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

How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

susiebright.blogs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 130 posts

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#21

Post by Yaa101 »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #8
jamesaguilar wrote: post #6

Slightly less sinister hypothesis: aaronsw turned down a slap on the wrist plea bargain. The prosecutor charged the maximum because it is a waste of time to take a guy to federal court over a $20k fine and a year of probation. You know that maximum about malice, incompetence, etc.? I'm not saying I _know_ for sure but it strikes me that most people think they are doing good in the world and I don't get why this prose…

Why not just drop the fucking case then? Jesus, how many millions of our tax dollars were spent doing our best to drive this kid to suicide? JSTOR didn't want prosecution and arguably neither did MIT. I can't stand these justifications that seem to make everyone a slave to the machine. Heck, you and I break hundreds of laws a day, maybe even a felony or two or three. Federal prosecutors can do whatever they want with…

This is because the prosecuters are not human, they are preditors going after the weakest in society, it is much easier to score on their carreers than taking on the stronger.

Here in Europe we know very well where this all leads to, my ancestors have lived through it numerous times, the last time in the 30's and 40's.

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#22

Post by adpirz »

rayiner wrote: post #19
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just drop the fucking case then? Jesus, how many millions of our tax dollars were spent doing our best to drive this kid to suicide? JSTOR didn't want prosecution and arguably neither did MIT. I can't stand these justifications that seem to make everyone a slave to the machine. Heck, you and I break hundreds of laws a day, maybe even a felony or two or three. Federal prosecutors can do whatever they want with…

You're conflating two very different things. This was no case of overzealous prosecution based on vague laws for the kind of activity that everyone does every day. Swartz purposefully accessed a protected computer network without permission, and purposefully copied a huge number of documents which he had no right to copy. He did all of these things willfully, with no defense that he was incapable of understanding the…

For accuracy's sake, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't need to "break in" to MIT's network. It's entirely open, no? At least last I was there.

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#23

Post by drzaiusapelord »

rayiner wrote: post #19
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just drop the fucking case then? Jesus, how many millions of our tax dollars were spent doing our best to drive this kid to suicide? JSTOR didn't want prosecution and arguably neither did MIT. I can't stand these justifications that seem to make everyone a slave to the machine. Heck, you and I break hundreds of laws a day, maybe even a felony or two or three. Federal prosecutors can do whatever they want with…

You're conflating two very different things. This was no case of overzealous prosecution based on vague laws for the kind of activity that everyone does every day. Swartz purposefully accessed a protected computer network without permission, and purposefully copied a huge number of documents which he had no right to copy. He did all of these things willfully, with no defense that he was incapable of understanding the…

>Now, maybe you think "breaking in" to a poorly protected network should not be a crime.

No one is saying that. If he was hit with trespassing then it would be a different story. He was political target hit with the worst laws they could find that remotely applied to his case.

>The rhetoric around this unfortunate incident borders on intellectually dishonest.

The only dishonesty I'm seeing is from the aspie "law and order" types screaming "off with his head" because they can't fathom that our world is far from black and white.

>The prosecutor in this case pursued her case according to the law.

This is such a dishonest statement I'm not sure you really understand how the politics of prosecution work. Just the idea that Ortiz and Heymann had no choice but to hit Shwarz with these specific set of charges is absurd. Railroading happens, accept it. Your black and white simplistic worldview only exists in your head. Reality is messy.

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#24

Post by MichaelSalib »

adpirz wrote: post #22
rayiner wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're conflating two very different things. This was no case of overzealous prosecution based on vague laws for the kind of activity that everyone does every day. Swartz purposefully accessed a protected computer network without permission, and purposefully copied a huge number of documents which he had no right to copy. He did all of these things willfully, with no defense that he was incapable of understanding the…

For accuracy's sake, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't need to "break in" to MIT's network. It's entirely open, no? At least last I was there.

Swarz evaded MAC address bans by changing his MAC address. Also, at once point, WIFI guests needed to agree to terms on a captive portal IIRC; this may not have been the case when he was active though. Finally, no one had blanket permission to plug arbitrary devices into the network. Physical access has always required permission, and, IIRC, agreeing to terms.

Finally, just because a network is open does not mean you have permission to use it.

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#25

Post by jamesaguilar »

temphn wrote: post #10
jamesaguilar wrote: post #6

Slightly less sinister hypothesis: aaronsw turned down a slap on the wrist plea bargain. The prosecutor charged the maximum because it is a waste of time to take a guy to federal court over a $20k fine and a year of probation. You know that maximum about malice, incompetence, etc.? I'm not saying I _know_ for sure but it strikes me that most people think they are doing good in the world and I don't get why this prose…

As Lessig reported, the plea bargain would have meant pleading guilty to a felony. http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bull... In that world, the question this government needs to answer is why it was so necessary that Aaron Swartz be labeled a “felon.” 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…

From what I understand, he committed a felony and would most probably have been labelled a felon either way. I don't see this as a reason to tie up government resources in a trial whose outcome is basically a foregone conclusion. I do not endorse what he did being a felony. But that issue is only marginally relevant to the discussion of the prosecutor's behavior.

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#26

Post by Yaa101 »

wissler wrote: post #12
michaelfeathers wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No offense, but I think I'll listen to systems thinkers and legal experts rather than philosophers for a little while.

I am of course in the minority, but it's not the minority who's created these major systemic problems. We try to point them out and are ignored (and here, downvoted), and you bumbling fools keep doing things that wreck civilization. Inadvertently of course. But good intentions count for zero, you still bear partial responsibility for widespread injustice.

The problem lies in Democracy, it is not for nothing that it is called the least worst ruling system.

The difference between most democracies and dictatorships is that a dictatorship is despotism by minority and most democracies despotism by majority, not often are democracies systems of fairness.

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#27

Post by rayiner »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #23
rayiner wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're conflating two very different things. This was no case of overzealous prosecution based on vague laws for the kind of activity that everyone does every day. Swartz purposefully accessed a protected computer network without permission, and purposefully copied a huge number of documents which he had no right to copy. He did all of these things willfully, with no defense that he was incapable of understanding the…

>Now, maybe you think "breaking in" to a poorly protected network should not be a crime. No one is saying that. If he was hit with trespassing then it would be a different story. He was political target hit with the worst laws they could find that remotely applied to his case. >The rhetoric around this unfortunate incident borders on intellectually dishonest. The only dishonesty I'm seeing is from the aspie "law and…

> No one is saying that. If he was hit with trespassing then it would be a different story. He was political target hit with the worst laws they could find that remotely applied to his case.

He was hit with the hacking equivalent of trespassing. The point is that the fact that the network is unprotected or poorly protected doesn't make it any less "hacking" than the fact that property is unprotected or poorly protected makes it less "trespassing." What matters is whether Schwartz had permission to access the network for the kind of activity he engaged in, and he did not have such permission.

> No one is saying that. If he was hit with trespassing then it would be a different story. He was political target hit with the worst laws they could find that remotely applied to his case.

The aspies here are the techies who can't fathom why someone might characterize Schwartz's actions as "hacking into MIT's network to steal millions of scientific documents" and do so in good faith. It's aspies to not see how most people would see the situation that way, and rage at the prosecutor instead of acknowledging the larger task of changing people's views.

> Just the idea that Ortiz and Heymann had no choice but to hit Schwarz with these specific set of charges is absurd.

I didn't say she had no choice, I said her case was within the scope of the law. This is not a case where a prosecutor stretched obscure statute to railroad an innocent victim. This case was based on laws that proscribed exactly the kinds of activities the defendant undertook.

My point is that there are two very different kinds of "injustice" and people are confusing them.

In some cases, prosecutors charge defendants with completely tangentially-related laws in order to railroad them. But in this case the laws were on point. The real injustice is that the laws regarding "hacking" make no distinction between something like what Schartz did, and Russian mafia hacking into Bank of America's network.

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#29

Post by jamesaguilar »

Yaa101 wrote: post #21
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just drop the fucking case then? Jesus, how many millions of our tax dollars were spent doing our best to drive this kid to suicide? JSTOR didn't want prosecution and arguably neither did MIT. I can't stand these justifications that seem to make everyone a slave to the machine. Heck, you and I break hundreds of laws a day, maybe even a felony or two or three. Federal prosecutors can do whatever they want with…

This is because the prosecuters are not human, they are preditors going after the weakest in society, it is much easier to score on their carreers than taking on the stronger. Here in Europe we know very well where this all leads to, my ancestors have lived through it numerous times, the last time in the 30's and 40's.

You should look up Godwin's law. Once you understand it you'll also understand why few thinking persons will take your comment seriously.

Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes

#30

Post by wissler »

Yaa101 wrote: post #26
wissler wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am of course in the minority, but it's not the minority who's created these major systemic problems. We try to point them out and are ignored (and here, downvoted), and you bumbling fools keep doing things that wreck civilization. Inadvertently of course. But good intentions count for zero, you still bear partial responsibility for widespread injustice.

The problem lies in Democracy, it is not for nothing that it is called the least worst ruling system. The difference between most democracies and dictatorships is that a dictatorship is despotism by minority and most democracies despotism by majority, not often are democracies systems of fairness.

No, it's not with democracy, it's with the values of the populace. If you have a predominately good people, then many political systems can work; if you have a predominately duped and corrupt people, no system can work.
Post reply on HN