Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Prosecutor as bully

lessig.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 277 posts

Re: Prosecutor as bully

#41

Post by masklinn »

danso wrote: post #27

> Early on, and to its great credit, JSTOR figured “appropriate” out: They declined to pursue their own action against Aaron, and they asked the government to drop its. MIT, to its great shame, was not as clear, and so the prosecutor had the excuse he needed to continue his war against the “criminal” who we who loved him knew as Aaron. Can someone expound on MIT's role or ability to impact the prosecutor's case again…

From my reading of Lessig's words, it seems MIT just let the proc do its thing, which allowed said prosecutor to invoke the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984 (MIT's computer resources were the ones Aaron abused when he downloaded the articles from JSTOR)

Although since procs do their own thing and the feds were probably out for his blood after his previous PACER stunt, I'm not sure even an express assertion from MIT that they wanted to let it go would have changed anything.

Re: Prosecutor as bully

#42

Post by jdminhbg »

agwa wrote: post #40
jdminhbg wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with your edit. There's definitely a systemic problem, but it's a systemic problem with elected officials. Naming, shaming, and voting them out is the solution.

> it's a systemic problem with elected officials Federal prosecutors are appointed, not elected, which makes the effort to name and shame them even more tenuous. Trying to fight the culture of overzealous prosecution as a whole would make it more likely that the elected official who appoints them (the president) does a better job.

You're correct; I misread the article as her being an elected Attorney General, not a US attorney.

I still support undermining any effort of hers to get elected to higher office, though.

Re: Prosecutor as bully

#43

Post by danso »

agwa wrote: post #40
jdminhbg wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with your edit. There's definitely a systemic problem, but it's a systemic problem with elected officials. Naming, shaming, and voting them out is the solution.

> it's a systemic problem with elected officials Federal prosecutors are appointed, not elected, which makes the effort to name and shame them even more tenuous. Trying to fight the culture of overzealous prosecution as a whole would make it more likely that the elected official who appoints them (the president) does a better job.

She was considered someone in the running for Mass. governor and may continue a political career later in life.

Re: Prosecutor as bully

#44

Post by erichocean »

Benferhat wrote: post #36
pbateman wrote: post #2

From the link in the article: Depending on how many of the counts Swartz is found guilty of, the sentence could conceivably total 50+ years and fine in the area of $4 million. What an absurd and unreasonable level of punishment. Carmen Ortiz, the prosecutor who was behind this[1] needs to be publicly shamed. [1] (source: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/reddit-co-founder-c... )

The prosecutor's job is to charge you with the violation of every statute that the evidence indicates you violated, and use that breadth of charges as leverage in a plea negotiation. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

People in power need to take responsibility for what they do. Claiming they're "just doing their job" is how the worst stuff that ever happens to humanity by other humans goes down.

For more, check out The Lucifer Effect. Doing evil in the name of your "job" is a bug in the human psyche.

We need to do everything we can to mitigate its effects, and that starts by not staying stupid shit like "Hate the game, not the player" that's intended to absolve people of the guilt and shame they should be feeling for acting immorally.

Re: Prosecutor as bully

#45

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

brianobush wrote: post #22
miles wrote: post #3

if what the government alleged was true — and I say “if” because I am not revealing what Aaron said to me then — then what he did was wrong. And if not legally wrong, then at least morally wrong. Morally wrong to download taxpayer-funded research? I'm sorry Larry, you lost me. More on the academic publishing "industry": http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/22/academic-pu...

Taxpayers fund my research, so can they just break in and steal "information" (code, plots, draft of papers, etc)? They paid for it, right? The academic publishing industry is not one of my favorites, but they do provide a service to the communities they represent. Circumventing them will eventually destroy the community unless another "open" organization is willing to step in. Many fields (mine included) are so arca…

It does not follow that the destruction of the academic publishing industry will destroy the scientific community.

Re: Prosecutor as bully

#46

Post by temphn »

agwa wrote: post #18

From the article: For in the 18 months of negotiations, that was what he was not willing to accept, and so that was the reason he was facing a million dollar trial in April — his wealth bled dry, yet unable to appeal openly to us for the financial help he needed to fund his defense, at least without risking the ire of a district court judge. Remember, this was on HN just a week ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?…

Naming and shaming Carmen M. Ortiz for destroying the life of a young man is exactly what is necessary. She brought 13 felony counts against him for downloading articles that should be freely available, after JSTOR itself had dropped the charges. Destroying her career and seeing her fired in disgrace will send a message to all other overzealous prosecutors, in the same way that she surely thought her prosecution of Swartz would have a "deterrent" effect.

Seeing her dismissed and disgraced is in fact the only thing that will send such a message to such Javerts, as they have disabled the voice of the people by routing around jury trials and they are appointed rather than subject to elections. Carmen M. Ortiz is running for higher office on the backs of high profile prosecutions, and now on the body of Aaron Swartz. It is incumbent upon us to see that she does not get there, that this behavior is NOT rewarded.

Example: http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/December/EremianVer...

  Lyons is the first defendant in the U.S. to be charged and 
  convicted of violating the Unlawful Internet Gambling 
  Enforcement Act (UIGEA). The statute was enacted by 
  Congress in 2006 to deter the use of the U.S. banking 
  system to pay Internet gambling debts incurred by U.S. 
  citizens.

  Unites [sic] States Attorney Carmen M. Ortiz said, 
  “Today’s convictions should serve as a message to those 
  involved with illegal gambling schemes that the government 
  will apply the full weight of its resources to identify, 
  investigate and prosecute individuals who seek to profit 
  from offshore gambling.”

  ... 

  The defendants face up to 20 years in prison on the RICO 
  charges; five years in prison on the illegal gambling 
  charges; and two years in prison on the wire act charges. 
  Lyons also faces three years in prison on the tax charges, 
  five years in prison on the interstate travel in aid of 
  racketeering and UIGEA charges and 20 years in prison on 
  the money laundering charges.Additionally each count also  
  carries three to five years of supervised release and 
  fines up to $250,000.
"Today's convictions should serve as a message" over online gambling, which was just made illegal by fiat in 2006 in a rider tacked on to the Dubai Ports World Bill! This woman is routinely involved in travesties of justice related to online activities and thinks this means sending "a message". The Internet needs to send a message back, and force her resignation in disgrace.

Re: Prosecutor as bully

#47

Post by rprasad »

PrudenceYuris wrote: post #31
rprasad wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is quite possibly the worst idea ever. Let's not just go after one person, let's go after everyone she ever knows, even if they have no involvement in this particular incident? Are you going to suggest we tar, feather, and lynch them too? Make this an exercise in how to correct these injustices, and make her an example to other prosecutors. You do this by airing ads against her if she ever runs for office or see…

You need to reread that. Contact her professional network, and let them know you don't approve of her actions. No tar. No feathers. Just make your own opinion known in the circles that matter to her career.

Let me get this straight: you want to contact a group of judges and prosecutors and "let them know you don't approve of her actions."

What exactly do you hope to accomplish by this? Federal judges and prosecutors already get this every day from people who do this for a living. And you know what? It doesn't work.

Who cares if you don't approve of what they're doing? They don't measure themselves based on your approval. They measure themselves based on their record of convictions, however they are earned. They are not directly accountable to you.

If you want to change something, let your local Congressional representative know you disapprove of how this prosecutor conducted herself. Your Congressperson is accountable to you, and he/she is the one in the best position to make change happen in this context.

Re: Prosecutor as bully

#48

Post by lilsunnybee »

spindritf wrote: post #15

> architects of the financial crisis regularly dine at the White House Is this empty rhetoric really necessary? There were no architects. It took over two decades of government (mis)regulation, whole banking ecosystem of incentives and repackaging, not to mention plenty of people willing to take loans they knew they wouldn't be able to pay back to bring about the crisis. Same with some great moral wrong of downloadin…

Magnetar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar_Capital

Re: Prosecutor as bully

#49

Post by andrewtbham »

jdminhbg wrote: post #37
agwa wrote: post #18

From the article: For in the 18 months of negotiations, that was what he was not willing to accept, and so that was the reason he was facing a million dollar trial in April — his wealth bled dry, yet unable to appeal openly to us for the financial help he needed to fund his defense, at least without risking the ire of a district court judge. Remember, this was on HN just a week ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?…

I disagree with your edit. There's definitely a systemic problem, but it's a systemic problem with elected officials. Naming, shaming, and voting them out is the solution.

I agree naming and shaming is a good idea. It puts a name and a face to the story... not just some nebulous "the system is broken." People need a narrative to humanize the situation and it can serve as a warning to other prosecutors.

Re: Prosecutor as bully

#50

Post by olefoo »

agwa wrote: post #8
pbateman wrote: post #2

From the link in the article: Depending on how many of the counts Swartz is found guilty of, the sentence could conceivably total 50+ years and fine in the area of $4 million. What an absurd and unreasonable level of punishment. Carmen Ortiz, the prosecutor who was behind this[1] needs to be publicly shamed. [1] (source: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/reddit-co-founder-c... )

This is business as usual. Naming the prosecutor isn't going to accomplish anything - the whole system needs fixing. Just a week ago this was on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5003335 I don't think they seized Swartz' assets in this case but they didn't need to - they made his defense as expensive as possible and bled him dry.

Make no mistake, this means she will always be facing serious opposition should she choose to run for public office.

And since she was appointed by President Obama, it is entirely appropriate for those of us who feel strongly that she misused her position; to ask him to remove her from office for failing to exercise her discretion appropriately.

Post reply on HN