the unfortunate suicide of Aaron Swartz, a lot of anger was directed at Carmen Ortiz, the US Attorney who was the key figure behind the ridiculous prosecution of Swartz for daring to download too many documents (that he had legal access to, as did anyone connecting to MIT's network). Ortiz showed no concern at all that either she or her office had done anything improper in threatening Swartz with over 30 years in jail for downloading (legally) some academic papers. As a result some people set up one of those "We the People" White House petitions, asking the Obama administration to remove Ortiz from her job.

This petition had no chance. Petitions are supposed to be used to get the White House to discuss or commit to policy positions. Specific personnel decisions seem way outside the scope. Besides, as bad a job as we may think Ortiz did in handling the Swartz situation, frankly, it's not the kind of thing the White House will ever come out and say directly. That's just not how it works.

Similarly, while at times the "We the People" petitions have been useful in forcing the White House's hand on things, for the most part, the administration seems to ignore most of them, even if they got the required 100,000 signatures demanding a response.

So I'm at a total loss as to why the White House suddenly decided -- two years later -- to respond to the petition to remove Ortiz from her job, and to basically say... absolutely nothing in response:

Aaron Swartz's death was a tragic, unthinkable loss for his family and friends. Our sympathy continues to go out to those who were closest to him, and to the many others whose lives he touched.

We also reaffirm our belief that a spirit of openness is what makes the Internet such a powerful engine for economic growth, technological innovation, and new ideas. That's why members of the Administration continue to engage with advocates to ensure the Internet remains a free and open platform as technology continues to disrupt industries and connect our communities in ways we can't yet imagine. We will continue this engagement as we tackle new questions on key issues such as citizen participation in democracy, open access to information, privacy, intellectual property, free speech, and security.

As to the specific personnel-related requests raised in your petitions, our response must be limited. Consistent with the terms we laid out when we began We the People, we will not address agency personnel matters in a petition response, because we do not believe this is the appropriate forum in which to do so.

If that's the answer, why bother responding at all? Even the opening statement expressing concern for Swartz's family and friends rings hollow. While I know, for a fact, that some in the White House absolutely do understand what Swartz meant to the internet, this response is incredibly weak. Of course, even though they couldn't do anything or say anything about Ortiz, an announcement like this (two years later) could have been tied to some sort of program on internet openness, or increasing access to public domain works, or any of a number of projects and campaigns that Swartz was close to. There was no real reason to pick up this thread now, but having decided to answer the petition now, the White House certainly could have done something a lot more productive with it.

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, obama administration, petition, we the people, white house

45 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2015 @ 2:41pm

We The People was nothing but a political toy to push the administration's objectives. Many have been answered that never received the minimum voting amount because that was what they were interested in while others that received more than the total votes required remain totally ignored.

If you believe this is about what the people want, I gotta bridge for sale....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2015 @ 3:05pm

I was surprised when I received this response, primarily because it showed up like an update to a long forgotten Kickstarter I'd donated to but gave up on when it didn't deliver in a decent amount of time.

This was too little for being so late. They could have said this a long time ago. Coming this late makes this message seem like the rejection of an amnesty request delivered to the widow of an already executed death row inmate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2015 @ 3:31pm

Appeasement with no substance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2015 @ 3:35pm

At least a response was given albeit late.

I can imagine that the administration was going to just leave it without a reply but someone in the White House was able to convince somebody higher up that a response should at least be made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2015 @ 5:02pm

Aaron Swartz didn't mean anything to the internet other than being an example of how no one is above the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2015 @ 6:28pm
  
  Re:
  Troll, Troll, Troll, Troll, Troll, Troll, Troll, Troll, Troll, Troooooooolllllllllllll.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2015 @ 10:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You spelled truth wrong.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2015 @ 8:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually I think it's more like he spelled scumbag wrong.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2015 @ 12:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Fuck Aaron Swartz and every single person like him.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2015 @ 1:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah because the world needs more selfish jerks that undemocratically buy laws through backdoor dealings (ie: 95+ year copy protection lengths) instead.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2015 @ 2:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, copyright length really messes up your life. Uh huh. Totally believable dude.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2015 @ 3:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A lot more than infringement does.
        
        So your excuse to these thugs circumventing the democratic process is to marginalize the effects? Wow, shows what kinda person you are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2015 @ 3:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (or, rather, your response to it *)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2015 @ 7:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "A lot more than infringement does."
        
        No.
        
        You're a complete fucking idiot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nasch (profile), 11 Jan 2015 @ 7:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No.
        
        You're a complete fucking idiot.
        
        Your arguments are extremely persuasive. It's hard to imagine why you haven't won the debate already.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2015 @ 8:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He has no argument. His position is indefensible and he knows it. That's why his only resort is to throw temper tantrums and resort to personal attacks, name calling, and making baseless proclamations about what he thinks Aaron Swartz means to others as if he's in a position to say (or to speak for the majority. HAH. He is in a very very small minority, the failed astroturfing campaigns put forth by the MPAA/RIAA and the mass protests against SOPA should easily show what kinda minority he is in). His position that the likes of him should undemocratically dictate the laws to his own benefit, at the expense of everyone else, shows what kinda selfish person this is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 12 Jan 2015 @ 9:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        When your opponent starts with the name-calling, you can be certain that you've won the argument.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2015 @ 1:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How is an author incentivized to create from life + 75 after he dies?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rapnel (profile), 12 Jan 2015 @ 4:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ah-hah-hah-hah.. copyright is soo fucked because your fat cat predecessors fucked it up with the foresight of a dead pigeon.
        
        hah-hah
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2015 @ 6:56pm
  
  Re:
  Part of the point of a petition is to allow us to question the law in a democratic matter. If the law is not what the people want, as the petition suggests, then it ought to be changed. The response to this petition suggests that the government doesn't care what the people want and is unwilling to investigate what they want any further despite creating this petition process to guide it into determining what laws to possibly change. Some democracy. That you would defend the law and their response to the petition, even if undemocratic, should suggest what kinda person you are.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 10 Jan 2015 @ 1:39pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Part of the point of a petition is to allow us to question the law in a democratic matter. If the law is not what the people want, as the petition suggests, then it ought to be changed. The response to this petition suggests that the government doesn't care what the people want
    
    This petition was not about a law.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2015 @ 3:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      but the petition would suggest that the government's behavior is not what the people want and the government's behavior is an (alleged) attempt to enforce the law.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 10 Jan 2015 @ 5:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        All I'm saying is your original comment seemed to misunderstand the petition.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Jan 2015 @ 6:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The original comment was a statement about petitions in general and their role in government, law, and democracy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2015 @ 8:05am
  
  Re:
  If you are in such a good position to determine what something means to 'the Internet' or to others or the majority or whatever why don't you start your own blog and attract your own audience instead of coming here and leeching off of Techdirt. Oh, that's right, because no one cares what you have to say and your blog will be composed of a bunch of crickets. Heck, even the crickets will abandon you. You speak for no one else but yourself. Prove me wrong, start your own successful blog and stop coming here for an audience.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2015 @ 8:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    Fuck off, Masnick.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2015 @ 9:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Aaron Swartz didn't mean anything to the internet"
      
      Tell that to the 100K+ people that signed the petition (and even those that didn't sign the petition such as myself) that cared. You couldn't even get a fraction of that to back your position.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - tqk (profile), 11 Jan 2015 @ 9:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Fuck off, Masnick.
      
      Ah, the ultimate compliment!
      
      Yup, this is definitely, exactly the kind of thing that makes me want to be here.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2015 @ 5:25pm

You want hire and fire decisions made by petition? How about someone sets up a petition and gets 300 million votes to fire you from your own website and permanently ban you from the internet? Because it's a petition and most people vote 'fire him' it should be done? That way lies mob rule. Even if we disagree with the specifics of a case then the remedy is to modify the legal process, not expect a random vote to get the 'right' answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2015 @ 8:36pm
  
  Re:
  http://www.concretenetwork.com/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- art guerrilla (profile), 10 Jan 2015 @ 5:26am
  
  Re:
  whether *anything* comes of any or all of them is almost besides the point, NEVER expected it to be some kind of exercise in 'direct-democracy'...
  
  about the ONLY thing i expected, was for the 99% to have a TEENY, TINY means of redress, which would shine a spotlight on various issues, etc which concerned us 99%, NOT the superior form of citizens known as korporations...
  
  besides, your FUD tactics are weak: whether WE DECIDE to have the jobs of various civil servants subject to a recall action DOES NOT automagically mean that EVERYTHING on the planet is thus run in the same fashion...
  
  what kind of retarded palaver is that ? ? ?
  
  in point of fact, numerous civil servant positions *are* subject to 'recall', it is just such a PITA, and usually dependent upon the corrupt system to police the corrupt system...
  (how's *that* working out for ya' ? ? ?)
  
  as a matter of principle, i *ALWAYS* vote 'NO' on 'should judge so-and-so be retained for another term...', since they always win by 85-95% (NO ONE knows who judge so-and-so is), i just want to lower that percentage a little to put the fear of dog in them...
  
  we are in the beginning of the Great Unraveling...
  it will not be pretty...
  
  Empire must fall.
  the sooner the fall,
  the gentler for all...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2015 @ 10:28am
  
  Re:
  When it comes to his blog the people have the choice to simply not visit it. When it comes to government employees taxpayers should have every right to decide against funding someone that doesn't serve their interests. There is a difference between comparing a private blog that no one is forced to fund with someone in a government position that everyone is forced to fund and comply with. To conflate the two shows how indefensible your position is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2015 @ 10:55am
  
  Re:
  Also if you had any moral conscience whatsoever you would be ashamed of yourself for effectively subverting the democratic process for personal gain. That's what IP extremists have managed to do. They don't care about the public, the artists, or democracy, only themselves. But you have no conscience, you continue to shill and selfishly subvert the democratic process through law buying and back door dealings and secretive meetings, knowing that it's wrong, with no remorse. A very small minority that have effectively subverted the democratic process for personal gain. Despicable. You really ought to be ashamed of yourself and it tears you apart that I can come here and make you face the fact that you are a lowlife scumbag instead of allowing you to keep trying to bury it deep down, ignore it, and rationalize it away. I will make clear to you and everyone here what you already know deep down and what everyone already openly knows, that your attempts to rationalize your actions by claiming there is any justice in these undemocratic laws are wrong and even your attempts to defend our unjust system is unjust and makes you more unjust. Hopefully it will get you to change your ways.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2015 @ 12:38pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You've been stealing music and movies for years and you expect anybody to listen to your silly drivel? You're hilarious.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2015 @ 5:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Right, because clearly your methods of insulting people to get your point across and get what you want have worked wonders.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2015 @ 5:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Falsely accusing others of that which IP defenders have a long history of doing is not going to clear you of guilt. Hollywood was built on infringement and it's no secret that those in Hollywood internally infringe on a regular basis. It would surprise no one if you yourself ignore copy protection laws when possible, you don't truly believe the nonsense that you preach. You are in all likelihood a hypocrite.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2015 @ 5:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Meant to respond to Anonymous Coward, Jan 11th, 2015 @ 5:16pm
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2015 @ 5:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sorry, that's not who I meant to respond to. I had it right the first time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jan 2015 @ 5:38pm

The Obama regime could have just waited until Ortiz had crossed over to the other side of Washington's famous revolving door and become a lobbyist, before responding to the WTP demand to have her fired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reality bites, 10 Jan 2015 @ 1:28pm

What else could be expected from the Feral Government
Pack of lying criminals one and all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tqk (profile), 10 Jan 2015 @ 2:05pm

So, to answer the question, ...
Yes, you do still have that loose cannon rolling around below decks, smashing into anything it finds in its way as the ship of state lists from side to side and bow to stern reacting to the waves. Good to know.

Turn out your lights and hide in the cellar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 10 Jan 2015 @ 2:52pm
  
  Re: So, to answer the question, ...
  Yes, you do still have that loose cannon rolling around below decks, smashing into anything it finds in its way as the ship of state lists from side to side and bow to stern reacting to the waves.
  
  Biden?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - tqk (profile), 10 Jan 2015 @ 7:19pm
    
    Re: Re: So, to answer the question, ...
    Biden's just entertaining. Ortiz thinks she has right on her side. Think Douglas MacArthur.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justice For Aaron Swartz, 10 Jan 2015 @ 7:38pm

Fire Her & Stephen Heymann Too!
Carmen Ortiz's Sordid Rap Sheet

http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/01/17/carmen-ortizs-sordid-rap-sheet/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jan 2015 @ 12:18pm

maybe they are hoping this pisses people off enough to lash out at the white house. Give them justification for more heavy handed laws in response to whatever happens.

Look what happened when someone hacked the police over their misconduct. baiting the bear works wonders for passing what would be a controversial bill that would normally never succeed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]