U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by anonymouz » Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 10:46 AM UTC

3amOpsGuy wrote: post #27

anonymouz wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a strange line of argument. It's obvious that the communication to Aaron was "up to 35 years", he wasn't told "up to 7 years" or "up to 3 years", the communication he received was "up to 35 years in prison". To argue that the prosecutors didn't intend to push to maximum penalty would be to do so without any basis in fact - it would be mere speculation and of 0 value compared to the recorded facts as they stand…

From the very press release we are commenting on it is clear that this is not mere speculation but what the prosecutors office claims:

"Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the judge. 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."

At best you could say that her statement contradicts the one of Aaron Swartz' lawyer (I don't know, I don't have a reference for his statement), but ignoring the existence of one statement while elevating the other one to the level of truth is dishonest.

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

#42

Post by gadders » Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 10:50 AM UTC

It's sad that he committed suicide, but that is not a rational response to 6 months in a low security jail.

Conrad Black did 30+ months. Kevin Mitnick did several years. Even Martha Stewart managed 5 months.

Also, with his profile and past history, his felony conviction would not seriously impede any career he wanted to undertake.

Finally, the whole point of civil disobedience is to break a law, and get caught, punished and make (to a certain extent) a martyr of yourself to draw attention to your cause.

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

#43

Post by anonymouz » Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 10:50 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #21

anonymouz wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think those two statements are in direct contradiction with each other, and Aaron's lawyer is on the record that they were putting up a > 10:1 ratio for a plea bargain. So they may not have been seeking the technical maximum but they were definitely beating their drums quoting that maximum where ever they could. Now that that makes them look terrible they're backpedaling on that but there is enough documentation ou…

Why would those be contradictory? If the prosecution charges a person with X, and the maximum penality for X is, say, 10 years then it seems perfectly reasonable to say that this person faces up to 10 years in prison.

In court the prosecution may well argue for, say, a 5 year penality under the given circumstances, and ultimately it's up to the judge.

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

#44

Post by ghshephard » Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 10:53 AM UTC

gadders wrote: post #42

It's sad that he committed suicide, but that is not a rational response to 6 months in a low security jail. Conrad Black did 30+ months. Kevin Mitnick did several years. Even Martha Stewart managed 5 months. Also, with his profile and past history, his felony conviction would not seriously impede any career he wanted to undertake. Finally, the whole point of civil disobedience is to break a law, and get caught, punis…

Except defending himself would have cost on the order of a million dollars (Per Lessig) - does he go to his family for that? Even if he turns out to be found completely innocent, him, his family, and those who he can turn to would have been wiped out financially. That part of the story doesn't get enough attention.

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

#45

Post by joshz » Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 10:55 AM UTC

anonymouz wrote: post #16

Maxious wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

After the fact you can try to make it sound however you like. But when your option is to get off the lawn or get a bullet in the head, it sounds entirely different. The release is loaded with statements making it sound like he "deserved it" and some empty "didn't intend to" is worthless.

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

#46

Post by UnoriginalGuy » Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 10:55 AM UTC

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.

One, two, a million, four million, what difference does it actually make? The crime was violating the terms, it isn't relevant where the EOF bit was transmitted. If you made the same files half as big he would have "stolen" twice as many files, or twice as big then he would have done half the crime by your logic.

He never distributed anything. No clue where you got that from?

Additionally "threatening a business model" within its self isn't a crime. In fact one might argue that it is a very good thing. Monopolies have often fallen to disruptive technologies, should we go arrest the people behind VoIP because they went after the telecos? Or the inventors of the printing press because they put scribes out of business? Or the inventor of the light-bulb because nobody had to light all of those candles each night?

The only "crime" here was violating terms. For that they want to hit him with between six months and thirty five years of jail (plus costs, fines, and a criminal record). If this same over-reaction was applied to all terms violators we would have half the country in jail right now.

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

#47

Post by josephlord » Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 10:58 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #21

anonymouz wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think those two statements are in direct contradiction with each other, and Aaron's lawyer is on the record that they were putting up a > 10:1 ratio for a plea bargain. So they may not have been seeking the technical maximum but they were definitely beating their drums quoting that maximum where ever they could. Now that that makes them look terrible they're backpedaling on that but there is enough documentation ou…

The maximum was so high they didn't even need to go near it for the terrifying threats of the > 10:1 ratio. The talk is that the plea would have been 6 months and that at trial they would have asked for 6 years. 12:1 ratio and they can truthfully say that they weren't asking for the maximum. They can't truthfully say that they wouldn't seek the ridiculous though.

Likewise she focused on the plea bargain offer of side of 6 months but not on the fact that this would have involved admitting guilt to 13 felonies. For someone with honour who really believed themselves not guilty (at least of serious crime) that could be as much of an issue as 6 months low security detention. For lawyers it seems to be a game and the sentence and number of convictions is the score; unfortunately the victims of the law take it more seriously.

Always look at what isn't said not just what is said.

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

#48

Post by wickedbass » Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 10:58 AM UTC

corporalagumbo wrote: post #36

wickedbass wrote: post #3

While it is nice that she is passing blame to Congress, if it were only a "6 month low security setting" being discussed, why wouldn't Aaron have been told of this? Why the additional and ultimately 13 felony charges when he was MOST concerned with not being labled a felon. Why hold that 50 year sentence above his head with no HOPE in his own mind because he was left in the dark. "As a parent and sister", would you w…

When cops come across otherwise nice young white guys who believe themselves invulnerable or above the law and are doing stupid, impulsive things, their usual practice is to "scare them straight." So they get tough on them, tell them all of the awful consequences they're in for, put them in a horrible, cramped cell, maybe throw them in with some real nasty characters, and, above all, get their parents involved. It's…

Hey, I recognize what you're saying and agree with it. I too have been in that unfortunate and TERRIBLE cold cell once in my life and know what it feels like to have your freedom stripped from you (and mine ended up costing 10k+ in the end).

No one will ever know why Aaron killed himself fully, and that is unfortunate. Most of us only learned of him fully through his suicide. When I watch youtube videos of the guy, he seems so damn intelligent, eloquent, literate... It's hard to imagine that he wasn't smart enough or brave enough to truly ask the community for help.

That all said, one of the main things I've learned through my own past escapades and more so through tragic news like this, is that the justice system is inherently fucked up. It is designed to destroy the plaintiff. I have lived through this and it was the most miserable experience of my life (thanks ex gf I used to love for 5 years). Once you are in the 'system', or they are after you, if they have a reason (in their own mind), you are fucked.

Unless you are a multi-millionaire who can afford to pay your way out, and even still, you're most likely getting fucked from one direction or the other.

I think that is what this entire thing boils down to. Overreach of the Federal Government. Punishment does not fit the alleged and unconvicted crime.

Aaron might have had depression issues (a whole different beast in itself), but from all the empirical evidence available to the public, it seems like he was truly pushed into a corner and a high risk for suicide - and unfortunately he fulfilled that presumption.

I hope we as a society can learn from this.

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

#49

Post by forrestthewoods » Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 11:01 AM UTC

"...we would recommend to the judge of six months in a low security setting. ...his defense counsel would have been free to recommend a sentence of probation. Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the judge"

Little known fact here. When you accept a plea bargain you do not accept a sentence as part of that. Often times you agree to plea to lesser chargers which have a lower maximum penalty but you still run the risk of being sentenced to the max.

There is also the chance the judge will give a longer sentence with enhancements. It's possible you will have not been convicted, tried, or even charged for those enhancements. This has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. However that doesn't stop judges from doing it anyway. When you are crushed, broke, and in jail what are ya gonna do, sue?

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

#50

Post by corporalagumbo » Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 11:06 AM UTC

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #46

corporalagumbo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

One, two, a million, four million, what difference does it actually make? The crime was violating the terms, it isn't relevant where the EOF bit was transmitted. If you made the same files half as big he would have "stolen" twice as many files, or twice as big then he would have done half the crime by your logic. He never distributed anything. No clue where you got that from? Additionally "threatening a business mode…

It makes a big difference. Four million is apparently the majority of JSTOR's database. Keep in mind that JSTOR doesn't own those articles, it just arranges approved access to paying institutions on behalf of the various journals which do own the articles. If Aaron had distributed them he might have damaged around a thousand different institutions involved in an important segment of the knowledge and innovation industry. You can argue that that industry should change but I am not sure I can agree that a brute force assault is a good way to create constructive change, especially in a relatively fragile and cash-strapped field like academia.

Anyway, I've used JSTOR a lot as a university student. It's a really good service. They don't create the economics of the journal industry, they just try to work within it.

And no, I disagree with you, Aaron's actions strike me as extreme and out of the ordinary.