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

171–180 of 270 posts

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#171

Post by d0mine »

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…

You're misrepresenting the article. It explicitly states:

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

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#172

Post by MichaelSalib »

betterunix wrote: post #161
MichaelSalib wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"But I do think he was trying to destroy significant financial value" Lock me up then, because I have been pushing people to abandon the academic publishing industry and share knowledge more freely for a while now. Since when should any of us care about what happens to those leeches? Is JSTOR's archive valuable for society? Not anymore because we have a much better way to spread human knowledge: peer to peer networki…

Since when should any of us care about what happens to those leeches?

Can you give me a list of entities for which copyright law no longer applies? Or do you think copyright law no longer applies for everyone?

Better yet, just give me a list of laws that I can now break with impunity, because you said so.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#173

Post by Roybatty »

It's useful to single her out because it makes it personal. And personal makes it emotional.

But the real problem is checks and balances. IANAL, so I'm curious what reviews are done on prosecutions at the federal, state, and local level in the US.

She played the typical game of "charge with multiple felonies, make 'em sweat, hope they don't want a trial because that is time-consuming, and hope they cop-a-plea"

That's just a big bowl of wrong (Jeff Garlin reference). The system needs to be revised so that prosecutors are ready to really go to trial...not this dog-n-pony show.

If there's one thing the US government should be doing for the people is checks-n-balances against itself.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#174

Post by malandrew »

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…

Totally agree. At the very least, she should fired, but definitely not in the name of revenge and not to make an example, but because she didn't do her job. Making an example of someone implies over prosecuting someone in order to discourage others. In some industries, certain acts bar you from working in that industry again forever. Lawyers can be disbarred. Doctors and other licensed professionals can lose their license to practice. The same should happen to any and every prosecutor that abuses their power for personal gain. Removing people for violating the responsibilities entrusted to them isn't "making an example", but simply removing any and all that shouldn't be practicing in a certain professional area because they don't adhere to the ethical standards of their position.

However, an investigation is merited to determine if Ortiz and Heynmann were willfully negligant in applying their tactics. The same way we hold other individuals accountable for harm caused by bullying, she may merit the same. My gut tells me that an investigation and possible trial would exonerate her of any criminal wrongdoing (unless some other over-zealous prosecutor treated her as she treated Aaron), but would leave her open to a civil lawsuit, which she probably deserves

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#175

Post by mpyne »

malandrew wrote: post #165
mpyne wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Motivation is an important aspect of any crime, and prosecutors should be looking for appropriate sentences, not the harshest one they can make stick. I don't think the prosecutors here would disagree. That's why sentences are pushed for (on both sides) based on what the motive behind the crime was. There was a plea bargain on the table for no jail time, which MIT rejected, and then later some number of months in j…

But that's part of the problem. US Citizens have a right to a trial by jury. It's one of the basic rights. If the prosecutor is abusing their power to deny that right there is something fundamentally wrong. 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 o…

> 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 (Constitutional 'double jeopardy') so the prosecutors have to bring any charges that can hold up (this is why Federal sentencing is wonky as well).

> Avoiding trials altogether because of the structure of the legal system is the wrong approach. Improving the expediency by which the legal system can provide justice is the right approach.

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.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#176

Post by jlgreco »

jmesserly wrote: post #151
mpyne wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I've seen more prevaricating (and sometimes outright lying) this week from the hackers than from the lawyers so I, for one, hope that the lynch mob ceases immediately.

Oh please. Wanting someone held accountable for their negligence and overreach is not a "lynch mob".

We live in a world were comparing government action to government action seen in 1930/1940s Europe is considered "losing the conversation" and is just met with screams of "but Godwin's law!", but where it seems to be perfectly acceptable to compare the public calling for the firing of a public official to a formerly widespread practice of brutally murdering members of underprivileged minorities.

When the comparison is made against governments, that is bad, but it is okay to make such comparisons against the people. Sickening.

The cause of this discrepancy is an unhealthy worship of the law and government that many people seem to have acquired.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#177

Post by mpyne »

ahna wrote: post #166
mpyne wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Motivation is an important aspect of any crime, and prosecutors should be looking for appropriate sentences, not the harshest one they can make stick. I don't think the prosecutors here would disagree. That's why sentences are pushed for (on both sides) based on what the motive behind the crime was. There was a plea bargain on the table for no jail time, which MIT rejected, and then later some number of months in j…

> The thing they were really trying to do was not have the trial, which is something I would expect them to do given the structure of the legal system. 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 yea…

> 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 network to access JSTOR. The charges (even the amended ones) were approved by a grand jury. The prosecutors were never pushing for 50 years in prison.

See, this is all part of what I complained about in my other comment about prevarication.

But either way, the point is kind of moot. Aaron chose to be in that situation, they didn't change the legal code just to suit him. Taking the plea would have been the smart thing but he was never under any obligation, as the sentence he would get in a jury trial would be based on the Federal sentencing guidelines (and his expensive attorneys could tell him that too).

Regarding the Sixth Amendment, plea bargaining is one of the tools used to ensure that those who do need jury trials have a chance at getting them expeditiously (or do you really think that Google really has a 5GB hard disk partition sets aside for everyone with a GMail account?).

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#178

Post by pekk »

MichaelSalib wrote: post #119
pekk wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In international relations, there's a whole literature devoted to signalling: looking at how states send signals to other states. There's a huge amount of evidence showing that the signals received are very often different from the ones transmitted.

The race of the defendant isn't a salient part of this. We don't have to wait for a black Aaron Swartz to act, on the far-fetched premise that the only thing that will be noticed by prosecutors was his color. This is a far-fetched idea.

Federal prosecutors are certainly intelligent enough to understand many of the factors which make this sensitive, including a suicide, internet backing, the specific alleged crime and the open access issue. Without deciding that the whole problem is that you can't prosecute white people. So many white people are prosecuted without fanfare that this would be an impossibly irrational conclusion to draw.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#179

Post by MichaelSalib »

TDL wrote: post #156
mpyne wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Furthermore, if you have such a problem with this property why don't you make an offer to the property owner and buy it? Maybe he pays taxes exactly because he expects that the government would do their job? No one person can buy up every piece-of-shit property and clean it up, that's the whole point of foisting that shit job (and it's certainly a shit job) on the government

I find it troubling that it remains acceptable to steal people's property on the premise that it is "blighted". This is nothing more that social engineering. Using violence to do away with something that you don't like is not morally acceptable.

Using violence to do away with something that you don't like is not morally acceptable.

Um...are you arguing that states are fundamentally immoral?

Because I'm fine with using laws (read: state violence) to do away with things I don't think are morally acceptable, like, murder, rape, child abuse, etc. Really, I'm totally 100% fine with it.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#180

Post by ucee054 »

MichaelSalib wrote: post #168
nitrogen wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me you are arguing four separate points: 1. JSTOR has a commercial value of $50mil/yr. This is a fair point, if that is indeed JSTOR's revenue (though "commercial" isn't exactly the right word to describe a non-profit organization's activities). 2. Aaron's intention was to destroy JSTOR. Unless you have another source beside the Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto[0] and the recent summaries posted online by…

There's a nice two step shuffle here. On the one hand, people say "JSTOR is keeping this vitally important knowledge away from THE PEOPLE!" and imply that Swartz was going to rectify that by releasing the JSTOR archive. Then, when I point out that releasing the JSTOR archive would completely undermine JSTOR's viability as a going concern, the same people argue that "there's no way that the JSTOR archive Swartz was go…

The 2-step shuffle is yours.

If Swartz's material had been released, J Random Hacker, who simply wouldn't have read any of the JSTOR papers before, would now read them. MIT, on the other hand, would still pay for them. Though I can see how Podunk Community College in ThirdWorldistan might not pay for it.

The same way that you can get pirate Windows now, and some 15 year old kid in Thailand does. But Goldman Sachs still pays for a license. But some dodgy outfit in Beijing might not.

The principle here is not a legal principle, it is an economic principle. It is called loss of earnings. Look it up.

Instead of whinging that Swartz was going to destroy a $50 Million business, admit that the loss of earnings he would have caused would have been ZERO.

More disturbing than your ignorance of Econ101 is how you are fixating on the cost of Swartz's "crime", excluding the wider social aspects including the deadweight loss imposed on society as a result of copyright lobbying.

It's like a hobbit-sized version of somebody complaining about how the cotton industry would shrink - the horrors! - if we were to stop slavery.

Post reply on HN