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

181–190 of 300 posts

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

#181

Post by scott_s »

lclarkmichalek wrote: post #66
rhizome wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases." Scapegoating Congress now, she is truly shameless in invoking the Nuremberg Defense.

Does some other body write laws? It's 100% justified to criticize congress if you actually want to change things; a prosecutor can only prosecute for violations of the law.

Prosecutors routinely use their own discretion in both deciding what to prosecute, and how severe of a sentence they will pursue. To say "Hey, the law is the law, I'm just doing my job by enforcing it" denies this reality, and serves to remove her own agency from her actions.

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

#182

Post by ameen »

> Our mission includes protecting the use of computers and the Internet by enforcing the law as fairly and responsibly as possible.

What were they protecting them against? That Knowledge might've been spread to those who hadn't the monetary resources to read a bunch of Journals?

Also, I don't think the law was enforced fairly and responsibly, and it was the exact opposite of what occurred -- A bunch of overzealous prosecutors at the helm pushing for a maximum sentence for civil disobedience.

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

#183

Post by FireBeyond »

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…

"Is a falsifiable claim. I'm looking forward to Aaron's lawyers' response to this statement."

I'm curious. How is it you've determined that Ortiz is lying on multiple accounts, but that Aaron's lawyer must be dispelling gospel truth?

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

#184

Post by FireBeyond »

temphn wrote: post #100
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…

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…

"And here is Ortiz in her own press release telling the entire world the DOJ is threatening Swartz with a maximum penalty of 35 years and $1M in fines: http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR..... 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, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million. "

That quote in no way says what you claim it does. It makes a comment (as every DOJ press release does) stating the material fact of the maximum penalties available based on the charges laid.

It doesn't say anything about "prosecutors are seeking..."

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

#185

Post by hyperbovine »

FireBeyond wrote: post #183
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…

"Is a falsifiable claim. I'm looking forward to Aaron's lawyers' response to this statement." I'm curious. How is it you've determined that Ortiz is lying on multiple accounts, but that Aaron's lawyer must be dispelling gospel truth?

Do you really think a criminal defense attorney would do that? Just go around telling lies?!

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

#186

Post by FireBeyond »

kijin wrote: post #31
Maxious wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 communi…

On the first page, it says: Aaron Swartz TERMINATED: 01/14/2013 It's probably just legalese that refers to the case being closed, but the placement of the all-caps word right under Aaron's name sent a chill down my spine. Sorry for the off-topic post.

"probably"? Yes, it is.

Heaven forbid when someone 'kill's the Apache instance on aaronsw.com...

EDIT: Sorry, this might seem a bit harsh/shallow, but it was my attempt at pointing out that there is a reaction here that is, in parts, bordering on the hysterical - to use the parent example, "I'm sure the use of 'terminated' is probably just legal terminology"... as opposed to what, "Yeah, we got him, target terminated"?

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

#187

Post by ChuckMcM »

temphn wrote: post #100
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…

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…

I generally agree with your analysis, however you will find that lawyers disagree on the threat assessment. A prosecuting lawyer always says "these are the charges [specific charges] which carry a maximum sentence of [worst possible sentence]" and rarely (and never that I can find for first time convictions) are those maximums given.

The implication in the press, and denied now by Orbitz, is that she told Aaron's lawyer that she was going to ask for, demand even, the maximum sentence. And she has denied that was ever the case. His lawyers can confirm or deny that.

There is more to hear about the intransigence of MIT in their willingness to accept a lesser sentence as well. As with many things, everyone reporting on this has reason to shade the words to advance their point of view, and so it takes a lot of work to be discerning.

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

#188

Post by FireBeyond »

mcherm wrote: post #159
blablabla123 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have any proof for your statement? This 35 year (or 50 year) thing mentioned in many blogs might be questionable. To be frank I feel myself a bit fooled by this information, reading yesterday that 6 month have been proposed to Swartz. When talking about things as serious as death, we seem to assume that every information is depicted really carefully, but this is far from being true.

Here is a Department of Justice press release threatening 35 years: http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.... The additional charges added later (after this press release) are the source of the 50 year estimate. 6 months was offered IF he agreed to plead guilty. If he went to trial, the prosecutors claim in the above press release that he faced 35 years; in private communications they have claim…

Apparently a material statement of fact that charges x, y, and z could result in a sentence of up to 35 years is a "threat"?

People have shown a great ability to leap into conflating the two, a statement of intent versus a statement of fact.

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

#189

Post by darkarmani »

WhaleBiologist wrote: post #94
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…

>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.

Which law? Spoofing your MAC address law?

First of all, he hasn't been convicted of ANY law breaking. Secondly, if Ortiz wanted a lesser sentence and was 100% sure he was going to be convicted (the criminal part), she could have brought one count to avoid the stiffer sentencing.

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

#190

Post by argv_empty »

fleitz wrote: post #177
tptacek wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So might makes right?

In the philosophic sense, no! In the we live in the real world sense, absolutely. The US gets to enforce US law around the world because they have more guns. You'll notice that when the USSR was around there were a group of countries with a vastly different system because the USSR had enough guns to force the people of those countries to play along. The International Criminal Court is an even better example, the US i…

In your post, I see a lot of examples of why might makes might, but that's hardly new information.
Post reply on HN