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

Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

harpers.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 270 posts

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#131

Post by raldi »

tzs wrote: post #107
DanBC wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No-one got hurt. No damage was done. If I have to chose between "prank" or "federal crime" I'm going with prank. 'Pranks' have a history in political activism - see La Barbe or Pussy Riot or others.

Wouldn't MIT losing all JSTOR access for several days count as damage done? Given MIT's research focus and its size, it is hard to imagine how that could not have disrupted the work of a lot of researchers.

There's also the potential for harder-to-measure future damage. For example, when an organization like JSTOR approaches a publisher and tries to work out a deal that will allow university patrons access to one of their collections, a major factor in whether the publisher agrees is whether their data will be safe from scraping. When someone does scrape a large portion of it through just one of these arrangements, the publishers get spooked and less likely to make them in the future, and the end result is that the general public ends up with less access to knowledge than they had at the start.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#132

Post by MichaelSalib »

Natsu wrote: post #130
MichaelSalib wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that vengeance can be satisfying, but it means sending a message. And the message that US attorneys are going to hear is "don't fuck with young affluent white hackers with powerful friends". I never met Swartz, but I'd be surprised if he'd have wanted his legacy to be people that look like him getting a pass while everyone else suffers the same as before.

Most here would prefer that they take home a lesson not to throw the book at people who are trying to make things better. I think it's been pointed out that he's popular (and thus, has "powerful friends") because they sided with him in trying to do good and improve things. This is a far cry from someone using their celebrity status to flout the law for personal gain, which is the sort of thing one usually condemns. >…

Most here would prefer that they take home a lesson not to throw the book at people who are trying to make things better.

Swartz thought that JSTOR was an illegitimate institution and he thought that justified him doing whatever he wanted to them. Why should prosecutors respect his moral judgments in that regard? He thought the law was wrong...so you think prosecutors should assume that everyone who thinks the law is wrong is "trying to make the world better"?

I get that lots of people here agree with him: they think JSTOR is awful and they think they're entitled to do whatever they want to JSTOR, the laws be damned. But why should prosecutors believe that?

that's why Reason magazine (among others) has endorsed Aaron's law to at least fix one part of this.

I believe that "Aaron's law" wouldn't have made any difference in his case at all.

I've seen people propose minor tweaks, but none that would have made a real difference for Swartz. And I've seen a lot of incredibly vague proposals that boil down to dramatically weakening prosecutors' power in criminal cases. But these are jokes: they're so vague that no one could ever advocate for them or they're politically impossible (Congressman, I write you today to urge you to make it harder for federal prosecutors to offer plea bargains for less than 1/5 the maximum sentence they're seeking).

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#133

Post by ucee054 »

MichaelSalib wrote: post #124
ucee054 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Swartz's actions would have been an "attack" on a research archive, which the article classifies as having "little" commercial value (and Swartz wasn't profiting, it was civil disobedience). The Reuters news for yesterday lists the LIBOR scandal, which was an "attack" on financial data. The fine alone, for UBS alone, was $1.5Billion . Now that's what I call "serious commercial value". JSTOR, not so much. Do you want…

Swartz wasn't profiting, it was civil disobedience As I've explained above, I don't think Swartz was trying to profit from this scheme. But I do think he was trying to destroy significant financial value (yes $50million/year is significant for me). And from a legal perspective, that's extremely serious. Now that's what I call "serious commercial value". JSTOR, not so much. So if I rob a bank and steal $30 million, th…

"99% of all crimes are small potatoes compared to LIBOR"

I doubt that you can show me that Swartz's "crime" was somehow doing more damage than 99% of all crimes.

I doubt that you can show me that it was doing more damage than 51% of all crimes.

In fact, I doubt you can show me that it was significant at all in the grand scheme of things.

What Swartz allegedly wanted to do is something similar to sticking a Windows ISO on BitTorrent.

If you think that's "extremely serious" or worth comparing to a bank robbery, this conversation is over.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#134

Post by ucee054 »

anonymouz wrote: post #103
ucee054 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enraged lynch mobs are why you have democracy and justice systems and human rights rather than the Diktat of the King, which is what we used to have before enraged lynch mobs.

It is a fallacy to assume that just because some lynch mobs took part in an effort with ultimately positive outcome (it took much more than a mob to establish democracy or justice systems), all, or even most, of them are positive. A vendetta against a prosecutor, carried by hugely one-sided, unreflected and self-reinforcing blog-posts does not even come close.

But a vendetta against a prosecutor because people are fed up with plea bargain abuse DOES.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#135

Post by geuis »

pekk wrote: post #87
MichaelSalib wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that vengeance can be satisfying, but it means sending a message. And the message that US attorneys are going to hear is "don't fuck with young affluent white hackers with powerful friends". I never met Swartz, but I'd be surprised if he'd have wanted his legacy to be people that look like him getting a pass while everyone else suffers the same as before.

There is no reason to suppose that this will be taken as a reason not to prosecute white people . The specific act and its context are clearly more important.

I'm not following your train of thought. What does "white people" have to do with anything?

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#136

Post by DanBC »

monochromatic wrote: post #116
DanBC wrote: post #26

> Heymann responded by saying “Fine, we’ll lock him up.” Cruel and barbaric. This comment is horrifying. Many people commit suicide in prison. Being under suicide watch reduces, but does not eliminate, the risk. (I know someone who was under "level 2 observation" (a member of staff within arms reach at all times) in a MH hospital. They managed to self harm so severely they needed to be transported to a general hospit…

On the other hand, if saying "my client is suicidal" got defense attorneys anywhere, the only result would be that suddenly every criminal is suicidal.

Ideally you'd have mental health hospitals with a variety of security levels. Some of those hospitals are for people who pose no risk to others and who have never been involved in offending behaviour. Other hospitals are forensic, are part of the criminal justice system, and take people who are mentally disordered offenders. You have different levels or different wards - wards for people who pose a serious risk of harm to others; wards for people who pose little risk of harm to others but who are really ill and who would otherwise be in jail.

In the UK prisoners have a sentence. They serve the sentence, and then are released. A prisoner who develops a severe mental health problem is transferred to a secure[1] mental health unit (a forensic unit). They stop being a prisoner and become a patient. They get returned to jail when they are well. Some criminals are ill at the time of the offending behaviour, and get sent straight to secure hospitals. These people do not have a sentence. They just have to convince people that they're well. And once they've done that they get returned to jail to continue serving their sentence. So being a patient means things like forced medication, and a lack of information about when you're going to be released or what you need to do to get out.

I take your point though. I hope I haven't suggested that people can use mental ill health as an excuse for offending behaviour.

[1] Secure is a jargon word here, meaning units for people with some police involvement. There are plenty of locked wards, but they don't get called secure units. And there are 'section 136 places of safety' which used to be police cells (still are in many places) but which should really be somewhere therapeutic / clinical. (Section 136 is used by police to take people who are 'mad in public' to a place of safety to be assessed by a doctor.)

EDIT: Wow, wall of text. Sorry.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#137

Post by DanBC »

GHFigs wrote: post #120
ucee054 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were you making that point in the abstract, or were you, I don't know, in a thread of comments on an article about Aaron Swartz?

He was responding to a comment making the argument that something cannot be a crime if no damage is done and no one is hurt. He even quoted the as much of the comment he was replying to. Please, please, please , pay attention to context before accusing someone of ignoring context. It makes it very difficult for people to have nuanced debates about complex events if nobody is allowed to isolate a part of the problem i…

> cannot be a crime

I don't think I said that! I did say that if I had to chose between "federal crime" or prank that I'd chose prank. But if you extended the list to include misdemeanour or somesuch I guess I could see that.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#138

Post by DanBC »

erichocean wrote: post #61
jb17 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure Mother Theresa is a good example for anything, but regarding the general argument you are making here: There is a huge difference between helping one person (decreasing the general suffering by a tiny but attainable amount) and making one person an example (hoping this changes the status quo somehow).

I don't think anyone wants to make Ortiz an "example". Ortiz literally did not do her job. She over-prosecuted a case, apparently for personal advancement and DoJ-vendetta seeking, that was worth no more than a misdemeanor at best. Sure, it's a problem that "the system" allowed her to do so. But it's also a problem that she abused the system, destroyed a life, shows no remorse, and will likely continue to abuse the s…

The system didn't just allow her to do it, it encouraged her to do it. And not just her, but probably many others in positions like hers.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#139

Post by TDL »

tptacek wrote: post #98
asmithmd1 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Careful here. Any time you read a story like "government attempts to liquidate real property to fund police department", your first thought should be "that's not the whole story", because (for the most part) that's not how the federal government operates. So, some issues with this story: * This case is Sonya Rao, not Carmen Ortiz (though once again Ortiz oversees all the cases in her office). * The hotel is, let's no…

You might want to look into how civil forfeiture laws are used in the U.S. Furthermore, if you have such a problem with this property why don't you make an offer to the property owner and buy it? Shutting down someone's business & stealing their property because you don't like it is deeply immoral.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#140

Post by vacri »

MichaelSalib wrote: post #132
Natsu wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most here would prefer that they take home a lesson not to throw the book at people who are trying to make things better. I think it's been pointed out that he's popular (and thus, has "powerful friends") because they sided with him in trying to do good and improve things. This is a far cry from someone using their celebrity status to flout the law for personal gain, which is the sort of thing one usually condemns. >…

Most here would prefer that they take home a lesson not to throw the book at people who are trying to make things better. Swartz thought that JSTOR was an illegitimate institution and he thought that justified him doing whatever he wanted to them. Why should prosecutors respect his moral judgments in that regard? He thought the law was wrong...so you think prosecutors should assume that everyone who thinks the law is…

A relative of mine embezzled money from her family business, to the tune of high five-figures. If you don't take motivation into account, how should she be sentenced? She was found guilty and sentenced, but before reading further, what do you think should have happened to her?

If we take motivation into account (as the court did), does it change how you think she should have been treated by the court to know that she didn't keep a cent of the money herself, but spent it on giving food and clothes to homeless people, organising it herself rather than through a charity? She wasn't preying on the weak, she was misguided and trying to help society rather than get stuff for herself - and the law is supposed to be about protecting society.

Motivation is an important aspect of any crime, and prosecutors should be looking for appropriate sentences, not the harshest one they can make stick. Besides, his case is a focus point that gives an excellent chance to start looking for reform rather than sweep it under the carpet as 'business as usual' - because prison sentences in the US have exploded ridiculously in the past 20 years.

Post reply on HN