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

151–160 of 209 posts

Re: undefined

#151

Post by mpyne »

thetruthNow wrote: post #49

I tracked down Carmen Ortiz's personal information online. I'm sure she would love to hear from Us, The People who she represents, directly. Name: Carmen Milagros Ortiz DOB: 01/05/1956 Address: 20 Herrick Dr, Milton, MA This is how I found her info: 1. This article mentions that she's from Milton, MA: http://www.patriotledger.com/news/x655689172/Q-A-New-US-Atto... 2. Carmen Ortiz is married to Thomas Dolan according…

You personally may have destroyed any credibility amongst the general public that this "cause" ever had.

It quickly went from improving the legal system in the wake of the untimely suicide of Aaron Swartz to a frothing Internet lynch mob, complete with Guy Fawkes masks and now "doxxing" Federal prosecutors just like the mafia dons and drug lords of 25 years ago.

If you're trying to relate CFAA reform with kingpins and crime lords in the public mind, you've started off on the right foot!

Re: undefined

#152

Post by _ea1k »

paulsutter wrote: post #64
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…

If Linus said her statements were _false_, he'd probably be wrong. Both statements appear carefully crafted. If Linus said she made two _deliberate deceptions_, he'd be absolutely correct. Each statement exaggerates to suit the purposes of the context. But Linus said she lied. If you define lying as deliberate deception, he was right. If you think a lie must also be false, you can accuse him of sloppy English. But Li…

> But Linus said she lied.

Strictly speaking, he didn't.

"Compare these two statements - one from July 2011, one from yesterday, and tell me Carmen Ortiz isn't lying.."

Perhaps Linus' words were "carefully crafted" too. He didn't strictly say she was lying, but he sure did imply that she was deliberately deceiving.

You said:

"If Linus said she made two _deliberate deceptions_, he'd be absolutely correct."

Hmmm...

(FWIW, I think deliberate deception is the same thing as lying)

Re: undefined

#153

Post by frere »

What I am struck with is the complete and total waste of my tax dollars. Academic journals? Funded by, overwhelmingly, public funds? The only people who read these are academics and they get them through University libraries. The whole business model behind these journals is to get money from the authors (essentially tacking on their publication fee to the grant proposal, thus more suckling at the Federal teet). These publications should be free. I don't normally like the idea of law being written from the bench, but where the hell was the judge on this?

Re: undefined

#154

Post by edanm »

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…

There seem to be two camps on HN, on this issue and on the case in general.

One camp says: "The total penalty possible was 35 years. In general this scared Aaron Swartz. In specific Carmen Ortiz now saying that they weren't pursuing this penalty is a lie, since it was always a possibility."

The other camp says: "Forget the total that was theoretically possible. Every knowledgable person to talk about this case has said that Aaron would almost certainly have gotten only a few months jail time. And this is also what Carment Ortiz meant when she said 'We're only seeking a few months in jail'. Never mind the theoretical maximum that her office published, that's what was actually on the table".

It seems all the arguments here are about which point is "more true", but everyone seems to agree on the basic facts.

The only fact we don't know, is how much the potential, theoretical threat of 35 years in jail affected Aaron. And about that, no amount of internet arguing will help get to the truth.

Personally, I'm in the second camp - I don't see a reason to keep bringing up the 35 year figure, because I imagine that in a similar situation, I would be listening to the many people who know more than me telling me that 35 is not even close to a realistic possibility. And I certainly don't think it's lying for Carmen Ortiz to state the truth: her office did NOT seek the maximum penalty, and this was known to Aaron Swartz.

Re: undefined

#155

Post by adeaver »

_ea1k wrote: post #152
paulsutter wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Linus said her statements were _false_, he'd probably be wrong. Both statements appear carefully crafted. If Linus said she made two _deliberate deceptions_, he'd be absolutely correct. Each statement exaggerates to suit the purposes of the context. But Linus said she lied. If you define lying as deliberate deception, he was right. If you think a lie must also be false, you can accuse him of sloppy English. But Li…

> But Linus said she lied. Strictly speaking, he didn't. "Compare these two statements - one from July 2011, one from yesterday, and tell me Carmen Ortiz isn't lying.." Perhaps Linus' words were "carefully crafted" too. He didn't strictly say she was lying, but he sure did imply that she was deliberately deceiving. You said: "If Linus said she made two _deliberate deceptions_, he'd be absolutely correct." Hmmm... (FW…

Actually he pretty much did say she lied: "But having the involved US attorney then basically lie about it all in a very public statement"

Second paragraph

Re: undefined

#156

Post by reflow »

Millennium wrote: post #121

Sorry, but I can't go with Linus on this one. The purpose of that press release was to educate the public about the case, including the crime of which Swartz was accused, and stating the maximum penalty for the crime is part of that. It does not imply that the maximum penalty is being sought. Swartz was a talented man, no doubt about it, but he became a zealot, and zealots do stupid things. When he realized that he w…

Not sure if you are serious or just trolling.

JSTOR decided not to pursue with the litigation because they realized that Aaron had a point - it was not fair to lock up the wealth of knowledge and restrict access to the public who payed for them with their tax dollars, not because ZOMGAARONSWARTZ

Re: undefined

#157

Post by sixothree »

tveita wrote: post #147
downandout wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expect that any criminal defendant, including Aaron, would read her initial statement as "they're going to put me in prison for 35 years". Even as plea negotiations went forward, the implication was "plead this out or you will get 35 years". She made statements that only a lawyer could love - rife with plausible deniability for any responsibility they have in this mess. However, I think any reasonable person would…

> I expect that any criminal defendant, including Aaron, would read her initial statement as "they're going to put me in prison for 35 years". Absolutely not. I've been shocked to see how many geeks - including Linus, do not seem to understand the concept of maximum penalties. This is not an obscure lawyer technicality, this something you see in the papers every day. Journalists like to quote the "up to" numbers beca…

It sounds as if you're implying that it is not possible for him to have been found guilty and have gotten the maximum penalty?

Re: undefined

#158

Post by pacala »

MrScruff wrote: post #131
pacala wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed words have a meaning. If you issue a statement that "the defendant is charged with crimes that carry a maximum sentence of 35 years", then you inherently quantify the gravity of the defendant acts as a 35 year jail time crime. If, instead, you issue a statement that "we are seeking to put the defendant in jail for 6 months", then you quantify the gravity of the defendant acts as a 6 months jail time crime. The…

Consider an analogy. When we reason about the performance of algorithms, it's important to know both the worst case performance and the typical case. They're two separate bits of information.

Where is the on the record typical case statement? I haven't seen one yet.

Re: undefined

#159

Post by detst »

tveita wrote: post #147
downandout wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expect that any criminal defendant, including Aaron, would read her initial statement as "they're going to put me in prison for 35 years". Even as plea negotiations went forward, the implication was "plead this out or you will get 35 years". She made statements that only a lawyer could love - rife with plausible deniability for any responsibility they have in this mess. However, I think any reasonable person would…

> I expect that any criminal defendant, including Aaron, would read her initial statement as "they're going to put me in prison for 35 years". Absolutely not. I've been shocked to see how many geeks - including Linus, do not seem to understand the concept of maximum penalties. This is not an obscure lawyer technicality, this something you see in the papers every day. Journalists like to quote the "up to" numbers beca…

> I've been shocked to see how many geeks - including Linus, do not seem to understand the concept of maximum penalties.

And I'm shocked to see how many people misinterpret those geeks. We don't believe he was absolutely going to end up in jail for 35 years; we believe it was hung over his head to extort a plea deal, while remaining a real possibility.

> Journalists like to quote the "up to" numbers because they sound dramatic, and as a functioning member of society you need to know what that means and doesn't mean.

We're not talking about the concept; we get that. We're talking about a prosecutor that had large discretion in which, if any, charges to bring and brought multiple charges that had high maximum penalties for a reason. It's disingenuous to come back later and try to downplay the real charges with the real prospect of 35 years in jail, even if its real purpose was extortion.

It's easy to say "you need to know what that means and doesn't mean" until you're the one actually facing those penalties and financial ruin. I'm sure reminding you how the game works will be very comforting.

Re: undefined

#160

Post by mhb »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #11
anigbrowl wrote: post #2

Well, he's wrong about this. Quoting the maximum statutory penalty is the standard in news releases, but tells you exactly zero about the negotiations in attorney conferences. US attorneys don't write the press releases, those are done by the most junior lawyers and quote the statutory maximum because it's factual without giving anything away about the government's courtroom strategy.

They quote the maximum penalty to both seem hardcore on crime and to intimidate. Let's be honest about that.

Or to look merciful when they agree to a lesser sentence.
Post reply on HN