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

191–200 of 270 posts

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#191

Post by rhizome »

MichaelSalib wrote: post #62
moxie wrote: post #54

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 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.

And the message that US attorneys are going to hear is "don't fuck with young affluent white hackers with powerful friends".

If as I hope this gets the CFAA entirely repealed, then yes, I'm fine with the message being that if a law is abused that the entire law under which they're trying to build careers can be swept out from under them. If Ortiz and Heymann have to work corporate contracts for the rest of their careers, that will be fine with me.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#192

Post by pvaldes »

aw3c2 wrote: post #123
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.

Mother Theresa let people die slow, horrible and unnecessary deaths. You should never use that person as a good example for anything really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Criticism

> Mother Theresa let people die slow, horrible and unnecessary deaths

Instead to, err... dispacht them quick and efficiently?

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#193

Post by mpyne »

rhizome wrote: post #188
mpyne wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* "Aaron was just violating TOS" * "They were pushing for 35/50 years in prison" * "This is just like using my neighbor's Wifi" * "They were trumping up charges to make an example of Aaron" (before you downvote, read Kerr's posts). * "They were aiming for harshest possible sentence" * There was also the very nice individual who doxxed Ortiz, who I'm sure is a fine representative of all that is right with hacktivism.…

Your quotes are selective, so I hope this doesn't just devolve into people battling their own predilections through their HuffPo/Drudge filters. There's lots to be said for the entire process. As for depression, the federal case is the only part that is any of our business, and is the only part (that I know of) that provides some commonality of experience and results, as the feds can come after any of us for whatever…

> As for depression, the federal case is the only part that is any of our business

If by "business" we mean keeping our brightest minds around to drive progress on the difficult issues of our times then we absolutely must take a holistic view.

If by "business" we simply mean advancing the goals of hacktivism then a focus on depression would certainly not help, I agree.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#194

Post by mpyne »

jhart3333 wrote: post #189
mpyne wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So basically, charge someone with something ridiculous, and then be offer a sweet sweet deal, such as "only 6 months jail time and confess to 15 felonies. Oh and if you want to go trial it will cost you and your family years of drama, all your savings, and risk 50 years in prison". The charges weren't ridiculous. If Aaron wanted to avoid the trial he could simply have avoided repeatedly breaking into MIT's open net…

> The charges weren't ridiculous They were according to a retired federal judge: http://www.wbur.org/2013/01/16/gertner-criticizes-ortiz-swar... from the article: "She says she was troubled by much of what she learned and saw from the bench before leaving in 2011. And she says Ortiz should not have prosecuted Swartz." ... When asked if she was referring to the bad judgement of Carmen Ortiz, Gertner responded, “That’s…

Oh look, I can find a convenient mouth piece too (one who has defended a famous CFAA case, no less):

http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/

http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-agains...

You might instead argue that the law is ridiculous (e.g. I would agree that Swartz's conduct is not serious enough to warrant a felony conviction).

You might argue that there were certainly other cases which were more deserving of a U.S. prosecuting attorney's time (though I don't know how we would confirm or refute that). But the charges themselves are well supported by the indictment.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#195

Post by mpyne »

ahna wrote: post #187
mpyne wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trying to throw every possible crime at someone no matter how tenuous in order to extort a plea bargain or get just one to stick to improve your prosecution record is an obvious distortion of the original intent of the system. Except that a grand jury has to sustain that the charges are at least "better than tenuous". Once the case is resolved one way or the other the defendant can't be tried for it again (Constitu…

> Uh, plea bargains are the #1 way the system is made more "expedient", you can't have your cake and eat it too. Feel free to continue putting words into my mouth about "sanctioning miscarriage of justice" though. What the heck. Forcing plea bargains on 96% percent of accused is just so we can be "expedient" for the other 4%? How does that make sense? Other countries get by just fine without plea bargains. Maybe we c…

> Forcing plea bargains

I'm not sure that we agree on the meaning of the word "forcing".

> Other countries get by just fine without plea bargains.

Yes, I'm often reminded of how pathetic the United States is. But with that in mind those other countries have different concepts of the legal system (the vision of what it accomplishes, the policies, everything). I'm not here to claim that the U.S. legal system is 100% appropriate to the task, but instead that the prosecutors are going to the job with the resources that they have. If Congress significantly reduces the category and criteria of what counts as crimes by getting rid of the stupid stuff then great, but that's not the system the prosecutors are in now.

> Maybe we could get expedience by, you know, focusing prosecution effort on serious crimes or ones that actually have victims.

Do you have any specific cases in mind involving serious crimes or crimes with more deserving victims (since apparently MIT doesn't count) that were not prosecuted due to the resources needed being assigned to the Swartz case?

> You might want to read up on how plea bargaining is viewed in other countries.

Please don't take this the wrong way but I don't operate my life based on opinion polls. If I'm right, then I'm right, and if I'm wrong (which is certainly possible) it won't be because Bjørn and Herr Müller have different opinions about what plea bargaining is and is not, it will be because I'm wrong.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#196

Post by twoodfin »

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…

apparently for personal advancement and DoJ-vendetta seeking

What's the evidence for that?

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#197

Post by twoodfin »

pvaldes wrote: post #80
pvaldes wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 misdem…

You apparently don't know very much about how the criminal justice system in this country works: All indictments come from "secret" grand juries where only the prosecutor presents a case.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#198

Post by jessaustin »

ahna wrote: post #187
mpyne wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trying to throw every possible crime at someone no matter how tenuous in order to extort a plea bargain or get just one to stick to improve your prosecution record is an obvious distortion of the original intent of the system. Except that a grand jury has to sustain that the charges are at least "better than tenuous". Once the case is resolved one way or the other the defendant can't be tried for it again (Constitu…

> Uh, plea bargains are the #1 way the system is made more "expedient", you can't have your cake and eat it too. Feel free to continue putting words into my mouth about "sanctioning miscarriage of justice" though. What the heck. Forcing plea bargains on 96% percent of accused is just so we can be "expedient" for the other 4%? How does that make sense? Other countries get by just fine without plea bargains. Maybe we c…

What the heck. Forcing plea bargains on 96% percent of accused is just so we can be "expedient" for the other 4%? How does that make sense?

How is the prison industry to lobby for more prison-building if our current prisons aren't filled past capacity? If the accused are allowed their Constitutional right to a trial, we'll have to double the spending on courts just like we've doubled the spending on everything else!

Oh, wait...

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/exptyp.cfm

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#200

Post by noonespecial »

temphn wrote: post #94
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…

The press will never get everything 100% accurate, but let's look on the bright side. A week ago, many lawyers (example: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5052339 ) were assuring us that seeing any accountability for Ortiz and Heymann would be a "fantasy", that this wasn't the way things worked, that hackers had to wise up and embrace their impotence. That wasn't the way things played out. With this (as with the mo…

I saw something different. In the end I don't even care about if "hackers were right". I saw the fact that when enough people get upset enough about what their "representatives" are doing ostensibly on their behalf, they can cause real change, even if that change is just removing a single individual from office.

Those in office, even the appointed ones, really do need to care about what the people they represent think. I find that refreshing.

Post reply on HN