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

241–250 of 270 posts

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#241

Post by aw3c2 »

pvaldes wrote: post #234
aw3c2 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of treating their illness and making them not die.

Of course, well, but we are missing the point here. To care for all indian citizens and to treat its health problems (if possible) was not the duty of this woman. It is the duty of the indian government. The duty of the Republic of India and of all the hindi people. Yes, I agree that having a team of volunteers "cleaning the streets" and hiding ugly pictures is very "convenient" and is not solving the real problem he…

I think you misunderstood me. I did not mean to blame her for things she did not do in such a big sense, I meant her actions of neglect and letting people suffer who were her direct patients.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#242

Post by alexqgb »

eitland wrote: post #217
alexqgb wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No.

No to what? That corruption is the right word or that it has to be linked to some kind of bribery?

The latter. Consider embezzlement, for instance. That's a case in which a person abuses their position for personal gain without expecting payment from another. Abuse that festers in the wake of successful attempts to frustrate legitimate competition or oversight is also properly regarded as corrupt, since the system intended to prevent it has been (that's right) corrupted.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#243

Post by tunesmith »

dhimes wrote: post #231
pekk wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was 'the real problem' with the collapse, in your view?

People smarter than I will have to figure that out. I'm talking about fairly soon after, before any investigation, we had politicians (McCain, for one) blaming "excess greed." I think this is a straw-man. The people in that job get paid to be greedy. You can't blame that, you have at least recognize that a system (regulations and work flow) is broken if it is so obtuse that people can't even know what decisions are i…

I actually sort of see this as a real-life tragedy of the commons situation, although you kind of have to squint your eyes and wave your hands a bit to make it fit.

The "common resource" is the client opportunity. The Nash equilibrium is every employee maximizing their own bonuses. The group optimum is the health of the company. It turned out that the individual self-interest did not align to what was good for the health of the companies. And in fact, that if they had cooperated and worked for the health of the companies, the employees may have ended up with higher individual payouts. This is exactly what the tragedy of the commons is about, and it's what apparently shook Greenspan to his core. So basically, it was the (predicted (over and over again)) failure of Objectivism.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#244

Post by emkemp »

twoodfin wrote: post #197
pvaldes wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Adding to twoodfin's comment: Grand Jury sessions are not meant to be trials, and do not consider whether a felony allegation can be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt." Instead they address whether there is "probable cause" that a felony has occurred.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#245

Post by pvaldes »

emkemp wrote: post #244
twoodfin wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Adding to twoodfin's comment: Grand Jury sessions are not meant to be trials, and do not consider whether a felony allegation can be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt." Instead they address whether there is "probable cause" that a felony has occurred.

I'm not familiarised with the laws in your country, but I CAN see from here how the history sucks in large ammounts

I copy here a few more notes written about this case:

"Note that after six years of investigation and who knows how many taxpayer dollars down the hole, the DOJ is neither charging Nancy with harassing any whale on October 12, 2005, or any date since then. The indictment does not even allege that Nancy harassed any whale" (http://www.nancyblacklegaldefense.org/charges.htm)

Uh oh, "Ortiz boy/girl" in charge, you are shorting of ideas, think quickly...

Thanks god, whe have the 1001!

"When federal prosecutors can't muster enough evidence to bring charges against a person suspected of a crime, they can still use a controversial law to get a conviction anyway: They charge the person with lying.

The law against lying--known in legal circles simply as "1001"--makes it a crime to knowingly make a material false statement in matters of federal jurisdiction. Critics across the political spectrum argue that 1001, a widely used statute in the federal criminal code, is open to abuse. It is charged hundreds of times a year..."

...Nancy Black, a marine biologist and operator of whale-watching boats, recently became ensnared by 1001. When one of her boat captains whistled at a humpback whale that approached the boat a few years ago, regulators investigated whether the incident constituted harassment of a whale, which is illegal.

This past January (2012), Ms. Black was charged in the case--not with whale harassment, but with lying about the incident. She also faces a charge of illegally altering a video of the whale encounter, as well as unrelated allegations involving whale blubber. Together, the charges carry up to 20 years in prison. She denies all wrongdoing, including lying..."

This is is taken from an article in the Wall Street Journal about the aplication of 1001 to targets like Nancy when all other charges failed... ("For feds lying is a handy charge, Emshwiller and Fields)".

I strongly recommend its complete lecture to all interested in the Aaron's case. It is terrifying.

"...the law is so vague that harmless misstatements can be turned into federal felonies."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230329960457732...

link to the PDF (in case the other link fails) http://www.nancyblacklegaldefense.org/For%20Feds,%20%27Lying...

In short:

This IS a shame, to ask 20 years for "edit a video" is indecent, abusive and ridiculous, and somebody had to say it.

I hope never, ever, to have a law like this in my own country. To me, It's like a sort of legal torture to crush a target and force a confession, even from innocent people, and must be stopped.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#246

Post by lilsunnybee »

mpyne wrote: post #235
dchichkov wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> And in the meantime there has been very little commentary over the major (not only, but major) cause of this (untreated depression), presumably because that doesn't play into the agenda. Likewise there is little discussion on ways to amend CFAA to make it better-aligned with what we intuitively feel would be appropriate (because in the hacktivist mold the only good change would be to repeal CFAA entirely). Feel fr…

I never said it wasn't discussed, I said there has been very little discussion. And either way, Bob Swartz is not exactly a disinterested party here. I've lost a child to SIDS. I can guarantee you as a fellow parent who has lost a child that being able to point a finger at some person or persons who are responsible feels much better. You lose a child to something like SIDS or depression and you feel helpless, just ut…

Being charged with a felony is a life sentence in the US. You're forever part of an underclass of 'convicted felons', and your opportunities in life are greatly diminished.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#247

Post by lilsunnybee »

Volpe wrote: post #228
dchichkov wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> And in the meantime there has been very little commentary over the major (not only, but major) cause of this (untreated depression), presumably because that doesn't play into the agenda. Likewise there is little discussion on ways to amend CFAA to make it better-aligned with what we intuitively feel would be appropriate (because in the hacktivist mold the only good change would be to repeal CFAA entirely). Feel fr…

Seems odd to argue he didn't suffer from depression (despite his fathers words). Do people who aren't suffering from depression commit suicide? I'd always thought that (attempted) suicide was like the smoking gun for diagnosing depression?

Given the right circumstances, almost anyone can be made to want and try to commit suicide. Intense, prolonged isolation and other types of torture can cause that, but that does not mean anyone subject to such things has a depressive disorder requiring treatment. Sometimes the situation is the only problem.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#248

Post by Volpe »

lilsunnybee wrote: post #247
Volpe wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems odd to argue he didn't suffer from depression (despite his fathers words). Do people who aren't suffering from depression commit suicide? I'd always thought that (attempted) suicide was like the smoking gun for diagnosing depression?

Given the right circumstances, almost anyone can be made to want and try to commit suicide. Intense, prolonged isolation and other types of torture can cause that, but that does not mean anyone subject to such things has a depressive disorder requiring treatment. Sometimes the situation is the only problem.

I would challenge that... Julian Assange has faced a lot more isolation, much larger potential charges... And still lives...

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#249

Post by dhimes »

tunesmith wrote: post #243
dhimes wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People smarter than I will have to figure that out. I'm talking about fairly soon after, before any investigation, we had politicians (McCain, for one) blaming "excess greed." I think this is a straw-man. The people in that job get paid to be greedy. You can't blame that, you have at least recognize that a system (regulations and work flow) is broken if it is so obtuse that people can't even know what decisions are i…

I actually sort of see this as a real-life tragedy of the commons situation, although you kind of have to squint your eyes and wave your hands a bit to make it fit. The "common resource" is the client opportunity. The Nash equilibrium is every employee maximizing their own bonuses. The group optimum is the health of the company. It turned out that the individual self-interest did not align to what was good for the he…

That's an interesting take. I always thought that they didn't know that their actions would result in such disaster.

I worry about the same non-effect with the gun-law blitz we're seeing after Sandy Hook. I worry that we're not attacking the problem- which may have more to do with mental health issues than gun laws.

Re: Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out

#250

Post by mpyne »

visarga wrote: post #237
coderdude wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you but I think instead of lies it's likely ignorance or people blinded by emotion. Ever since Aaron killed himself people have been saying the most logically unsound things about this case and others. Such as: he was a hero, he didn't commit any crimes, others who did similar things were not criminals, copyright shouldn't even exist, MIT is evil for not not caring about the breach, calling other cases b…

> logically unsound things about this case such as ... he didn't commit any crimes Please consider the notion of civil protest. After all, this great country started by throwing the English tea overboard. To defend this view I would like to say that: 1. he was not personally profiting from the act 2. he was doing it for the betterment of society Illegal things are sometimes morally right, and legal things morally wro…

The most religious people refuse personal profit and earnestly and honestly believe they are doing it for the "betterment of society".

This is the logic that was used to colonize (er, "civilize") the "savages" of Africa and the Pacific.

So no, I refuse to subscribe to the idea that because he felt that it was better for everybody that it was his job to force it on everyone else.

You know what else the American colonists did to the English, right? They tarred and feathered them, burned down their houses, and many other forms of not-quite "civil" protest. And they did this in response to far worse transgressions than "those JSTOR assholes make me go to a public library to read this peer-reviewed literature I wouldn't know what to do with".

Post reply on HN