Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is the hardest part. Ortiz is obviously disgusting, but she's not really different than anyone else in her position. These kinds of tactics are employed every day. So what do we do? I support the demonization of Ortiz purely on the level of revenge. In a world where we typically have no agency, it's satisfying to make someone like her uncomfortable. But on another level, it's frustrating that it's imposs…
> I support the demonization of Ortiz purely on the level of revenge. Yes and unfortunately we (everyone else) are trying to do the same "driving a tack with a sledge hammer". Hopefully, this will draw light to a bad judicial system, but also I hope it brings to light that public funded research papers should be public to everyone, for free. Since we do pay for the electricity, facilities, and salaries.
Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out
91–100 of 270 posts
Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out
#92I'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
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I support the demonization of Ortiz purely on the level of revenge. Yes and unfortunately we (everyone else) are trying to do the same "driving a tack with a sledge hammer". Hopefully, this will draw light to a bad judicial system, but also I hope it brings to light that public funded research papers should be public to everyone, for free. Since we do pay for the electricity, facilities, and salaries.
I had to go make sure that it was you and not me: it was "demonization", not "demonetization".
Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out
#94I 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…
That wasn't the way things played out. With this (as with the movement against SOPA/PIPA), we can see an embryonic new power arising in the Internet, a power which can drive mainstream media coverage which in turn drives political decision-making.
This week, at least, the lawyers' worldview was proven wrong and the hackers' worldview was proven right, in both the empirical and moral senses of the terms. Let's hope that continues.
Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out
#95I 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…
As far as the prosecution goes, here's some interesting explorations: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/19/the-fishing-expedition-...
Related: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/14/what-kind-of-fishing-tr...
And: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/19/the-six-week-delay-in-t...
Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know that "don't treat the symptoms! treat the root cause!" is a common, almost unassailable sentiment, but lately I've been thinking there are problems with it. In order for it to be completely ineffective to "treat the symptom", it rests on the assumption that successfully treating the symptom will have zero effect on the cause behind it. A good example of that is taking pain meds to mask the pain of a knee injur…
I agree with your point, but treating the symptom must be done in such a way that the problem is still seen to be a problem. Another case in point was when the banking collapse hit, 'leaders' blamed things like 'excess greed' and so on, and dodged the real problem (IMHO). I'm afraid of throwing Ortiz to the wolves, washing our hands and saying, "Well, that's that."
Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out
#97So serious question, what prevents Aaron's family from suing the pants off of the DOJ parties responsible?
Even without that rule, a tort law claim against Ortiz or Heymann would probably not succeed, absent some proof that their intent was to torment him emotionally. Lessig and bizarre bloggers like Danah Boyd seem to occasionally accuse them of that, but it all seems rather groundless.
Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Ortiz specifically has brought other cases that have made me furious. Check out this one where she is trying to seize a family owned budget motel. There is no complaint whatsoever against the owner, but about once every other year the cops bust some low-level drug deal. The motel is paid-off and owned by the son of the founder and is worth 1.5 million, therefore she saw an easy civil forfeiture target. She is out of…
* This case is Sonya Rao, not Carmen Ortiz (though once again Ortiz oversees all the cases in her office).
* The hotel is, let's not sugarcoat it, a blighted flophouse. Don't take my word for it; here's TripAdvisor ("ROOMS BY THE HOUR: Hookers, drug addicts, drug dealers, need I say more") complete with picture: http://tinyurl.com/ta-caswell and here's Yelp ("Please don't bring your kids here.") http://tinyurl.com/y-caswell
* The owners of the hotel were warned repeatedly by local law enforcement and an intervention of local hotel owners; specific measures were suggested to minimize the problems at this place and weren't taken; the hotel had no security, and its drug countermeasures consisted of a list of persons not to rent to again.
* The hotel owners made no policy changes after a methamphetamine lab was discovered in one of their rooms.
* The hotel owners made no changes after the dead body of a heroin overdose victim was found in one of their rooms.
* Drug deals weren't simply occurring at the hotel; the Tewskbury PD repeatedly discovered drug dealers operating full-time out of rooms in the hotel.
* The owners of the hotel repeatedly admitted under oath that they had continuing knowledge of drug crimes occurring on their premises, and had no policies to investigate the use of their rooms.
There are places like this all over America and they're all neighborhood blights that need to be shut down (hey, by the way, still think there couldn't possibly be a difference between an apartment and a room up for temporary let on Airbnb?).
If all we're saying is that civil asset forfeiture is the wrong means to shut them down, I'm with you. But this case does not make my blood boil the way it does for you.
Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#100Earlier 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…
You NEED access to journals and conferences if you are silly enough to become a research student (like I did) or even sillier and become a professional researcher. Also, there is no way on earth you can pay for it on a researcher's salary or stipend. Hence, the Universities and Laboratories are BLACKMAILED into paying for it on the researchers' behalf. (So the 50K/year thing applies to MIT, Harvard and a couple of ot…
And you have them, in dead tree form at every big university. Universities functioned long before JSTOR.
BLACKMAILED
If you think this is blackmail, you don't know much.
if you want to pretend that the 50K multiplies by the potential readership as "loss due to copyright theft"
I don't believe that at all. My point was just that the archive has serious commercial value. If you can license access to an archive for $50K/year, then saying it has "little or no commercial value" is obviously wrong, right?
J. Random Hacker might quite like to read a paper
He can always go to his nearest university library and go spelunking in the archival stacks looking for it.
his taxes paid for it after all
His taxes paid for JSTOR to dig up the paper journal, scan the articles, and pay data entry folk to type in metadata? Really? I don't think so.
But JRH would never pay 50K for it.
$50K/year is not the only price point being offered. You could always pay for individual paper downloads or you can get them free now.