Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

unhandled.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 95 posts

Re: The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

#81

Post by Peaker »

CJefferson wrote: post #76
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So in a best case scenario, let me repeat that - best case scenario, here we're going to take a delicate genius and put him into jail where there's a 7% chance of being sexually assaulted for about 5-10 years? Look, you can judge him how you please, but don't tell me about about how horribly Turing was oppressed if you won't accept guys like Swartz got the same treatment. Can you imagine working on a startup, clearin…

I really don't like this argument. Being a delicate genius. , or head of a startup, doesn't mean you get a "get out of jail free" card. It should be completely irrelevant. Now, I don't think the laws Swartz broke are fair. But you seem to be implying he should of hot special treatment because he was special. That is not how the law should work.

Apparently he broke very minor laws, though, that don't even imply any jail time.

Re: The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

#82

Post by jebblue »

>> The JSTOR application lacked even the most basic controls to prevent what they might consider abusive behavior

Was he allowed to download the documents? It doesn't matter what controls were in place. The question is basic, did he get something he was not authorized to take?

Re: The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

#83

Post by rprasad »

temphn wrote: post #73
rprasad wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) A bad check is a state level offense, not a federal offense, and the discretion afforded to state and local prosecutors is far greater than the discretion afforded federal prosecutors (though federal prosecutors have broader powers). 2) They may have prioritized murders and rapes over crimes, such as bad-check-passing, that can be remedied in a civil courtroom. That's generally what happens when state and local bu…

Please stop posting this misinformation about federal prosecutors lacking discretion. It is a completely false statement. "The USA [US Attorney] is invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority." http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit... The United States Attorney, within his/her district, has plenary authority with re…

It is necessary for you to actually read the citations referred to by that page (which is just a general summation, not an authoritive declaration on the authority of federal prosecutors), since federal criminal statutes generally do not give "plenary discretion" to federal prosecutors. See ISAM 9-2.020 (The United States Attorney is authorized to decline prosecution in any case referred directly to him/her by an agency unless a statute provides otherwise.)

This is why the law is complicated: you cannot read a law in a vacuum; you must read it in conjunction with all other laws bearing upon the same issue.

Re: The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

#84

Post by rprasad »

zaidf wrote: post #69
rprasad wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) A bad check is a state level offense, not a federal offense, and the discretion afforded to state and local prosecutors is far greater than the discretion afforded federal prosecutors (though federal prosecutors have broader powers). 2) They may have prioritized murders and rapes over crimes, such as bad-check-passing, that can be remedied in a civil courtroom. That's generally what happens when state and local bu…

3) HIRE A LAWYER. Winning a case against him in civil court for passing a bad check is pretty much guaranteed to spawn a criminal case because you'll have handed the prosecutors their case; they won't have to redirect many resources away from serious crimes. 1. Guaranteed? Man already has multiple suits and judgements against him in civil court in past few years in addition to having servdd time years ago for a simil…

If that's true, then I think you need to follow up with the authorities, i.e., by sending your website to the California state Department of Justice, which has the authority to investigate these matters, or else to the consumer protection agency.

Unfortunately, there have been a great many scams like this in the past 4 years and this guy may have just slipped through the cracks as a result of staff cutbacks.

The authorities will likely be grateful to you for any assistance you can provide them, i.e., by helping them locate other victims.

Re: The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

#85

Post by zaidf »

rprasad wrote: post #84
zaidf wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3) HIRE A LAWYER. Winning a case against him in civil court for passing a bad check is pretty much guaranteed to spawn a criminal case because you'll have handed the prosecutors their case; they won't have to redirect many resources away from serious crimes. 1. Guaranteed? Man already has multiple suits and judgements against him in civil court in past few years in addition to having servdd time years ago for a simil…

If that's true, then I think you need to follow up with the authorities, i.e., by sending your website to the California state Department of Justice, which has the authority to investigate these matters, or else to the consumer protection agency. Unfortunately, there have been a great many scams like this in the past 4 years and this guy may have just slipped through the cracks as a result of staff cutbacks. The auth…

Do you think authorities at the state level would be more receptive than at the county level?

Because I've been trying at the county and city level and after sending many victims to ring up the investigators, little has come out of it.

I always thought at the state level my chances are even bleaker of getting their attention.

Re: The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

#86

Post by hso9791 »

ghshephard wrote: post #2

I wasn't aware the closet was unlocked. And apparently used by a homeless guy to store his stuff. So, even the bare minimum real crime that I thought he was guilty of (Breaking into a closet) which is a crime serviceable by community service in this context - turns out not to have occurred. I've been sad all morning. Reading this article just makes me angry.

There is something about this case that makes me feel an injustice has been done. Not by Aaron Swartz, but by the apparatus investigating and prosecuting this case.

Sadly, I wonder how frequent these witch hunts are in the USA. The Larsgard story is another, prime example of how misconstrued the narratives of prosecuting attorneys can get - without any risk to their own career.

(Edit:) This is just one out of a few, key reasons that I do not want to visit nor work in the USA. The risk that one may get to pay for some a..hole's political aspirations.

Re: The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

#87

Post by temphn »

rprasad wrote: post #83
temphn wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please stop posting this misinformation about federal prosecutors lacking discretion. It is a completely false statement. "The USA [US Attorney] is invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority." http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit... The United States Attorney, within his/her district, has plenary authority with re…

It is necessary for you to actually read the citations referred to by that page (which is just a general summation, not an authoritive declaration on the authority of federal prosecutors), since federal criminal statutes generally do not give "plenary discretion" to federal prosecutors. See ISAM 9-2.020 (The United States Attorney is authorized to decline prosecution in any case referred directly to him/her by an age…

You said in many different posts that federal prosecutors in general lack discretion, that their hands are tied. This was a false claim. And you may be the only person in the world who holds this view; I don't think anyone else (Democrat, Republican, prosecutor, or defender) would make this claim.

Now you are arguing that the specific statute at issue did not allow Ortiz and Heymann to decline prosecution. That is a completely different contention, thought it is also false, as it is hard to think of something more subject to prosecutorial discretion than the 1984 CFAA:

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ninth-circuit-scales-back-c...

  The Nosal opinion expresses grave concern that the broad 
  reading advocated by the government could criminalize much 
  innocuous activity. In particular, the Court notes that 
  the phrase "exceeds authorized access" appears in another 
  section of the CFAA, § 1030(a)(2)(C), which has no 
  requirement of fraudulent purpose, and requires only that 
  the person who "exceeds authorized access" has "obtain[ed] 
  . . . information from any protected computer" (i.e. any 
  computer that can connect to the Internet). The 
  government's view, the Court feared, could "make every 
  violation of a private computer use policy a federal 
  crime."
Obviously most such cases are not being prosecuted by US Attorneys (discretion!). Yet this is exactly the interpretation that is being relied upon in the Swartz case, that violation of JSTOR's policy was a federal crime. Moreover, general opinion is that CFAA is due for Supreme Court review due to the circuit splits in interpretation. Any federal prosecutor who doesn't want to be overturned by the Supreme Court had plenty of excuses for dropping this prosecution, over and above the obviously unjust nature of the case. Ortiz and Heymann decided nevertheless to take that risk to append a "cybercriminal" conviction to their CVs.

In short, you are just factually wrong here that the federal prosecutors have no discretion in general (your first claim), or that they had no discretion with respects to the statutes at issue here (your second claim).

Re: The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

#88

Post by tome »

rprasad wrote: post #61
darkarmani wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The prosecutor was just doing her job. If that is the case, then she is BAD at her job. You can't have it both ways. Either way, let everyone know that she is either bad at her job or overzealous.

As a former criminal defense attorney, I will say that based on what has been published about her on HN and other websites she's actually very good at her job as a prosecutor , precisely because she is overzealous. In fact, if her fellow prosecutors are to be believed, she's one of the best federal prosecutors still working for the government--after all, she runs the Boston federal prosecutor's office, easily one of…

Just out of curiosity, what are the other three of the top 4 most prestigious postings a lawyer can hold in the executive branch of the federal government?

Re: The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

#89

Post by drzaiusapelord »

CJefferson wrote: post #76
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So in a best case scenario, let me repeat that - best case scenario, here we're going to take a delicate genius and put him into jail where there's a 7% chance of being sexually assaulted for about 5-10 years? Look, you can judge him how you please, but don't tell me about about how horribly Turing was oppressed if you won't accept guys like Swartz got the same treatment. Can you imagine working on a startup, clearin…

I really don't like this argument. Being a delicate genius. , or head of a startup, doesn't mean you get a "get out of jail free" card. It should be completely irrelevant. Now, I don't think the laws Swartz broke are fair. But you seem to be implying he should of hot special treatment because he was special. That is not how the law should work.

I don't think you undersstood my post. Its a justification for suicide, not a plea for special treatment.

There are few scenarios where I imagine killing myself and being given a long jail sentence is one of them. While this sounds dramatic, I have given this a lot of thought and accept it as something I would do.

>That is not how the law should work.

Lots of judges consider the crime and background of the convicted. There's a reason why a lot of white collar crime guys get minimum security or home incarceration.

Re: The Truth About Aaron Swartz's "Crime"

#90

Post by daniel-cussen »

Peaker wrote: post #81
CJefferson wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't like this argument. Being a delicate genius. , or head of a startup, doesn't mean you get a "get out of jail free" card. It should be completely irrelevant. Now, I don't think the laws Swartz broke are fair. But you seem to be implying he should of hot special treatment because he was special. That is not how the law should work.

Apparently he broke very minor laws, though, that don't even imply any jail time.

The prosecutor was seeking jail time.
Post reply on HN