Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out • Hacker News Board

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#71

Post by raldi » Sat, Jan 19, 2013, 9:50 PM UTC

NickNameNick wrote: post #43

raldi wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No-one got hurt. No damage was done. If a burglar is sneaking out of a house with a sack of stolen goods, and the police catch him and return everything to the owner, you'd still consider that a crime, right? If so, then you agree that situations where nobody is hurt and no permanent damage done can still be crimes.

If a user gets caught leaving a library with photocopies of public, published documents, would you consider that a crime too?

No, but I don't see how that's relevant to my point.. which was merely that it's possible for a person to commit a crime without harming anyone or doing damage.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#72

Post by pvaldes » Sat, Jan 19, 2013, 9:51 PM UTC

cardamomo wrote: post #4

This is a very intelligent, informed summary of the mounting case against the prosecutors. The author minces no words when describing Ortiz' and Heymann's strategy of charging Swartz with a battery of preposterous charges with the express intent of making any action except accepting a plea bargain (and thereby pleading guilty to all charges) the only reasonable approach: "[T]hey assumed that the risk of their success…

"The process was fundamentally corrupt and shameful. But observers of the American criminal-justice system also know that it was a common one."

And it seems to be pretty common,

This is another example, a marine biologist bullied and with her life destroyed for "feed the whales". The history and treatment of this girl by another "Ortiz" really sucks.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083331/Marine-biolo...

"Ms Black could receive a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a half million dollars in fines. Each of the feeding charges carries a maximum penalty of a year in prison and a $100,000 fine."

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#73

Post by cwp » Sat, Jan 19, 2013, 9:52 PM UTC

tedunangst wrote: post #40

thoughtcriminal wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mother Theresa once said that when she looked upon the many she could do nothing, but when she focused on the one, she could do something. The same applies here. Someone needs to be held accountable. Change needs to start somewhere.

Someone needs to be held accountable. Ortiz is someone. Therefore...

What, you have someone else in mind? Or maybe she's just an innocent victim here, a well-meaning prosecutor working for justice, who just had the bad luck to lay charges against a popular but suicidal trouble maker and is now being scapegoated?

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#74

Post by cabalamat » Sat, Jan 19, 2013, 9:52 PM UTC

malandrew wrote: post #19

Vivtek wrote: post #6

I agree with the sentiment here, but some of the specific claims are certainly wince-worthy. College prank? Greatest prodigy of his generation? Little to no commercial value? All those claims are a lot more complicated than that! Not to mention it makes it sound like Ortiz was cooking this all up behind closed doors and everyone else was shocked! shocked! to realize how the "prosecutorial misconduct" had gotten out o…

This is probably the most worrying issue with this article. It places the blame on two individuals who are characterized as out of control instead of a system that is out of control. The entire system needs to be held accountable and corrected and those highlighted as having benefited their careers through this widespread misconduct should be individually held accountable just like individuals were held accountable a…

> Participation in a corrupt system and going along with the corruption is acceptable for peons, but not for people are high up in the DoJ as Ortiz and Heynmann.

I agree. They should have everything possible bad happen to them. Both to ruin their lives -- which is what they deserve -- and to make them an example for others.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#75

Post by philwelch » Sat, Jan 19, 2013, 9:53 PM UTC

danbmil99 wrote: post #33

Interesting note -- the WSJ editorial report (a Fox show I doubt most HN folk regularly catch) had a segment on the Swartz case. One editor (Joseph Rago) came out strongly in his favor, speaking out against Ortiz and prosecutorial overreach. I think it was Sun Tzu who said, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It's important to realize there is still a strong strain of libertarian thought on the right, that is suppo…

I think that aside from a few very specific issues, no one supports civil liberties per se. They support civil liberties when their side doesn't have the presidency and oppose them when their side does have it. The real issue is executive powers, and you're obviously going to support more executive powers when your side controls the executive branch while opposing it when the other side would benefit from them.

This is why the exceptions tend to be cases where restraining civil liberties doesn't really help the President do as he pleases. For instance, the American left supports regulating and prohibiting gun ownership even under a Democratic president, while the right opposes it even under a Republican president. The same is true, in reverse, for abortion or gay marriage, with both sides split on marijuana. But when it comes to drones, wiretapping, Guantanamo, or federal law enforcement and prosecution, it's not a question of principle anymore but a question of empowering or disempowering the President and his Attorney General. Hence, conservatives will be angry at Janet Reno, but will stay mum about Ashcroft and Gonzales for eight years, or even be supportive, before coming out against Holder. Meanwhile, the actual civil libertarians haven't liked a single one of them!

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#76

Post by sparkie » Sat, Jan 19, 2013, 9:54 PM UTC

SagelyGuru wrote: post #29

Damage limitation action stations: 1) Protect and support Ortiz 2) If the going gets tough, throw Ortiz to the wolves 3) In either case, 'problem' solved, resume business as usual

#2 Most likely. Ortiz isn't important enough to the status quo to risk significant damage. By "unfriending" her, the state will appease the wolves, at least until the next victim appears - and they repeat the process.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#77

Post by MichaelSalib » Sat, Jan 19, 2013, 9:55 PM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #68

MichaelSalib wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

JSTOR sells access to its archive for $50K/year. That seems pretty damn valuable. I think that if Swartz successfully released the JSTOR archive, their entire business would have withered and died. Once you can buy a DVD on the street for $3 that held the entire thing, it gets harder and harder for university libraries to justify paying $50K/year. Their customer base wouldn't dry up overnight but over a few years, yo…

This is absolute bullshit. There is no way in hell any university in a developed nation would drop their subscription to JSTOR. JSTOR keeps them on the right side of copyright law, keeps itself up to date, and provides infrastructure that the vast majority of university users find essential. Individuals not affiliated with universities may find such a pirated collection useful, but such individuals currently make up…

Journals in the library + interlibrary loan keep them on the right side of copyright law. And many more expensive subscriptions provide universities with access to parts of the JSTOR archive. What's more, there are no university copyright investigations to fear: no one is going to force grad students to prove that they legally obtained every paper they ever read (how could that even work?), but even if they did, grad students have a perfectly legal explanation: they can just say they read/acquired their documents from the library and no one can prove otherwise.

Universities aren't stupid; they know there's no threat from dropping JSTOR and they can count to $50,000 all too well.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#78

Post by clicks » Sat, Jan 19, 2013, 9:56 PM UTC

fatbird wrote: post #63

Natsu wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which statements, specifically, do you see as being unrealistic? Edit: I'd like to know what the downvoter is thinking, too, but I wonder if I'll get any answers.

Greatest prodigy of his generation is one such example of hyperbole.

He authored the RSS spec at age 14. He may not be the greatest prodigy, but as far as I can tell he's one of the greater prodigies. I do not think it is a hyperbole at all to label him the 'greatest prodigy' of our generation.

He made great contributions in the effort of making information free, with his work on the commons and all. That is a profoundly big endeavor that pushes humanity forword, do not be so quick to look past that.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#79

Post by anonymouz » Sat, Jan 19, 2013, 9:57 PM UTC

I've rarely read a more sensational and one-sided piece. At this point, the bending of facts to serve the idealization of Swartz and the demonization of Ortiz starts to seem like nothing more than throwing gasoline into the fire of an enraged lynch mob.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#80

Post by pvaldes » Sat, Jan 19, 2013, 9:58 PM UTC

pvaldes wrote: post #72

cardamomo wrote: post #4

This is a very intelligent, informed summary of the mounting case against the prosecutors. The author minces no words when describing Ortiz' and Heymann's strategy of charging Swartz with a battery of preposterous charges with the express intent of making any action except accepting a plea bargain (and thereby pleading guilty to all charges) the only reasonable approach: "[T]hey assumed that the risk of their success…

"The process was fundamentally corrupt and shameful. But observers of the American criminal-justice system also know that it was a common one." And it seems to be pretty common, This is another example, a marine biologist bullied and with her life destroyed for "feed the whales". The history and treatment of this girl by another "Ortiz" really sucks. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083331/Marine-biolo... "Ms…

After six long years of accusations and demands that Nancy plead guilty to crimes she did not commit, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) out of Washington, D.C., went before a secret grand jury. Without any opportunity for Nancy or her attorneys to present evidence or cross-examine the prosecutor's witnesses, the DOJ attorneys obtained on January 4, 2012 an indictment charging Nancy with two felonies and two misdemeanors in the process of doing her research on orcas and operating a whale-watching boat.