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

121–130 of 300 posts

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

#121

Post by newbie12 »

chernevik wrote: post #112
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…

One. It is a very serious mistake to deny someone the right to believe the correctness of their own opinions. Two. People use leverage. They may or may not use it rightly but they do use it. Anyone who cannot set their opinion of the justice of that to one side, and get on to the business of the contest at hand, is not cut out for politics. Such people enter these contests at a great disadvantage and risk getting hur…

Ortiz is an Obama Administration appointee who wants to run for the Massachusetts governorship. She's making this argument to try to salvage her political career...it isn't a courtroom argument and it will be easy for her to trip up, she doesn't understand the dynamics of this firestorm.

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

#122

Post by pmorici »

glurgh wrote: post #107
thebooktocome wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They get incompetent public defenders.

Not at the federal level. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/14/us/14defenders.html?_r=2&#... ;

This article brings up an interesting point in general that paying for a lawyer by the hour doesn't align the incentives of the lawyer with the client. If I were going to hire a lawyer I'd want to do it on a salaried + bonus if you win basis.

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

#123

Post by bryanlarsen »

sp332 wrote: post #110
temphn wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ortiz today: and they recognized that his conduct – while a violation of the law – did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases. Ortiz on 9/2012, adding 9 counts to the conduct that we learn "did not warrant...severe punishment": http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/aaron-swartz-felony... Federal prosectors added nine new felony cou…

Do you take a guarantee of 6 months in federal prison and permanent felon status? This was never a guarantee. As she said, the judge makes the final determination. The DA's suggestion has a lot of pull with a judge, but the DA can't promise anything.

How often does a judge overturn a plea bargain? That's what temphn is referring to when talking about a guarantee of 6 months.

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

#124

Post by mbesto »

BrokenPipe wrote: post #88
jstevens85 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he accepted the plea bargain of six months, then the case wouldn't have gone to trial, avoiding the excessive legal fees. I don't understand the timeline, but had he accepted the plea bargain, is it not possible that he would have already served his sentence by now?

Maybe. The point is that you shouldn't submit to 6 months of federal prison without trial or appeal, all the money loss for the two years in the case and your life ruined by the felony counts records for using a script to download files you already have legal access to. At worst all there is to this is trespassing, on an open campus on an open network etc etc.

You're probably right, you shouldn't, but unless you offer up a better suggestion for a law system, it is it what it is.

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

#125

Post by roguecoder »

rolux wrote: post #120
jacquesm wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> outright termination. Can we change that to 'being fired'.

Does anyone here seriously believe that she's going to be fired? And that Carmen Ortiz is such an exceptional case? There are hundreds of prosecutors in the US who routinely - even though against predominantly non-white and non-prominent defendants - seek much harsher sentences for much lesser "crimes", often with much more dubious evidence, and much lower chances for defendants to ever have their personal situation…

2% of American men are currently in jail. Among black men 30 to 34, 7% are currently in jail. We just don't notice the vast injustice of our justice system until we think it might affect us.

Attacking a single prosecutor who was doing her job and obeying the law won't change anything. Attacking the laws she enforced will.

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

#126

Post by [deleted] »

corporalagumbo wrote: post #79
colin_jack wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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" I know there is his manifesto from a couple of years ago but we can't be sure what he was going to do with them.

Do you have a link to that?

[deleted]

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

#127

Post by amirmc »

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…

> "... - while a violation of the law - ..."

I'm surprised no-one else is commenting specifically on the use of these words. Forgive my lack of knowledge/experience but isn't the point of the courts etc to go through the process of 'innocent until proven guilty'?

If this basic premise is broken and no-one's talking about it then things must be in a really bad way.

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

#128

Post by tptacek »

chernevik wrote: post #112
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…

One. It is a very serious mistake to deny someone the right to believe the correctness of their own opinions. Two. People use leverage. They may or may not use it rightly but they do use it. Anyone who cannot set their opinion of the justice of that to one side, and get on to the business of the contest at hand, is not cut out for politics. Such people enter these contests at a great disadvantage and risk getting hur…

So might makes right?

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

#129

Post by smogzer »

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…

Being with a gun pointed to your head for a long time kills the free spirits. Imagine being a freedom fighter like no other, and the society reward for that being 35 years in jail and 1M fine kills any morale left.

The other side of the table are the banks, the military, dirty politicians, a propaganda machine, useless bureocrats and the science "industry"; all these have no morals, contribute to nothing and get the most rewards.

I can't even imagine how it would be like to live in Aaron shoes. Country with cowards in power.

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

#130

Post by Kylekramer »

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #115
WhaleBiologist wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Ortiz framed a brilliant, selfless young man as a criminal who should be locked up behind bars. Law is about drama? There's plenty of drama and hyperbole in your post. He broke the law. Which means he is a criminal. If you think the laws are retarded, then how you protest that is your prerogative. If you choose to protest by blatantly and purposely breaking the law, unless you are 99.999% certain that an obvious int…

> He broke the law. Which means he is a criminal. He allegedly broke the law. According to network security expert Alex Stamos, an expert witness in the case, the worst thing you can say about Aaron's actions is that they were "inconsiderate", not criminal. http://io9.com/5975592/aaron-swartz-died-innocent-++-here-is...

Expert witness for Aaron Swartz's defense. If he didn't think he was innocent, he wouldn't have got the paid job or been involved at all.
Post reply on HN