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

#231

Post by mcherm » Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 6:41 PM UTC

FireBeyond wrote: post #188

mcherm wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Threat: "expression of intent to harm"=. Yes, I would say that it does.[1]

Stating "Charges X, Y, and Z could result in 35 years" is not a threat. Stating "Charges X, Y, and Z could technically result in 35 years, and I will seek at least 7 years" is a threat of 7 years. Stating "I am charging you with X, Y, and Z which could result in 35 years." and putting that out in a press release... that is threatening 35 years.

[1] http://m.dictionary.com/d/?q=threat&submit-result-SEARCH...

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

#232

Post by dinkumthinkum » Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 6:45 PM UTC

res0nat0r wrote: post #192

scott_s wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Six months in a minimum security jail seems perfectly reasonable to me for repeatedly breaking the law and in no way some sort of "overreach" or "witch hunt". Her job was to find a settlement acceptable to both parties.

People get less prison time for rape and attempted murder. Come on.

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

#233

Post by mpyne » Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 6:50 PM UTC

girvo wrote: post #111

tcuk wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDIT: found the second article, comment redundant.

They both ended up on the front page, the latter today. And most people agreed that they were excellent analyses.

They should both be required reading for those interested in the aaronsw case IMHO. There's a reason the consensus about the case (even on HN!) before Aaron's suicide was so wildly different from the current witchhunt, and the reason is contained in those two Kerr writeups.

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

#234

Post by res0nat0r » Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 7:07 PM UTC

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #232

res0nat0r wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Six months in a minimum security jail seems perfectly reasonable to me for repeatedly breaking the law and in no way some sort of "overreach" or "witch hunt". Her job was to find a settlement acceptable to both parties.

People get less prison time for rape and attempted murder. Come on.

Less than 6 months? Sounds like an anomaly.

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

#235

Post by gbhn » Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 7:10 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #187

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…

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 law…

Prosecutors are supposed to inform defendants of the sentencing guidelines, which are usually quite different from the maximum allowable penalties. I think the office must have done this. Whether that was shaded with "and that's what'll happen" or with "but you're an enemy of the state, and we might just press for the maximum" is directly addressed by this statement, but we've heard more-or-less the opposite from Aaron's counsel. At this point, we have some he-said/she-said, but on the whole, given the contradictions in the statements and actions from the US attorneys, Aaron's counsel seems more credible. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out...

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

#236

Post by rhizome » Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 7:13 PM UTC

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.

You're missing the "hey, I was just doing my job," part.

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

#237

Post by jacquesm » Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 7:20 PM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #198

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…

> She and others inflicted mental torture on him until he couldn't bear to live any longer. That is an idiotic thing to say, and it only raises doubt about all of your other statements. Aaron was chronically depressed for years. People who are chronically depressed tend to kill themselves, or at least try to. Their external circumstances are rarely the cause of their suicide. It's up to you to prove that this lawsuit…

1) his lawyer and his closest family seem to agree that the lawsuit was the driving force

2) he did it on the anniversary of the start of the lawsuit

3) the actual trial was to start shortly

4) So far when under outside pressure he held up pretty good, but this was pressure far exceeding his previous exposure

Now, none of that is conclusive proof. But I don't see any reason brought forward other than the lawsuit why he killed himself. Absent such proof I tend to believe strongly that this was the reason why he did it.

If you don't want to believe that then that's fine with me but it does mean that you are ignoring some evidence right in front of your eyes.

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

#238

Post by mpyne » Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 7:22 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #200

corporalagumbo wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 indus…

> especially in a relatively fragile and cash-strapped field like academia. Academia does not publish articles. Publishers do and they are anything but cash strapped, check out Elsevier for instance.

Ah yes, the flipside of the normal rule of law, where it only gets directed at the poor. Now you're saying it's OK to mug someone, as long as they're rich and wouldn't have really needed the money anyways.

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

#239

Post by jacquesm » Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 7:24 PM UTC

sociotech wrote: post #160

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The alleged crime WAS NOT merely violating the terms of service of a website. People really need to study the law before critiquing it.

You mean study the case and the law.

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

#240

Post by rhizome » Thu, Jan 17, 2013, 7:24 PM UTC

rolux wrote: post #146

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Attacking a single prosecutor who was doing her job and obeying the law won't change anything. I disagree, if Ortiz was looking for a future in politics, she's finished. At the very least, she'll have to change her party affiliation. This is a good thing. Otherwise she could've possibly carried on at a higher level. Although the various public reactions have yet to make any change in law; recent events may discourag…

I agree with your last point. But just putting a temporary cap on Ortiz' career doesn't seem like a big win to me, in the grand scheme of things. I know nothing about Massachusetts politics. Who knows she's not the "good cop", compared to the person whose career, as a result, will advance faster?

Who knows she's not the "good cop",

We do: http://hcrenewal.blogspot.ca/2013/01/the-tragic-case-of-aaro...