Earlier quoted context omitted.
He was accused of committing a felony. There's quite a difference.
Then he should have gone to trial.
Even a not-guilty plea would have left him ruined.
How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes
51–60 of 130 posts
Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I understand, he committed a felony and would most probably have been labelled a felon either way. I don't see this as a reason to tie up government resources in a trial whose outcome is basically a foregone conclusion. I do not endorse what he did being a felony . But that issue is only marginally relevant to the discussion of the prosecutor's behavior.
He was accused of committing a felony. There's quite a difference.
There's not always so much of a difference between those two things. If he did the things he was accused of doing that is a felony. There's little doubt that he did those things (the downloading and such) so he, in all likelihood, did commit a felony. Let's not focus too much on technicalities and semantics.
Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I understand, he committed a felony and would most probably have been labelled a felon either way. I don't see this as a reason to tie up government resources in a trial whose outcome is basically a foregone conclusion. I do not endorse what he did being a felony . But that issue is only marginally relevant to the discussion of the prosecutor's behavior.
most probably Which means "maybe." The government should have to fight for these things, not have them handed a victory through sheer intimidation in the form of a plea bargain.
And the government was fully prepared to fight for them. So . . . the world is as it should be at least according to the parameters of your previous comment.
Also, "most probably" indicates a bias toward true, where maybe is more like 50-50. I did not say maybe, I said most probably. All degrees of likelihood are not the same for me, so please don't replace my words. If you did want to reword what I was saying, "not certainly" or "not definitely" would have been more appropriate.
Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should look up Godwin's law. Once you understand it you'll also understand why few thinking persons will take your comment seriously.
I'm sure "thinking persons" would have considered this, but just in case: "Never forget". Godwin's Law wants you to. Worse still his "law" encourages the mocking of those who want say if they think something is getting a bit Nazi. Which you have done by implying a disconnect between his comment, thinking persons, seriousness and understanding. Why? Perhaps so no one dares point it out if it looks like its happening a…
> Look at it, it is Nazi in its self. Do and think as you are told.
Wow, what a silly take on it. The law's admonition is to not make a genocide out of a molehill. If that's Nazi and conformist, so is telling children not to fucking cry wolf. Nazis were bad, we get it. Not every policy you dislike can usefully be equated with the murder of millions of Jews and the subjugation of the European continent.
Particularly, this case of a prosecutor prosecuting someone under a lawfully passed rule bears scarcely more relation to the Nazis than to unicorns. That is why people bring it up when people Godwin a thread.
And, to be clear, no one here is telling anyone to stop talking about whether this was a prosecutorial abuse, or whether the law should be changed, or whether the situation was just.
Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
For accuracy's sake, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't need to "break in" to MIT's network. It's entirely open, no? At least last I was there.
Swarz evaded MAC address bans by changing his MAC address. Also, at once point, WIFI guests needed to agree to terms on a captive portal IIRC; this may not have been the case when he was active though. Finally, no one had blanket permission to plug arbitrary devices into the network. Physical access has always required permission, and, IIRC, agreeing to terms. Finally, just because a network is open does not mean you…
> Finally, just because a network is open does not mean you have permission to use it.
If it looks like a store and the door's unlocked their are unsettling consequence when it is considered appropriate to charge trespassing when someone comes in expecting to shop around.
If it is common understanding that MIT's net work is open and is used/viewed as a public resource with out MIT making it know otherwise then their are unsettling consequences if it is considered appropriate to charge a user with digital trespassing.
Now there have been several reports that the MIT network often unpoliced/regulated on purpose, and there are many other universities that have similar polices though most not as liberal as MIT's, so in this light I have not been able to see any arguments for digital trespassing as a strong argument.
Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes
#56Slightly less sinister hypothesis: aaronsw turned down a slap on the wrist plea bargain. The prosecutor charged the maximum because it is a waste of time to take a guy to federal court over a $20k fine and a year of probation. You know that maximum about malice, incompetence, etc.? I'm not saying I _know_ for sure but it strikes me that most people think they are doing good in the world and I don't get why this prose…
So either plead guilty to a felon and get a slap on the wrist, or due to some concept of 'wasting time' the prosecutor goes after the maximum of 30 years in jail? I guess you are write, we should give the prosecutor the benefit of the doubt and be angry with the system that creates such a situation instead.
> So either plead guilty to a felon and get a slap on the wrist, or due to some concept of 'wasting time' the prosecutor goes after the maximum of 30 years in jail?
I don't know the right answer to this question. On the one hand, it does seem wrong to send someone to jail when you were willing to give them probation if they bargained with you. On the other hand, if the bargain deal and the worst case outcome of a trial are identical, then why would anyone ever bargain? And therefore the justice system becomes even more expensive to maintain, etc. So I'm of two minds.
It is also entirely possible that the prosecution had no intention of asking for the maximum, but when you consider a trial as a negotiation-game, revealing that is also not something that you can do.
Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Swarz evaded MAC address bans by changing his MAC address. Also, at once point, WIFI guests needed to agree to terms on a captive portal IIRC; this may not have been the case when he was active though. Finally, no one had blanket permission to plug arbitrary devices into the network. Physical access has always required permission, and, IIRC, agreeing to terms. Finally, just because a network is open does not mean you…
> Finally, just because a network is open does not mean you have permission to use it. If it looks like a store and the door's unlocked their are unsettling consequence when it is considered appropriate to charge trespassing when someone comes in expecting to shop around. If it is common understanding that MIT's net work is open and is used/viewed as a public resource with out MIT making it know otherwise then their…
it is common understanding that MIT's net work is open and is used/viewed as a public resource
IT IS NOT. I'm an MIT alum. MIT is crystal clear that their network is private and people can only use it while following their rules. Seriously, does http://ist.mit.edu/mitnet sound like a free for all network where anyone can do anything to you?
Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As Lessig reported, the plea bargain would have meant pleading guilty to a felony Felonies can be expunged. See Randall Schwartz's case, for example.
Oh yeah, I guess a felony is no big deal then. How foolish of Aaron.
With respect, was there any problem with the felony besides his ego? I mean, I know people whose lifelong dream is to be a defense attorney. For those folks, a felony would be a huge problem since it would keep them from gaining admission to the bar.
Did Swartz have a similar issue? Or was he unable to bear the thought of being called names by that paragon of moral legitimacy known as the US government?
Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh yeah, I guess a felony is no big deal then. How foolish of Aaron.
With respect, was there any problem with the felony besides his ego? I mean, I know people whose lifelong dream is to be a defense attorney. For those folks, a felony would be a huge problem since it would keep them from gaining admission to the bar. Did Swartz have a similar issue? Or was he unable to bear the thought of being called names by that paragon of moral legitimacy known as the US government?
Being a felon seriously decreases ones ability to move internationally.
Re: How and why the US Justice Department over-prosecutes
#60Though the article brings up an interesting point for consideration, I found it relying more on inflammatory statements than anything else.
"The Justice Department was bagging obscenity law trophies by going after the poor, the suicidal, the insane, the cognitively impaired— because that's the way they rack up numbers and status. That's the way their fuel their careers at the Justice Department— not by taking on constitutional issues, or injustice, or fat cats who believe they're above the law."
I'd be interested in seeing numbers on whether defendants convicted of obscenity charges really do have a higher incidence rate of poverty, mental illness, etc. to back the author up.