Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 209 posts

Re: undefined

#31

Post by jacquesm »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #23
pbreit wrote: post #16

I like Linus and think Ortiz is an idiot[1] but he messed up on this one. The "faces up to 35 years" is obviously not a quote from Ortiz. [1] Did Ortiz really not understand that pretty much everything Swartz did in in the second half of his life was both prolific and for the greater good on a very large scale?

Are you kidding me? She/her office understood, I'm sure, that he thought he was doing things for the greater good. That doesn't mean that he is legally allowed to nor that she is barred from prosecuting him because his intentions were so pure. Not everyone when disagrees with your favored political stance on am issue is too dumb to understand it. Some just disagree. Calling her am idiot on this context is simply with…

> She/her office understood, I'm sure, that he thought he was doing things for the greater good.

I have not seen any proof or acknowledgement of that.

> That doesn't mean that he is legally allowed to nor that she is barred from prosecuting him because his intentions were so pure.

This is true, and nobody has said that she should not have prosecuted. The things that are being said are:

  - this prosecution was subject to some discretionary powers

  - those powers were to some extent abused

  - in other cases, arguably more serious Ortiz has used her
    discretionary powers to *not* pursue cases
> Not everyone when disagrees with your favored political stance on am issue is too dumb to understand it. Some just disagree.

Pot, kettle, etc. You also do this.

> Calling her am idiot on this context is simply without any basis

If she did not understand this she really is an idiot, I have no proof either way, you claim that she understood but you offer 0 proof.

> Honestly, I'm not sure if any story since a started reading this site has resulted in such a high proportion of minimally thought-out comments.

It has also resulting in a large number of very well thought out comments, not all of which you may agree with. Let's keep the meta discussion out of it.

Re: undefined

#32

Post by downandout »

btilly wrote: post #3

Linus is dead wrong on this. We have independent confirmation of everything that Ortiz said from the Boston Globe's interview with Aaron's defense attorney. The maximum statutory penalty for the original 4 indictments was 35 years. The prosecutor was planning to seek 6-7 years. There were two plea bargains offered, one was 4 months and no disputing the period, the other was 6 months but the defense attorney would be…

Linus isn't wrong. She made two directly conflicting statements in press releases, which is what he pointed out. The first, which she made at the outset of the case, was that he was facing 35 years if convicted at trial. They make statements like this in order to foster plea discussions, which resulted in the 4-6 month offer she mentioned in the second statement. While this would be considered extortion in any other context, this is entirely legal under current law and forms the basis for our entire "justice" system.

In addition, no mention has been made of possible post-release restrictions that the US Attorney's office may have insisted on, but there is a very real possibility that the judge could have barred him from using a computer or the Internet during the mandatory 3-5 year supervised release period. Federal judges are free to implement any supervised release conditions they wish, and if violated the defendant can face significant additional prison time - up to the length of the supervised release (3-5 years). I didn't know Aaron, but I suspect that this fact may have weighed more heavily on his mind than the incarceration time itself. Four months on a federal case doesn't end after four months.

Re: undefined

#33

Post by jacquesm »

runarb wrote: post #27
benatkin wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main reason he's wrong is because she used lawyer speak. She said something that was misleading but technically true. She said that they didn't seek maximum penalties. What she must want people to think when they read it is that she didn't seek harsh penalties, which she did by increasing the number of counts. But since she didn't say this, it isn't technically false.

She can save the "technically true" for the other lawyers, the rest of us are not amused. The fact remains that she was seeking a severe sentence, but now want to magically make up another truth... If she think she was right in the first place, she sold stick to it. If not she should apologize. Now she is just looking like a fool.

> She can save the "technically true" for the other lawyers

She is saying this 'for the other lawyers', specifically her bosses in congress. She likely doesn't give a rats ass about what Joe general Public thinks about the case but is likely scared shitless that if this turns in to actual culpability that Aarons relatives will sue.

Her political career is dead in the water, she might hold on to her job if the shitstorm doesn't get any worse. Google "carmen ortiz" to see how it is developing, you might as well google "Aaron Swartz", the results are much the same.

Re: undefined

#34

Post by josephlord »

I suspect Ortiz's statement was absolutely true but missing the point to the extent of being misleading. No they may not have sought the maximum but in trial they would still have sought years in jail so the threat of 7 years is still terrifying, harsh and unjust.

Don't let the discussion get too focussed on the maximums as you will give Ortiz a way out. The real threat was still too much (More than twelve times what Ortiz says is reasonable as the offer) and the idea of pleading guilt to 13 felonies possibly as unappealling as the 6 month prison term attached.

Re: undefined

#35

Post by gojomo »

downandout wrote: post #32
btilly wrote: post #3

Linus is dead wrong on this. We have independent confirmation of everything that Ortiz said from the Boston Globe's interview with Aaron's defense attorney. The maximum statutory penalty for the original 4 indictments was 35 years. The prosecutor was planning to seek 6-7 years. There were two plea bargains offered, one was 4 months and no disputing the period, the other was 6 months but the defense attorney would be…

Linus isn't wrong. She made two directly conflicting statements in press releases, which is what he pointed out. The first, which she made at the outset of the case, was that he was facing 35 years if convicted at trial. They make statements like this in order to foster plea discussions, which resulted in the 4-6 month offer she mentioned in the second statement. While this would be considered extortion in any other…

In the weaselly shades of English used by lawyers and politicians, the two statements highlighted by Torvalds do not necessarily contradict one another. The older statement accurately describes the maximums the law allows, and was used when that was the emphasis. (At the time, the DoJ probably didn't know themselves what sort of sentence they'd ask for, so the only informative and unfalsifiable thing to put in a PR statement would be the statutory ranges: "faces up to".) It didn't necessarily imply the prosecutors were seeking or ever would seek that penalty.

Even if the prosecutors kept mentioning the maximums, over and over, whenever the opportunity arose, unless they also specifically said they would ask for the maximum, the finely-crafted later statement from Ortiz isn't necessarily contradicted. Reminding of the maximums, to the accused and jury, could be an effective 'framing' rhetorical strategy to help make actual proposals of less (in negotiations or later motions) seem more reasonable or generous.

None of this excuses the law itself or overall prosecutor conduct. But we still should read their statements fairly, aware they contain self-serving spin, but also recognizing the precise things they do and don't claim via their word choices.

Re: undefined

#36

Post by chmike »

This sounds indeed defamatory and Linus was once again too impulsive. Not sure if the target will be as complaisant as his other victims.

However the situation is indeed very shocking and Carmen Oritz's public reaction is also in my view extremely disappointing and shocking.

Apparently all this was an attempt to use a "big mistake" [1] of Aaron as a leverage for her self promotion with political goals and it backfired in a way she didn't anticipate.

This demonstrate to the whole world the internal "corruption" of the American justice system. Apparently there is no shame about it and no intent to change it. Probably too many influent people profit by various indirect leverages from this "state of art" and money is probably not the least of them.

Her childish response and pseudo justification it's not my fault, I didn't do anything wrong is appalling from a person with such high responsibility.

A more appropriate response is the one from the MIT director: what happened is a catastrophe and wrong because it should not have happened, we start an investigation to clarify our role in it, what we may have done wrong, what we can do to avoid that this happen again and we will make the conclusion public.

In her public comment Carmen Ortiz demonstrate her lack of honesty, objectivity and sense of justice and in short intelligence. Unfortunately it seam that people can get along with the claim she made by the benefit of complaisance of other mediocre people. Mediocracy: +1, Democracy : -1

[1] It is suggested it was a conscious disobedience meant to be a provocative political act to draw attention on a society problem without intent to harm anybody or for selfish interests like money or a political self promotion

Re: undefined

#37

Post by jahewson »

downandout wrote: post #32
btilly wrote: post #3

Linus is dead wrong on this. We have independent confirmation of everything that Ortiz said from the Boston Globe's interview with Aaron's defense attorney. The maximum statutory penalty for the original 4 indictments was 35 years. The prosecutor was planning to seek 6-7 years. There were two plea bargains offered, one was 4 months and no disputing the period, the other was 6 months but the defense attorney would be…

Linus isn't wrong. She made two directly conflicting statements in press releases, which is what he pointed out. The first, which she made at the outset of the case, was that he was facing 35 years if convicted at trial. They make statements like this in order to foster plea discussions, which resulted in the 4-6 month offer she mentioned in the second statement. While this would be considered extortion in any other…

> they make statements like this in order to fosterlea discussions

Not publicly they don't. It's a press release for the media, and it's a statement of fact - the judge is free to sentence up to 35 years regardless. You can hardly expect this press release to contain the private details of an ongoing attempt to agree to a plea bargain.

Re: undefined

#38

Post by jacquesm »

infoseckid wrote: post #17

At least Linus commented on this very sensitive issue. Not sure why PG has not said anything publicly when he knew and has worked with Aaron during Reddit.

(1) this is not the first brilliant young hacker that PG has lost to suicide and knew closely

(2) this must have hit PG like a freight train, I barely knew Aaron and I'm still reeling from it

(3) if and when PG speaks is up to him, he's certainly not under any obligation

Re: undefined

#39

Post by bambax »

dustin wrote: post #18

For all the posts saying Linus is wrong, which he may well be technically, consider this from a layman's perspective. Ortiz recently: "At no time did this office ever seek ... maximum penalties under the law." Justice.gov previously: "SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison..." At a minimum it's a bad PR screw-up on their part and they're backpedaling because their "make us look tough" press releases have backfired. Mo…

Even outside of legalese, words have meaning.

Saying in a press release that Mr. Swartz "faces up to 35 years in prison" is not the same as actively seeking the maximum penalty. It's likely that the original press release was meant to add credibility to the prosecution, in the eyes of the general public -- to highlight that, in view of the law, what the defendant was charged with was no small matter.

I really don't see how those two statements are contradictory (much less a "lie")

- the defendant is charged with crimes that carry a maximum sentence of 35 years

- the prosecution offers a deal of 4-6 months

This whole affair is an immense tragedy but comments such as this one from Linus add an element of farce that it really doesn't need.

Post reply on HN