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

U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

blogs.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 300 posts

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#11

Post by jacquesm »

rdl wrote: post #10
jacquesm wrote: post #7

> I must, however, make clear that this office’s conduct was appropriate in bringing and handling this case. That's why you assign investigations to independent entities, and that's why butchers aren't allowed to do their own health inspection. Whether it was appropriate or not is not for Carmen Ortiz to say. "The prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his ac…

She can be technically telling the truth if the maximum penalty was 50 years (based on maximum possible value of damage), and they were only seeking 7 years.

I like your use of the word 'only' there...

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#12

Post by erichocean »

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.

The absolute dishonesty of this statement has only further convinced me that firing this political appointee to prevent her from further harming citizens is the only appropriate action for our government to take.

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#13

Post by rhizome »

Maxious wrote: post #6
RobertHoudin wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you provide a link to that please?

> ALLEGED HACKER CHARGED WITH STEALING OVER FOUR MILLION DOCUMENTS FROM MIT NETWORK July 19, 2011 > 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…

Do the defendants in these cases understand how many years they are actually being expected to serve?

No. This is intentional.

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#14

Post by Kliment »

RobertHoudin wrote: post #4
Kliment wrote: post #2

So how does this mesh with the doj-issued press release stating the 35 year term?

Could you provide a link to that please?

Several others did already, but here is a mirror in case the DOJ decides to take it down http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/07/Swartz...

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#15

Post by thoughtcriminal »

Prosecutors (and lawyers in general) are all about drama and story. Everything is amplified. Reality is distorted. It's worse than cable television.

Ortiz framed a brilliant, selfless young man as a criminal who should be locked up behind bars. She and others inflicted mental torture on him until he couldn't bear to live any longer.

She is no doubt a wordsmith, but she is not a nice person, no matter what the gullible fools on HN say. She shouldn't be working with and against people anymore, or for the government.

To think that a carefully calculated statement could 'clear the deck' and make everything even-steven is ludicrous.

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#16

Post by anonymouz »

Maxious wrote: post #6
RobertHoudin wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you provide a link to that please?

> ALLEGED HACKER CHARGED WITH STEALING OVER FOUR MILLION DOCUMENTS FROM MIT NETWORK July 19, 2011 > 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…

It is obvious from this press release from the formulation "faces up to 35 years in prison", that they are simply quoting the maximum penality for the charges.

The prosecutors press release says that they didn't intend to push for maximum penality.

These two statement are perfectly compatible with each other.

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#17

Post by corporalagumbo »

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #5

> and did so reasonably. They still believe that? Sorry but they're unfit for the job. They need to go. There was nothing reasonable about their actions on this case. > a sentence that we would recommend to the judge of six months in a low security setting. Six months in jail for downloading files that were accessible to him? All he did was violate terms of service! Are we going to start arresting under-age Facebook…

http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR....

Downloading four million files, apparently. And if by breaking terms and services you mean illegally distributing protected content and threatening the business model of JSTOR then yes, I suppose that is true.

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#18

Post by Udo »

thoughtcriminal wrote: post #15

Prosecutors (and lawyers in general) are all about drama and story. Everything is amplified. Reality is distorted. It's worse than cable television. Ortiz framed a brilliant, selfless young man as a criminal who should be locked up behind bars. She and others inflicted mental torture on him until he couldn't bear to live any longer. She is no doubt a wordsmith, but she is not a nice person, no matter what the gullibl…

> no matter what the gullible fools on HN say

I agree with you on all the other points, but apparently you haven't been following this thread too closely.

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#19

Post by jacquesm »

corporalagumbo wrote: post #17
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #5

> and did so reasonably. They still believe that? Sorry but they're unfit for the job. They need to go. There was nothing reasonable about their actions on this case. > a sentence that we would recommend to the judge of six months in a low security setting. Six months in jail for downloading files that were accessible to him? All he did was violate terms of service! Are we going to start arresting under-age Facebook…

http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.... Downloading four million files, apparently. And if by breaking terms and services you mean illegally distributing protected content and threatening the business model of JSTOR then yes, I suppose that is true.

> illegally distributing protected content

Aaron never did that. He may have been planning that but nobody can say this for a fact.

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#20

Post by Maxious »

jacquesm wrote: post #7

> I must, however, make clear that this office’s conduct was appropriate in bringing and handling this case. That's why you assign investigations to independent entities, and that's why butchers aren't allowed to do their own health inspection. Whether it was appropriate or not is not for Carmen Ortiz to say. "The prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his ac…

> "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."

http://watchdogblog.dallasnews.com/2013/01/read-the-full-cou... page 344

> Nothing in the wire fraud statute or the cases construing it provides constitutionally adequate notice that manipulating IP addresses, spoofing MAC addresses, and gaining access to a free electronic communications network (MIT's) for the purpose of accessing another website to download journal articles which are free to those with access to the website, and for which access MIT had already paid, constitutes a federal wire fraud felony carrying a potential penalty of 30 years.

> Defendant's research has located no reported wire fraud case which is even remotely comparable to this one.

The defence lawyers may have been talking in hyperbole but they had some reason to believe that it was potentially 30 years. Perhaps because they had heard nothing to contradict that impression.

Post reply on HN