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

U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

blogs.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 300 posts

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#101

Post by toyg »

tzs wrote: post #62
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #5

> and did so reasonably. They still believe that? Sorry but they're unfit for the job. They need to go. There was nothing reasonable about their actions on this case. > a sentence that we would recommend to the judge of six months in a low security setting. Six months in jail for downloading files that were accessible to him? All he did was violate terms of service! Are we going to start arresting under-age Facebook…

These two links will clear up a lot of misconceptions you seem to have about this case. http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-agains...

Kerr does a textbook analysis of the facts, ignoring the particularities of this case. Not one but three (!) lawyers picked up Aaron's case, and all three failed to reach a plea bargain -- clearly the prosecution was more "motivated" than usual. Given this fact, the fact that in these circumstances a bargain is not actually binding for the judge, and the other fact that there was no interest in keeping Swartz happy post-sentence (no co-conspirators to turn, no further loot to recover etc), you can see why Swartz would not agree to just put himself in the hands of a Justice, and why the "six months" scenario was actually fairly unrealistic (and still disproportionate, regardless).

I also disagree with his view that (I paraphrase) "we shouldn't criticize special cases, we should criticize what goes on every day". Yes, we all agree that you shouldn't "be good" only at Christmas, but the reality of this world is that legislative bodies quite often (if not all the time) will only act on the impulse of particular cases. This is what is happening now, which is good. Also, I'm sure that not "every day" prosecutors callously dismiss proven suicidal tendencies in pursuit of career-enhancing convictions, if anything to avoid ending up in a mess like this -- except for Heymann, who clearly won't give two shits about the wellbeing of young hackers. One case is a mistake, two is a pattern, and Heymann and his boss should take responsibility for their behaviour.

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#102

Post by jacquesm »

temphn wrote: post #100
jacquesm wrote: post #7

> I must, however, make clear that this office’s conduct was appropriate in bringing and handling this case. That's why you assign investigations to independent entities, and that's why butchers aren't allowed to do their own health inspection. Whether it was appropriate or not is not for Carmen Ortiz to say. "The prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his ac…

Ortiz today: and they recognized that his conduct – while a violation of the law – did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases. Ortiz on 9/2012, adding 9 counts to the conduct that we learn "did not warrant...severe punishment": http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/aaron-swartz-felony... Federal prosectors added nine new felony cou…

> outright termination.

Can we change that to 'being fired'.

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#103

Post by vidarh »

corporalagumbo wrote: post #36
wickedbass wrote: post #3

While it is nice that she is passing blame to Congress, if it were only a "6 month low security setting" being discussed, why wouldn't Aaron have been told of this? Why the additional and ultimately 13 felony charges when he was MOST concerned with not being labled a felon. Why hold that 50 year sentence above his head with no HOPE in his own mind because he was left in the dark. "As a parent and sister", would you w…

When cops come across otherwise nice young white guys who believe themselves invulnerable or above the law and are doing stupid, impulsive things, their usual practice is to "scare them straight." So they get tough on them, tell them all of the awful consequences they're in for, put them in a horrible, cramped cell, maybe throw them in with some real nasty characters, and, above all, get their parents involved. It's…

> If you make them crush their self-confidence and make them feel like shit, they learn their lesson. They lose that blithe self-confidence and begin to realise they have to play by the same rules as everyone else. And then, they will hopefully turn into constructive, positive-minded members of society.

I don't believe there's any evidence at all that this on average has the intended effect. If there is, I'd love it if someone has a reference.

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#104

Post by blablabla123 »

jacquesm wrote: post #60
blablabla123 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have any proof for your statement? This 35 year (or 50 year) thing mentioned in many blogs might be questionable. To be frank I feel myself a bit fooled by this information, reading yesterday that 6 month have been proposed to Swartz. When talking about things as serious as death, we seem to assume that every information is depicted really carefully, but this is far from being true.

> This 35 year (or 50 year) thing mentioned in many blogs might be questionable. It's not just in blogs, it is also in DOJ press releases attributed to Carmen Ortiz, linked elsewhere in this thread.

I wonder where Ars Technica gets their information from...

"If convicted on all charges, he could have spent more than 50 years in prison."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/internet-pioneer-...

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#105

Post by keithpeter »

WhaleBiologist wrote: post #94
thoughtcriminal wrote: post #15

Prosecutors (and lawyers in general) are all about drama and story. Everything is amplified. Reality is distorted. It's worse than cable television. Ortiz framed a brilliant, selfless young man as a criminal who should be locked up behind bars. She and others inflicted mental torture on him until he couldn't bear to live any longer. She is no doubt a wordsmith, but she is not a nice person, no matter what the gullibl…

>Ortiz framed a brilliant, selfless young man as a criminal who should be locked up behind bars. Law is about drama? There's plenty of drama and hyperbole in your post. He broke the law. Which means he is a criminal. If you think the laws are retarded, then how you protest that is your prerogative. If you choose to protest by blatantly and purposely breaking the law, unless you are 99.999% certain that an obvious int…

"He broke the law. Which means he is a criminal."

I've refrained from posting here as I'm in the UK, not my issue &c but I do work with young offenders and adults in retraining &c.

'criminal' is not a 'type' or irrevocable condition. It is a social status that exists in the mind of people and state records, especially in this case with little measureable damage to anything or anyone.

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#106

Post by temphn »

thoughtcriminal wrote: post #15

Prosecutors (and lawyers in general) are all about drama and story. Everything is amplified. Reality is distorted. It's worse than cable television. Ortiz framed a brilliant, selfless young man as a criminal who should be locked up behind bars. She and others inflicted mental torture on him until he couldn't bear to live any longer. She is no doubt a wordsmith, but she is not a nice person, no matter what the gullibl…

More true than you might guess.

http://www.mainjustice.com/tag/carmen-m-ortiz

  A sense of pride has long been important to Ortiz who “knew 
  all along [she] wanted to be a lawyer.”

  “I never thought about doing anything else. Maybe it was 
  watching trials on TV, and thinking it was exciting to be 
  in front of a jury arguing a case. That fascinated me. (At 
  George Washington University Law School)
Read it in context if you want.

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#107

Post by glurgh »

thebooktocome wrote: post #85
gadders wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure - how do non-famous defendants without millionaire friends and that haven't sold a start-up fund their cases? He could try that.

They get incompetent public defenders.

Not at the federal level.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/14/us/14defenders.html?_r=2&#...;

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#108

Post by vijayr »

davemel37 wrote: post #71

"Under my coat is a weary heart, but a kind one-one that could do nobody harm." -notorious murderer two gun Crowley Unless you can improve on the silence, don't open your mouth... Before this statement I had hopes Ortiz had regrets...Now I know she doesn't...where did I leave my pitchfork?

Unless you can improve on the silence, don't open your mouth...

Well said

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#109

Post by rolux »

stef25 wrote: post #96
rolux wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz’s attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum penalties under the law." > Is a falsifiable claim. I'm looking forward to Aaron's lawyers' response to this statement. I agree with previous posts on the matter, which argued that the system of insane maximum penalties + plea bargaining is the modern, "civilized" version of inquisition, i.e. producing gui…

Of course they will threaten him with it but did he really think, or did his lawyers really tell him he would serve long years of hard time? I wonder if he ever considered the fact that even if he did serve time, he would always be seen as some kind of folk hero who would have been welcomed with open arms by all his peers upon release. It would have been a situation of him, all his peers and everyone he respects agai…

That's a question you'd have to ask his lawyers.

If you look at other cases, from the Pirate Bay to Wikileaks, you'll see that there are always options. Aaron didn't see any. I'd find it almost disgusting to make a judgement. Abstract reasoning can completely break down when you're facing a concrete, threatening situation. And the prospect of becoming "some kind of folk hero" may look very different if that's supposed to be you.

Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

#110

Post by sp332 »

temphn wrote: post #100
jacquesm wrote: post #7

> I must, however, make clear that this office’s conduct was appropriate in bringing and handling this case. That's why you assign investigations to independent entities, and that's why butchers aren't allowed to do their own health inspection. Whether it was appropriate or not is not for Carmen Ortiz to say. "The prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his ac…

Ortiz today: and they recognized that his conduct – while a violation of the law – did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases. Ortiz on 9/2012, adding 9 counts to the conduct that we learn "did not warrant...severe punishment": http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/aaron-swartz-felony... Federal prosectors added nine new felony cou…

Do you take a guarantee of 6 months in federal prison and permanent felon status?

This was never a guarantee. As she said, the judge makes the final determination. The DA's suggestion has a lot of pull with a judge, but the DA can't promise anything.

Post reply on HN