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

61–70 of 300 posts

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

#61

Post by Vivtek »

jacquesm wrote: post #21
anonymouz wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is obvious from this press release from the formulation "faces up to 35 years in prison", that they are simply quoting the maximum penality for the charges. The prosecutors press release says that they didn't intend to push for maximum penality. These two statement are perfectly compatible with each other.

I think those two statements are in direct contradiction with each other, and Aaron's lawyer is on the record that they were putting up a > 10:1 ratio for a plea bargain. So they may not have been seeking the technical maximum but they were definitely beating their drums quoting that maximum where ever they could. Now that that makes them look terrible they're backpedaling on that but there is enough documentation ou…

Ha. They're actually not contradictory, if you look at it like a lawyer. They never said to the court or to his lawyers that they'd seek maximum penalties. They said it to the press.

Jesus, that's slimy. I'd say Ortiz is still in denial about the fact that she just lost her chance at the governorship just for playing the game by the normal rules. Corruption sucks when it comes back to bite you.

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

#62

Post by tzs »

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...

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

#63

Post by [deleted] »

blablabla123 wrote: post #23
erichocean wrote: post #12

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. The absolute dishonesty of this statement has only further convinced me that firing this political appointee to prevent her from further harming citizens is the only appropriate action for our government to take.

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.

[deleted]

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

#64

Post by jacquesm »

wickedbass wrote: post #48
corporalagumbo wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Hey, I recognize what you're saying and agree with it. I too have been in that unfortunate and TERRIBLE cold cell once in my life and know what it feels like to have your freedom stripped from you (and mine ended up costing 10k+ in the end). No one will ever know why Aaron killed himself fully, and that is unfortunate. Most of us only learned of him fully through his suicide. When I watch youtube videos of the guy, h…

> It's hard to imagine that he wasn't smart enough or brave enough to truly ask the community for help.

He did.

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

#65

Post by jasonzemos »

intended wrote: post #34

So Ortiz' message is that - this is my job I fight for the law, and I agree that its over the top, but it is what it is. Change the framework and I'll do what it says. The law (edit: and system ) is set up so that a "good prosecutor" would work to prove Aaron was guilty of breaking those laws. The final sentence, which is the responsibility of the Judge would have to take account of everything especially his motivati…

There's an old saying that a good prosecutor will convict most guilty men, and a great prosecutor will convict a few innocent ones too. That's how these machines think. She's right only in that congress was stupid enough to give her any form of discretion at all.

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

#66

Post by lclarkmichalek »

rhizome wrote: post #9
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…

"...did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases." Scapegoating Congress now, she is truly shameless in invoking the Nuremberg Defense.

Does some other body write laws? It's 100% justified to criticize congress if you actually want to change things; a prosecutor can only prosecute for violations of the law.

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

#67

Post by lclarkmichalek »

Maxious wrote: post #20
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…

> "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." http://watchdogblog.dallasnews.com/2013/01/read-the-full-cou... page 344 > Nothing in the wire fraud statute or the cases construing it provides constitutionally adequate notice that manipulating IP addresses, spoofing MAC addresses, and gaining access to a free electronic communi…

The statement says as much: "Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the judge". However, it's a little bit of a stretch to say that the prosecutors were seeking 30 years from the statement (there may be other statements that give information to the contrary).

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

#68

Post by jychang »

thomasz wrote: post #54
rhizome wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases." Scapegoating Congress now, she is truly shameless in invoking the Nuremberg Defense.

Can we please not Godwin this?

Strictly speaking, we haven't Godwin'd this yet.

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

#69

Post by tripzilch »

anonymouz wrote: post #16
Maxious wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ALLEGED HACKER CHARGED WITH STEALING OVER FOUR MILLION DOCUMENTS FROM MIT NETWORK July 19, 2011 > AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a protected computer. If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution…

It is obvious from this press release from the formulation "faces up to 35 years in prison", that they are simply quoting the maximum penality for the charges. The prosecutors press release says that they didn't intend to push for maximum penality. These two statement are perfectly compatible with each other.

what about the "to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million" ?

and adding to that, his legal fees would have also cost millions?

everything about their stance said "we are going to destroy you, grind you to bits", with all the "up to this" and "maximum that", it seems like only the very luckiest outcome would have left him with his life and that of his family somewhat in tact.

apart from the legal fees, those would go down the drain regardless, just for buying the chance to fight back.

can someone explain that to me btw, I've heard it a few times, but how can legal fees become so exorbitantly high? In other cases I've heard about numbers like $100k, which is also crazy high, but normal for the US, but for Aaron's case I've heard numbers quoted like "millions in legal fees", how is it possible that those legal fees are suddenly 10x more than the already high numbers I normally hear about? Does the price go up because he's rich? What happens to people that cannot buy justice?

Being forced to sink a million dollars will ruin most people's lives as well. The worst part is, as legal fees, it's not even part of the punishment, officially. As an individual, $100k is a tough pill to swallow, but a debt you can work yourself out of over the years.

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

#70

Post by jacquesm »

thomasz wrote: post #54
rhizome wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases." Scapegoating Congress now, she is truly shameless in invoking the Nuremberg Defense.

Can we please not Godwin this?

He's not Godwinning this at all. Claiming superior orders is exactly what the Nuremberg defense was all about, it is simply an accurate association. Just because something happened in relation to WWII does not automatically mean that any reference to it invokes Godwin's law, that's for inappropriate comparisons. This one is entirely appropriate as far as I can see.
Post reply on HN