DOJ Decided To Ratchet Up Case Against Aaron Swartz Because He Spoke Out Publicly About Being Innocent

from the vindictive-doj dept

A few weeks ago, we wrote about the MIT report concerning the case against Aaron Swartz. A number of people have picked up on some really questionable things in the report. One incredible claim made in it was that Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Heymann, who was running the prosecution against Swartz, apparently admitted that he really only ramped up his efforts against Swartz to punish Swartz and the organization he founded, Demand Progress, for having the audacity to discuss the case publicly and explain why Swartz believed he didn't do anything wrong. Here's the passage from the report:

The prosecutor said that, pre-indictment, he had wanted to approach the case on a human level, not punitively. To this extent he made an extremely reasonable proposal, and was "dumb-founded" by Swartz's response.

The prosecutor said that the straw that broke the camel's back was that when he indicted the case, and allowed Swartz to come to the courthouse as opposed to being arrested, Swartz used the time to post a "wild Internet campaign" in an effort to drum up support. This was a "foolish" move that moved the case "from a human one-on-one level to an institutional level." The lead prosecutor said that on the institutional level cases are harder to manage both internally and externally

MIT used this to explain why it thought that any public statements it might make in support of Swartz would make the case worse for him, because Heymann, in his petty vindictive mind, might view it as a further "wild" public campaign by Swartz. Leaving aside that this makes absolutely no sense at all, the actions of Heymann are particularly despicable here, suggesting that merely professing your innocence to crimes that you believe you are innocent of, should lead to much greater prosecution.

This passage has now caught the attention of Rep. Darrell Issa, and he is asking Attorney General Eric Holder about whether or not the DOJ directly comes down hard on those who exercise their First Amendment rights in the face of questionable prosecutions:

"The implication that the Department ratcheted up the prosecution by moving the case to 'an institutional level' after it discovered the petition by Demand Progress suggests that the Department acted in a retaliatory manner and that it bases its charging decisions on externalities such as an Internet campaign," Issa, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, wrote in his letter to Holder.

"The suggestions that prosecutors did in fact seek to make an example out of Aaron Swartz because Demand Progress exercised its First Amendment rights in publicly supporting him raises new questions about the Department's handling of the case," Issa wrote.

A separate point that comes out in the report that is equally as absurd was that Heymann believed that the case required some jail time as punishment because it "involves the unauthorized downloading of intellectual property that cost millions of dollars to create." This is ridiculous on so many levels. First of all, MIT made those works freely available to anyone on campus, so the argument that it was "unauthorized" remains very questionable. Second, the "cost millions of dollars to create" argument is simply laughable. Nearly all of that was publicly funded by taxpayer money, which is supposed to lead to the enrichment of public learning and knowledge -- the exact thing that Swartz appeared to be focused on. This ridiculous belief that he needed to be put in prison because of the monetary cost of creating these educational works is astounding. And sad, given the eventual outcome.

It's no secret that the DOJ often seems to think that "intellectual property" laws are designed to protect the moneyed interests of copyright holders, but that's not what the Constitution or the law says. At the very least, the people hired as US Attorney's to represent the US government should know better than to ratchet up prosecution for people who are expressing their First Amendment rights and doing things that directly align with the Constitutional reasons for copyright law.

Assistant US Attorney Stephen Heymann is a disgrace to the Constitution he's supposed to be defending.

Filed Under: aaron swartz, darrell issa, free speech, innocence, mit, prosecution, stephen heymann

DOJ Guidelines: Inappropriate To Prosecute Leaking Gov't Information As 'Theft Of Gov't Property'

from the umm... dept

Well, this is interesting. Last week, of course, it was revealed that the DOJ has charged Ed Snowden for various crimes, including "theft of government property." In fact, Rep. Mike Rogers, the head of the House Intelligence Committee, seems to think this is the key charge, and argues (ridiculously) that the documents "belong to the people of the US" and that Snowden somehow "stole" them by giving the documents to those very same "people of the US."

However, as Declan McCullagh points out, the DOJ's own manual very clearly says that it is "inappropriate" to charge people who take government documents and information with theft of government property, in part because that might lead to unfair prosecution of whistleblowers:

Section 641 of Title 18 prohibits theft or receipt of stolen government information as well as theft of the documents, computer discs, etc., that contain the information. United States v. Fowler, 932 F.2d 306, 309-10 (4th Cir. 1991); United States v. Girard, 601 F.2d 69, 70-71 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 871 (1979); United States v. DiGilio 538 F.2d 972, 977-78 (3rd Cir. 1976), cert. denied sub nom. Lupo v. United States, 429 U.S. 1038 (1977). But see United States v. Tobias, 836 F.2d 449, 451 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 991 (1988). Nevertheless, for the reasons set forth below, the Criminal Division believes that it is inappropriate to bring a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 641 when: (1) the subject of the theft is intangible property, i.e., government information owned by, or under the care, custody, or control of the United States; (2) the defendant obtained or used the property primarily for the purpose of disseminating it to the public; and (3) the property was not obtained as a result of wiretapping, (18 U.S.C. § 2511) interception of correspondence (18 U.S.C. §§ 1702, 1708), criminal entry, or criminal or civil trespass.

There are two reasons for the policy. First, it protects "whistle-blowers." Thus, under this policy, a government employee who, for the primary purpose of public exposure of the material, reveals a government document to which he or she gained access lawfully or by non-trespassory means would not be subject to criminal prosecution for the theft. Second, the policy is designed to protect members of the press from the threat of being prosecuted for theft or receipt of stolen property when, motivated primarily by the interest in public dissemination thereof, they publish information owned by or under the custody of the government after they obtained such information by other than trespassory means.

And yet, the "theft of government property" seems to be central to the government's charges against Snowden, suggesting that, yet again, the administration is really grasping at straws in trying to charge Snowden with anything it can dig up for daring to blow the whistle on the surveillance program.

Filed Under: doj, doj guidelines, ed snowden, edward snowden, espionage, leaks, prosecution, theft of government property, whistleblowers

DOJ Falsely Claimed That Reporter James Rosen Was Involved In Bombings In Trying To Hide Fact It Spied On Him

from the whoa dept

Okay, here's one that's just crazy. A few weeks ago, lots of folks, including us, covered the story of how the Justice Department claimed to a court that reporter James Rosen was "an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator" in a leak of some State Department info concerning North Korea. He was none of the above. He was a reporter, but the DOJ was abusing its power in order to spy on his email and phone records, to try to find the source of the leak. Soon after that, it came out that the DOJ had been working overtime to make sure that the details of the surveillance of Rosen's communications was held under seal.

However, some are noticing an odd statement in the DOJ's filing to try to keep the case under seal. In what is likely a case of an overworked DOJ lawyer just cutting and pasting from a different attempt to keep some surveillance a secret, one of the motions to keep the search warrant sealed falsely claimed that Rosen was involved in a bombing, rather than just disclosing information on North Korea. Somehow, if the DOJ can't even read its own motions to seal that carefully, you have to question if they really "considered alternatives less drastic than sealing," or if they were happy that throwing in key words like "responsible for the bombings" despite the case having nothing to do with bombings, only helped to keep it secret that they were spying on a the communications of a reporter, almost certainly in violation of the DOJ's own guidelines, and potentially in violation of the Constitution.

Filed Under: bombing, cut and paste, doj, james rosen, lying to court, prosecution, reporting, typos, under seal

Holder: DOJ Used Discretion In Bullying Swartz, Press Lacked Discretion In Quoting Facts

from the convenient dept

Fresh off of explaining why the President can use drones to kill Americans on American soil, Attorney General Eric Holder apparently feels emboldened to say just about anything to justify ridiculous government actions. The latest? Defending the Aaron Swartz prosecution at a Congressional hearing called by Sen. John Cornyn, who has already expressed his concerns over the prosecution. As you might expect, Holder stuck with the official line that what the DOJ did in the Swartz case was perfectly reasonable. The key to his argument, as we've been hearing from others who defended the government's actions: the DOJ never intended to put Swartz in jail for 35 years. Also, apparently it was unfair of the media to use that 35 year number.

As I've talked to the people who have looked into this matter, these news reports about what he was actually facing is not consistent with what the interaction was between the government and Mr. Swartz. A plea offer was made to him of 3 months, before the indictment. This case could have been resolved with a plea of 3 months. After the indictment, an offer was made and he could plead and serve 4 months. Even after that, a plea offer was made, of a range of zero to 6 months, that he would be able to argue for a probationary sentence. The government would be able to argue for up to a period of 6 months. There was never any intention for him to go to jail for a period longer than 3, 4, potentially 5 month range.

These claims are not only misleading, but also total and complete bullshit. First off, if you never intended for him to spend more than 6 months in jail, and you're upset at the "media" for using the 35 year number... why is it that the DOJ's own press release on the arrest played up the 35 years:

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.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to push that number around in your own damn press release and then whine and complain about how "unfair" it is that the media uses the number you gave them.

Separately, concerning the insistence that they never wanted him to spend more than 6 months in jail, they leave out the fact that this was only if Swartz agreed to plead guilty to multiple felonies. According to various reports, the DOJ, via Assistant US Attorney Steve Heymann made it clear that if Swartz did not agree to the plea, then he would seek somewhere around seven years in jail.

Cornyn goes on to ask about why the DOJ pursued the case even after the supposed "victim," JSTOR said it didn't want to have anything to do with the case. Cornyn specifically asks if it makes sense to threaten someone with 35 years in prison when the victim doesn't even seem to feel harmed by the situation. Holder than tries to spin this around and, incredibly, argue that the fact that they didn't pursue the full 35 years is an example of good prosecutorial discretion. Seriously.

Cornyn: The subscription service didn't support the prosecution. Does it strike you as odd that the government would indict someone for crimes that would carry penalties of up to 35 years in prison and million dollar fines and then offer him a 3 or 4 month prison sentence?

Holder: Well I think that's a good use of prosecutorial discretion. To look at the conduct, regardless of what the statutory maximums were, and to fashion a sentence that was consistent with what the nature of the conduct was. And I think what those prosecutors did in offering 3, 4, 0 to 6 was consistent with that conduct.

In other words, the only thing Holder is really saying here is that there was perfectly reasonable prosecutorial discretion if and only if Swartz agreed to a plea bargain in which he plead guilty to all felony charges against him. Basically, it's a "good use of prosecutorial discretion" to bully someone into pleading guilty to a crime they don't believe they've committed, and as long as they accept that, go to jail, and be okay with being labelled a felon for life, then there's no problem.

How do we let these people into positions of power?

Filed Under: aaron swartz, bullying, doj, eric holder, facts, john cornyn, press release, prosecution, prosecutorial discretion

DOJ Lets Channelsurfing Operator Mostly Off The Hook

from the well,-look-at-that dept

Almost exactly two years ago, we wrote about ICE and the DOJ arresting Brian McCarthy, the operator of Channelsurfing.net, one of the domain names they seized in one of their seizure parties earlier that year. As we noted at the time, Channelsurfing itself appeared to host no video content, but rather embedded video content from elsewhere. We had trouble understanding how that was a criminal copyright violation. Some of our usual critics in the comments insisted that the courts would take down McCarthy and that he was in clear violation of criminal copyright statutes and would end up in jail. That still seemed fairly dubious -- and that's now supported by the feds agreeing to "grant amnesty" to McCarthy by "deferring" the trial.

What this really means is that they effectively came to a plea bargain-type of deal, whereby McCarthy is not found guilty and doesn't have to spend any time in jail. He does still get treated under what appears to be effectively a parole type system -- in which he needs to stay out of trouble for a while, and has to regularly check in with a "US Pretrial Services Officer" (and he can't leave his local region without permission from the same). He does still have to pay back the amount that the feds claim he earned illegally.

Who knows what's happening fully behind the scenes, but it seems likely that the Aaron Swartz suicide, and the new focus on over-aggressive US prosecutors' attempts to coerce guilty pleas out of individuals in vaguely similar situations, might have led US Attorney Preet Bharara and his assistant Christopher Frey to realize that it might be best to cut a deal and run. Actually taking a case like this to court would be a PR disaster for the DOJ following the whole Aaron Swartz thing, and people at the DOJ must recognize that. Given that the DOJ similarly had to drop other cases that came out of domain seizures, including the ones involving Dajaz1 and Rojadirecta, the gung ho attitude to the DOJ took towards seizing websites based on the RIAA and MPAA's questionable claims of infringement is increasingly looking like a complete disaster without any significant results.

Filed Under: brian mccarthy, copyright, criminal copyright, doj, prosecution
Companies: channelsurfing.net

Carmen Ortiz Refuses To Reflect; Insists Her Office Will Do Everything The Same As Before

from the a-complete-failure dept

Over the weekend, in our post about Aaron Swartz, we highlighted Larry Lessig's quite reasonable anger at US Attorney Carmen Ortiz's failure to even suggest that she and her office might review their actions against Aaron Swartz to see if they were reasonable. He wasn't calling on them to necessarily repudiate their actions -- but to at least admit that they would review what they had done to determine if it was appropriate. Instead, Ortiz's statement took the hard line that what they had done was appropriate, full stop.

And, now, her office is continuing to stick to that hard line. No self-reflection. No review. No admission that it's even worth reviewing. Just a faith-based belief that everything they did was correct and they will continue to treat every case exactly the same going forward.

Ortiz’s spokeswoman, Christina DiIorio-Sterling, said last night the Swartz case won’t affect the office’s handling of other cases. “Absolutely not,” she said. “We thought the case was reasonably handled and we would not have done things differently.

“We’re going to continue doing the work of the office and of following our mission.”

Many others are calling on Ortiz, or her bosses in the Justice Department, to recognize just how much power they have over someone's life, and that this power must be used carefully. The response of Ortiz and her spokespeople seems to show not even the slightest sympathy or recognition that they have the power to destroy lives, and that such power needs to be used judiciously. It strikes me that someone who fails to have humility while in control of such power is someone who is simply not qualified to hold such an office.

Filed Under: aaron swartz, carmen ortiz, doj, prosecution, reflection, us attorneys

Senator John Cornyn Asks Eric Holder To Explain DOJ Prosecution Of Aaron Swartz

from the this-is-getting-bigger... dept

While we've seen some politicians in Congress speak out about the prosecution against Aaron Swartz, for the most part, it had been the "usual crew" of folks who had formed the core of the anti-SOPA alliance -- Reps. Lofgren, Issa and Polis. That's great, but it also made it unfortunately easy for some to dismiss their complaints. However, it appears that this may be getting bigger. Senator John Cornyn has jumped in and sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder asking for an explanation of the prosecution against Aaron Swartz. He specifically asks a number of interesting questions:

First, on what basis did the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts conclude that her office’s conduct was “appropriate?” Did that office, or any office within the Department, conduct a review? If so, please identify that review and supply its contents.

Second, was the prosecution of Mr. Swartz in any way retaliation for his exercise of his rights as a citizen under the Freedom of Information Act? If so, I recommend that you refer the matter immediately to the Inspector General.

Third, what role, if any, did the Department’s prior investigations of Mr. Swartz play in the decision of with which crimes to charge him? Please explain the basis for your answer.

Fourth, why did the U.S. Attorney’s office file the superseding indictment?

Fifth, when the U.S. Attorney’s office drafted the indictment and the superseding indictment, what consideration was given to whether the counts charged and the associated penalties were proportional to Mr. Swartz’s alleged conduct and its impact upon victims?

Sixth, was it the intention of the U.S. Attorney and/or her subordinates to “make an example” of Mr. Swartz? Please explain.

Finally, the U.S. Attorney has blamed the “severe punishments authorized by Congress” for the apparent harshness of the charges Mr. Swartz faced. Does the Department of Justice give U.S. Attorneys discretion to charge defendants (or not charge them) with crimes consistent with their view of the gravity of the wrongdoing in a specific case?

Interesting questions all around. As Emptywheel notes, that second question is a bit of a new one. People have talked about the earlier investigations of Aaron, as well as his activism, but little attention has been paid to his widespread use of FOIA. However, Aaron did file a lot of FOIA requests, using the same platform, MuckRock, that we've used here at Techdirt. In fact, MuckRock put up a post about Aaron's use of that service including the fact that Aaron and MuckRock were currently in the middle of appealing the results of a FOIA request concerning domain seizures -- a story that potentially could implicate the DOJ.

I am sure that we'll get the usual bland denials and non-answers from Holder, but it is significant to see Senators like Cornyn suddenly take an interest in this particular issue.

Filed Under: aaron swartz, doj, eric holder, foia, john cornyn, prosecution

Horrifying: Surfthechannel Criminal Conviction Driven By Hollywood Money -- Not The Government

from the a-broken-system dept

We've been following the Surfthechannel/Scopelight case since early on, and there have always been serious questions about it. More than three years ago, we were wondering why a private, Hollywood-financed anti-piracy operation called FACT wasn't just able to take part in the raid of Anton Vickerman's house, but also got to take the computers that were seized. A private party should never be able to get the computers of those that they're accusing in a criminal case. Soon after Vickerman was declared guilty, we discussed some anonymous courtroom notes that suggested extremely serious oddities with how the case was conducted -- including (again) FACT more or less running the show, and having trouble keeping important data.

Following Vickerman's sentencing last week, even more info came out about the case that raises incredibly important questions about its validity. Tim Lee over at Ars Technica has gone through the issue in great detail, highlighting how FACT didn't just take part in the raid, but it financed the government agency that did the investigation and then financed and ran the criminal prosecution against Vickerman.

Lee explains that this is an oddity/antiquity of UK law, in which private parties are actually allowed to bring criminal charges against other private parties, rather than (as in the US) needing the government to decide to bring charges. In fact, in this case, government prosecutors expressly refused to bring charges noting that they didn't think there was a case -- information that was kept from Vickerman. From the Crown Prosecution Service:

I understand from [Northumbria Detective Constable] Watkin that there have been no other successful prosecutions that he is aware of where we could point to this type of website being classified as amounting to "making available... by electronic transmission," the legal standard needed to find Vickerman guilty of copyright infringement. At present it appears uncertain if in fact what the suspect has done does infringe this particular legislation. Certainly on the evidence thus far provided it is impossible for me to determine if this is the case and therefore I cannot advise any prosecution on the evidence presented.

The CPS found the whole thing bizarre:

His 'crime' is to make it easier for others to find what is already there. This begs the rather obvious question of why he is being pursued rather than those who actually breach the copyright by displaying the material.

And yet, FACT went through with the case, because of an oddity in UK law that lets a private party pursue a criminal charge if they're willing to finance it. And FACT was more than willing to finance nearly ever aspect of this case, apparently. It did the original "investigation" in which it apparently recorded a key meeting. The two sides dispute what was said in that meeting... but FACT can't seem to find the recording (of course). The report also explains how FACT funded the Bedfordshire Trading Standards Financial Investigations Unit (BTSFIU), officially a government agency, but one that was directly funded by FACT to be its own private police force, and which apparently took the job gleefully.

Of course, you would think that some of this info would get out before a judge, but the judge seemed equally unconcerned with the law, as focused as he was on Vickerman apparently being arrogant. Even more bizarre, the judge didn't seem at all concerned about precedents that went the other way. For example, the TV-Links case, which was quite similar, ended up with an acquittal, so you might think that any reference to it would be in Vickerman's favor. Not in this judge's mind:

TV-Links had already engaged in a similar operation but you believed you could do better. You pressed on knowing that TV Links had been taken down following the intervention of FACT on the basis that what it had been doing was unlawful

Yes, you read that right. Even though TV Links was found to be lawful, in this judge's mind, the fact that it had been taken down by FACT (the same group prosecuting this case), should have been evidence to Vickerman that STC was illegal. Think about that for a second. It's almost mind-blowingly ridiculous. The mere accusation that another site was illegal, even though that later turned out to not be true was enough evidence for this judge that STC's actions were illegal. How does a judge who thinks that way keep his job?

The judge also does not seem to understand the nature of the internet or links, or how user generated content works. He seems to think that before anyone can post a link to a website, the owner of that website should need to contact a copyright holder to find out if the posting of that link and the underlying content it points to are legal. Seriously:

When it was suggested in cross examination that it was obvious that the films that you were posting links to were to links to recent films and that you were helping people to link to copyright infringing films, you insisted that you couldn’t know if it was infringing copyright, that the studious might have granted right holder licences to the films of which you had no knowledge. That was certainly true and bound to be true if you didn’t bother to check with the copyright owners and check you most certainly didn’t.

The judge also takes a movie studio exec at face value, when she tells the court that "piracy" means fewer blockbuster movies -- despite the fact that approximately four times as many movies were made last year than were made 15 years ago. Actual facts don't appear to be this judge's strong suit. He also uses the fact that since the movie industry pays taxes, if it struggles, fewer taxes are paid. But, if that's a crime, then any industry that is declining suddenly can implicate any upstart competition for those same reasons.

The whole thing is both bizarre and scary.

One hopes that, given these rather horrifying details, conflicts of interest and inconsistencies, it will be possible to revisit much of this on appeal.

Filed Under: anton vickerman, bias, crimnal law, private parties, prosecution, surfthechannel, uk
Companies: fact, scopelight, surfthechannel

Why Are New Zealand Prosecutors Seeking To Suppress All Images & Video Of Megaupload Raid?

from the seems-sketchy dept

As lots of publications are reporting, over in New Zealand, Kim Dotcom took the stand to testify about how the police treated him during the raid on his home as part of the international effort to seize and shut down everything related to Dotcom and Megaupload. I have no idea if the claims he makes of being kicked and punched and the like are accurate. I'm sure his detractors will question how trustworthy the testimony is. Frankly, I have no idea how accurate it is.

But here's the thing that I find most interesting. Buried all the way at the end of the Stuff article linked above is the following line:

The Crown is seeking for all images and CCTV footage from the raids to be suppressed.

To me, that seems like a point that should be made up top. If Dotcom is being inaccurate in his descriptions, then wouldn't showing the video and images that prove him wrong basically destroy all of his credibility and help the government with their case? The fact that they're trying to suppress that very evidence certainly lends credence to his claims, and (at the same time) calls into serious question the conduct of law enforcement during the raid.

Filed Under: details, evidence, kim dotcom, new zealand, prosecution, raid, suppression, video

Hadopi Sends Info On Those Accused (Not Convicted) Of Repeat Infringement On To Prosecutors

from the kicking-you-off-the-internet dept

You may remember last fall's numbers concerning how many first, second and third strikes Hadopi, the French agency in charge of kicking people off the internet for possible copyright infringement, was sending out. Now come reports that France is finally moving beyond just the strikes, and has passed along info on those accused (not convicted) of infringement to "prosecutors" for the next stage, which could result in them losing internet access.

The report also notes that Nicolas Sarkozy, who was the original champion of three strikes plans, is already looking to expand the law to go after cyberlockers rather than just peer-to-peer, as is the case with the current Hadopi plan, apparently. I'm sure, in an effort to support such a move, politicians will push the misleading claim that Hadopi has actually worked, even if the actual data suggests what really worked was wider availability of legitimate services and tools.

Filed Under: disconnect, france, hadopi, infringers, prosecution, three strikes