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

271–280 of 300 posts

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

#271

Post by jack-r-abbit »

tossacct wrote: post #195
lclarkmichalek wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your comment is correct, but it is incomplete and avoids the real issue with "actually changing things". "Actually changing things" may involve "criticizing congress" but I expect it to be rather more complicated. I think that all of the players in this case should have exercised discretion. The fact that so many people (including the citizens of America) allowed this situation to occur is the tragedy. I think that t…

> I think we can justifiably criticize [snip] Aaron [snip] for {his role} in this mess

Thank you! I think this is the first time I have read a comment on HN about this whole mess that actually puts some of the responsibility back on Aaron. He had several opportunities to exercise good judgement. Like the first time he had to alter his virtual appearance to regain access after he had been discovered and cut off. They didn't yet know who it was. That was a huge missed opportunity right there. It all would have been over.

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

#273

Post by FireBeyond »

jacquesm wrote: post #237
oh_sigh wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It's a lot easier to blame the attorney prosecuting your child for his suicide than to point to his chronic depression (which I've not really seen acknowledged by them)...

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

#274

Post by jamieb »

amckenna wrote: post #258
jamieb wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We're not saying its going to happen to you, but these other three businesses have burned to the ground. If you give us 10%, we can make sure it doesn't happen to you." At no point in this sentence did I say "If you do not pay us 10% we will burn down your business." However prosecutions have successfully argued, and any reasonable person would agree, that the first sentence is a threat, is coercive, and is criminal…

You state: "You may post as many replies on this thread that "threat" doesn't mean what we think it means but the law, common sense, and understanding of English, proves you wrong." however... From United States v. Kelner (1975) - "... the threat on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purp…

I think you should read what that case was about (and that the US won and on appeal).

If I go on TV and make threats, then sure, the prosecution would have to meet that standard. If I meet you in dark alley with what you believe to be a gun (but aren't sure) and I make implied remarks about what might happen to you if you get caught wearing that watch, and maybe you can leave it with me and I'll be sure to return it to you when you're safe, then I'm going to jail. I don't have to say "Give me that watch or I will shoot you". If I imply that sleeping with me might get you that promotion, even without saying so, and I'm in a position to make it happen, then I'm guilty of sexual harassment. I don't have to say "If you fuck me I'll promote you".

Lets be clear. I'm not expecting Ortiz to be drawn up on extortion or racketeering charges. The examples were to demonstrate that a "true threat" does not require the defendant to say "I intend to X on date Y" for it to be taken as a threat or proof of intent.

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

#275

Post by mpyne »

jacquesm wrote: post #264
mpyne wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no innate right to wall off a chunk of human heritage and claim ownership, even though lobbying power and money have distorted the balance of power substantially. That I agree with, along with our problems with the public domain and copyright reform. I just don't like the reasoning couched in language about how much benefit a particular party has obtained. E.g. we might decide that copyright period of, say…

There was a mix-up between academia and the publishers, with academia's financial issues used to bolster the case against sharing this data. But in actual fact the academic institutions pay the publishers and those publishers are very wealthy. On another note, why is there only one 'kind' of copyright? Why do the same rules that apply to work written for profit apply to work written for scientific edification? Some d…

Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all a fan of the system setup by Elsevier et al. There's a lot that can and should be done to overhaul and scale back our system of copyright and other "intellectual property" to work better for the progress of society. I'm just also not a fan of the concept of "the ends justify the means".

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

#276

Post by lotso »

nodata wrote: post #257

"I haven't bothered to mention the whole sad Aaron Swartz saga, because it's been covered elsewhere. But having the involved US attorney then basically lie about it all in a very public statement is something that I find particularly offensive." -- Linus Torvalds, https://plus.google.com/102150693225130002912/posts/ggzfzKyr...

From his Google+ post

"Yesterday (as reported by the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere):

"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."

And July 2011 (as posted by justice.gov itself):

"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""

Stating that a person faces x amount of years is not the same as saying we are seeking to put you in jail for this many years.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this is how anyone who allegedly broke the law would be treated. The law you broke states you can face up to x, y, and z for breaking it, but hardly anyone gets that maximum sentencing. Hell, even murderers rarely get the maximum sentencing.

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

#277

Post by woah »

jacquesm wrote: post #219
mattmaroon wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but they don't make ones that can be proven via a simple email. They do it when they think there's a very real chance they'll not be caught.

Actually, email was exactly what tripped up Oliver North. Even getting rid of incriminating emails is worse than keeping them for inspection. North and John Poindexter (sp?) exchanged emails, deleted them when they realized they were in hot water and those emails were subsequently recovered.

Wow, didn't know they had that back then. I thought everyone was still on text messages.

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

#278

Post by seanp2k2 »

Did anyone seriously expect an apology? This is disappointing, but not really surprising.

This quote esp. got me:

"I must, however, make clear that this office’s conduct was appropriate in bringing and handling this case."

Strongly disagree, and I hope the docs come out to prove against this point and burn them.

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

#279

Post by amckenna »

jamieb wrote: post #274
amckenna wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You state: "You may post as many replies on this thread that "threat" doesn't mean what we think it means but the law, common sense, and understanding of English, proves you wrong." however... From United States v. Kelner (1975) - "... the threat on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purp…

I think you should read what that case was about (and that the US won and on appeal). If I go on TV and make threats, then sure, the prosecution would have to meet that standard. If I meet you in dark alley with what you believe to be a gun (but aren't sure) and I make implied remarks about what might happen to you if you get caught wearing that watch, and maybe you can leave it with me and I'll be sure to return it…

I did read the case, and I do understand that the circumstances are different. The piece I wanted to draw attention to is that there are criterion for what constitutes a threat.

The examples you have provided in both of your posts include ominous characters and "dark alleys." More importantly, both of those situations involve an agent telling the other person they should take some action or there will be some consequence, implying that if the action is not taken, then there is a risk of the consequence. In the press release by the prosecutor, there was simply a statement of consequence, not a prescribed set of choices or a consequence if Swartz didn't take a certain action. There may have been threatening outside of the press release, but those facts are still murky and it is outside of the scope of what I am talking about.

If you are picking a bone with plea bargaining and how it is used to threaten people and coerce them into guilty pleas, then that is fine, I'm not arguing with you there - just with the perception that the prosecutor's statement was threatening.

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

#280

Post by nitrogen »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #270
maratd wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't say anything about "prosecutors are seeking..." Wrong. It's up to the prosecutor which charges are filed, which are dropped, which are pursued in court. If they are taking those charges to trial, and they were in this case, it means they are seeking those penalties. Now, they may ask the judge for a lesser sentence ... everyone wants to appear merciful after you beat the guy down, but they most certainly…

> If they are taking those charges to trial, and they were in this case, it means they are seeking those penalties. I don't think this is true. I think they just want to make sure they can convict him if they can prove lesser charges but can't prove the main charge.

Is it productive to society to convict someone of, say, "hiding one's identity in furtherance of a computer crime" (or the actual legal equivalent of those made up words I just typed) if that "computer crime" wasn't proven?
Post reply on HN