Live data from Hacker News

DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

pjmedia.com

21–30 of 96 posts

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#21
The actor I'm most disappointed in is MIT.

Right now, the DOJ is one of the targets of a massive scared-straight campaign by Beltway technologists. One of the worst kept secrets in the world is that US cybersecurity, outside of the military and the IC, is incredibly bad. If most civilian agencies were private corporations, they would have been sued dozens of times by users for negligence in data handling.

For those that understood the dangers of this lax security posture, for many years it was a game of railing into the wind about the potential consequences of continuing to ignore this attack vector.

Then, China got involved.

Suddenly, the dangers weren't speculative at all. They were right at our doorstep. And the same Cassandras that were on the outs for so long suddenly found themselves with the ear of every CIO in Washington. What followed was a massive purchasing binge, which is still ongoing, and a huge amount of advertising and mindshare devoted to this topic.

It was amidst the height of this cyber-scare that the Schwartz prosecution was brought. For Mr. Heymann, Aaron Schwartz was a huge target. A US hacker, caught in the act of stealing information worth millions, was a great prize for Mr. Heyman, his boss Carmen Ortiz, who has rather naked political ambitions, and her bosses in DC.

So why am I disappointed in MIT? Because the DOJ has never understood computer technology very well. MIT does. It was their job to educate the DOJ, to subordinate passion to reason, and to parse the difficult technological issues to explain the real lack of damage caused by Aaron Schwartz's actions.

MIT is supposed to be a guardian of our online rights and a cradle for technologists like Schwartz. It should have been on the forefront of the opposition to Mr. Heymann, demanding that charges be dropped. Instead, they threw him to the wolves. And now, in one final insult, they ask the courts for special leave to screen documents in order to hide their involvement with the prosecution.

I hope the individuals involved know that they abandoned a sacred trust, tarnished the name of a great institution, and negligently contributed to the death of a brilliant young man. I hope they know that they weren't "just doing their jobs," that they didn't "follow rules and procedures," and that no one buys their excuses anymore.

I hope that at least one of the administrators responsible has lost even one night's sleep over Mr. Schwartz's death. But, knowing the disdain and disregard for Mr. Schwartz that these hired bureaucrats expressed while he was alive, I doubt it.

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#23
post #17
post #9

This story makes me wonder what would have happened if the Watergate scandal would have happened in the age of the Internet. Would the Internet rally in favour of Richard Nixon's impeachment and against his subsequent pardon? Would impeachment proceedings still take place irrespective of the pardon because of massive public support?

Urrm, you seem to be under the impression that impeachment does something more than remove someone from office (technically it doesn't even do that, if the House impeaches then the Senate holds a trial, which happened with Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's VP, and Bill Clinton). All Ford's pardon did was to prevent vengeful Democrats, some holding grudges going as far back as 1950, from criminally prosecuting him. It allowed…

>All Ford's pardon did was to prevent vengeful Democrats, some holding grudges going as far back as 1950, from criminally prosecuting him.

So while we're in agreement that Nixon was a criminal, you're saying he should not have been prosecuted...because people had other reasons to dislike him beyond his criminal acts? I fail to see how allowing Nixon to escape justice allowed the country to Move On. It demonstrated to the public that in fact, there are different classes of people in this country, and the powerful simply aren't subject to the same laws as the commoners.

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#24
Aaron was also involved in some groundbreaking software development for political activism [1] [2]. I find it extremely easy to believe that someone in the DoJ saw that and decided to make an example out of him to dissuade other "hacktivists."

[1] http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/stron...

[2] https://github.com/naomifox/mass-email-delivery-code

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#25
post #20
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and criminals routinely abuse it. There is a "right" for the prosecutor to prosecute a crime, too.

Prosecutors have power to prosecute, not the "right" to prosecute. The evolving history of individual rights is a response to the even longer history of abuses of those powers by little people that get big jobs. Ortiz and Heymann abused their power and abused Aaron's rights. They should be in jail, not getting a paycheck from taxpayers.

Oh, you're right about natural rights vs. granted powers. And I agree the prosecution went way too far, although Ortiz [edit: not Heymann] must have been shocked at the outcome since she literally got commendations for going way too far before. https://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/201...

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#26
post #19
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh please, tell me how criminals "abuse" their right to trial.

A stalker can demand to face their accuser, just to harrass that person more. This is exactly the example given in the article: if you're trying to make trouble for someone, dragging them through a lawsuit is effective.

What, so you think stalkers should not have a right to a fair trial? They are using their right, not abusing it. They don't lose that right just because the accuser is not interested in seeing them.

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#27
post #8
post #5

This article makes the prosecution sound much more reasonable than other articles I've seen before. "The prosecutor’s response was that it disturbed him whenever a defendant ‘systematically re-victimized’ the victim, and that was what Swartz was doing by dragging MIT through hearings and a trial." The trial must have seemed like a deliberate waste of everyone's resources, when (from the prosecutor's view) Aaron would…

nope, it doesn't at all - it makes the prosecutor seem like a petulant child - they didn't get what they wanted (Swartz to quietly, meekly give in), so the pulled out the big guns and bullied him until he committed suicide.

I dunno. When I'm going 65 in a 45 and I know I'm dead wrong, when the cop only gives me a ticket for my broken tail light I don't give them a hard time. I would fully expect that if I gave the officer the finger he'd give me both tickets. The prosecutor probably felt he was doing the kid a favor and got snubbed. I'm not saying it's right, just saying there's more than one side to the story.

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#29
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Urrm, you seem to be under the impression that impeachment does something more than remove someone from office (technically it doesn't even do that, if the House impeaches then the Senate holds a trial, which happened with Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's VP, and Bill Clinton). All Ford's pardon did was to prevent vengeful Democrats, some holding grudges going as far back as 1950, from criminally prosecuting him. It allowed…

>All Ford's pardon did was to prevent vengeful Democrats, some holding grudges going as far back as 1950, from criminally prosecuting him. So while we're in agreement that Nixon was a criminal, you're saying he should not have been prosecuted...because people had other reasons to dislike him beyond his criminal acts? I fail to see how allowing Nixon to escape justice allowed the country to Move On. It demonstrated to…

Because in no way would justice have been served. The stringing up of one gang leader by another gang would not have provided the country safety, security, recompense, or even resolution - It would have started an all out war, the one we're now seeing in politics.

Re: DOJ Elevated Its Charges Against Swartz Because Internet Rallied on His Behalf

#30
post #21

The actor I'm most disappointed in is MIT. Right now, the DOJ is one of the targets of a massive scared-straight campaign by Beltway technologists. One of the worst kept secrets in the world is that US cybersecurity, outside of the military and the IC, is incredibly bad. If most civilian agencies were private corporations, they would have been sued dozens of times by users for negligence in data handling. For those t…

One of the worst kept secrets in the world is that US cybersecurity, outside of the military and the IC, is incredibly bad.

Not sure why you're excluding Mil/IC here, in light of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden, did you mean to restrict your point to Internet-connected devices?

Post reply on HN