Swartz prosecutor: We only pushed for 'six months' in the cooler
US attorney Carmen Ortiz, who led the fraud case against Aaron Swartz until his suicide last week, has defended her prosecution of the internet prodigy. Swartz, 26, took his life on Friday at his home in New York in the midst of a lengthy court battle that could have put him behind bars for decades. He was charged with computer …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Re: 'We were big softies all the way' - Yeah, right
"We really didn't mean it" is absurd.
This was blatant blackmail and it should be thought of as such. They might as well have held a gun to the kid's head. Being a felon has all sorts of implications beyond the trip to jail.
I challenge anyone trying to trivialize the prison sentence to go spend 6 months in a US federal prison NOW.
Otherwise, STFU.
Talk is cheap.
Re: 'We were big softies all the way' - Yeah, right
But it all depends who you pissed off.
If you say guessed my email password and posted my emails all over the internet I don't think I could get the cops to do more then had me a form to fill out.
Now if it's some politicians email account, and you make them look bad... off to jail you go.
@Turtle - Re: @austerusz
Easy, dude! That guy had permission to download those articles. If he would have downloaded them one at a time we would never had this discussion here. What he did was to download them much faster than normally using a script. 30 years in prison for faster downloading ? If you would know something about computers you will see there's something wrong with this.
Oh and Lawrence Lssig is a prominent law school professor so calling him trash speaks volumes about your IQ and education level, unless of course you too are a highly respected academic.
Ever heard sentence to run concurrently
The judge and prosecuter can and do call for concurrent sentences which mean that it can definetly be a 6 month sentence.
Re: @Turtle - @austerusz
There was a conviction for computer hacking in the UK
The person made a charity donation on a website, he didn't get a confirmation page so manually added "/.." to the address just to check that it wasn't a dodgy link.
He was found guilty and got a minor fine. Except he can't get a job now with a criminal record, can't travel to the US, gets his DNA in lots of police databases .....
Re: prosecutor ... can net 30 years,..., "I only expected him to get 6 months
That would be because you are unaware of the leniency of the US court systems. I would.
We routinely see lawyers on tv rack up the possible sum of time a defendant COULD serve if convicted of all charges running into hundreds of years. Then 4 years later when the pre-trial, trial, and appeals are done, the convicted perp gets 3 years less time served plus potential time off for good behavior and possible parole after 1 year of time served (which includes any time spent in detention prior to the trial).
Re: 'We were big softies all the way' - Yeah, right
It depends on what you mean by " lying".
IF exaggerating = lying THEN yes
Re: 'We were big softies all the way' - Yeah, right
Ah, so putting someone in jail for a "over 30 years" for a minor misdemeanor (of which the "victim" already retrieved the goods and didn't commence further charges in the first place) is nowadays called "good intentions"?
Funny how everyone is full of "good intentions" these days, yet the world is in a horrible shape.
Swarts had good intentions to distribute the retrieved documents for free...
Ortiz had the good intentions to put him in jail "upto over 30 years"...
Think I'm gonna hang myself now...
Re: Ever heard sentence to run concurrently
No, I don't think I have. Not in the USA, anyway. Of course I'm not familiar with all the cases decided, but in the high profile ones I've heard of it's normal for someone accused of, say, killing six people to get six consecutive life sentences, occasionally with an extra 100 years tacked on just in case.
Psychological extortion
Plea bargain is basically a form of (psychological) extortion. You just talk up the penalty and see what happens. The plea bargain system is corrupt in favor of the prosecution.
Re: Psychological extortion
Agreed - it is a means of coercing the innocent into pleading guilty, by threatening them with a massively disproportionate penalty if they have the cheek to say they are innocent and are then found guilty.
Appropriate?
Even though JSTOR had no interest in pursuing the matter?
Re: Appropriate?
JSTOR had no interest pursuing it as a civil matter. They had enough interest to pursue it as a criminal matter, though, or they wouldn't have reported it to the feds.
Criminals doing criminal things get criminal charges? ABSURD!
Everyone wants to point fingers at everyone else like they're responsible for any of the choices made by this guy, but at the end of the day, he's fully responsible for every decision he made. From breaking the law to ending his life, the entire onus is on him. What ever happened to owning up to your actions? Did Mitnick off himself because of a six month summer camp trip? Did Manning? What about Assange? The kid had problems that a slight case of prosecution didn't cause.
Re: Criminals doing criminal things get criminal charges? ABSURD!
I believe that most people are more disappointed at the apparent 2-tier justice system (UK and US).
We have international bankers, dealers, executives, all commiting massive financial crimes or safety negligence and they are never held liable. Perhaps a fine to the corporation, paid by shareholders/insurance/etc but never a suit in jail.
Yet the small fish, yes have broken laws, are prosecuted/hounded to the maximum. Extradited from countries where they have commited no offense. Arrested in illegal dawn raids, etc.
Its time for a 'fair' justice system. Either prosecute the executives in the same way as the rest of us, or the rest of us in the same way as the executives.
Re: Criminals doing criminal things get criminal charges? ABSURD!
@ Ian 62
Actually bankers do go down, even if their actions were legal at the time and the law written after - this was one of the issues on the Natwest Three.
Re: Criminals doing criminal things get criminal charges? ABSURD!
Errr have you ever actually read about Mitnicks time in custody ......
No I thought not
Assange recently ran away and cried like a girl,
Re: Criminals doing criminal things get criminal charges? ABSURD!
"Actually bankers do go down," - but not often enough, many would say. Bringing in an exceptional situation (the Natwest Three) doesn't really add to the argument.
More information
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/16/ortiz-heymann-swartz-accountability-abuse
Re: More information
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/16/ortiz-heymann-swartz-accountability-abuse
I read that, good article. The savage American "justice" system is politically-driven, in this case by Ortiz's political ambition.
And a good quote from Declan McCullagh, pointing out: "If Swartz had stolen a $100 hard drive with the JSTOR articles, it would have been a misdemeanor offense that would have yielded probation or community service."
@ Evan Essence Re: More information
And the UK "justice system" isnt? ahaha, dont make me laugh!
Ortiz is covering her ass and lying, Justice Department Clearly Overreached on this one!!
Folks,
Instead of wildly postulating, you should probably read some of the articles here: http://boingboing.net/tag/aaronsw (particularly those written by Cory Doctorow)
and here: http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartzs-crime/
And here; http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2011/07/articles/series/special-comment/aaron-swartz-computer-fraud-indictment/
That "Unhandled" page is by Alex Stamos who is well known expert in the cybersecurity business and who was going to testify on Aaron Swartz behalf in his trial. There is a wealth of info and links on that page.
In his considered opinion, there was no crime of trespass, nothing was "stolen" and Aaron even returned the documents he had downloaded back to JSTOR who dropped the charges and the Fed's continued the prosecution even though without Jstor pressing charges there can be no further prosecution.
MIT's network (wired or wireless) was open to all just like free wifi so there was no trespass.
The Fed's wanted a guilty verdict (remember that he won a case against them not too long ago and they had a grudge) and the piled on the charges threatening him with sentencing up to 35 years in prison if he did not accept a "guilty" plea of 33 charges but only 6 months in jail.
This is a common tactic in the US justice system where the cost (both mental and monetary) of fighting such a case will take a toll on the plaintiff to the point where they usually capitulate and take a guilty plea just to be rid of the problem.
The trouble is that people of principles like Aaron usually don't want to be tagged as guilty when they believe they are not guilty. This wore him down financially and mentally until something broke and he committed suicide.
Re: Ortiz is covering her ass and lying, Justice Department Clearly Overreached on this one!!
"Instead of wildly postulating"
[snip]
"This wore him down financially and mentally until something broke and he committed suicide."
So instead of wildly postulating, everyone should read a few blogs, write several factual paragraphs and *then* wildly postulate?
Re: Ortiz is covering her ass and lying, Justice Department Clearly Overreached on this one!!
Or, you could, you know, read the indictment and the statements of those involved.
Sorry to repeat myself, but then, so are you.
Re: Ortiz is covering her ass and lying, Justice Department Clearly Overreached on this one!!
Is that you Matt Bryant?
The fact that the links were to blogs does not lessen the credentials of those who wrote them.
The "indictment" is a complete fabrication of lies and deceipt. It has less worth than used toilet paper and certainly less worth than the "blogs".
Re: Ortiz is covering her ass and lying, Justice Department Clearly Overreached on this one!!
Still people keep emigrating to the "land of the Free"... fools.
I really believe that the public outrage for this suicide is pointing to the wrong person.
A civil servant has several duties, the first among them is to withhold the law.
Because of that, Mrs. Ortiz could not turn a blind eye to the acts of Mr. Swartz and let them slip under the radar.
The real problem, in my opinion, is that the law needs several adjustments to be really useful in protecting intellectual property while still allowing access to it.
So, if the Americans really are enraged by this sad story, please do something concrete.
Call, write or email your representatives and pressure them to change the law.
Stop complaining while doing nothing.
R
Please use other sources to research the actual case before posting more idiocy
R,
Screw the civil servants and these so called laws, Ortiz did what she did to increase her publicity and to guarantee a guilty verdict from an innocent man.
In the process, she alone decided to pursue the prosecution of a case that no longer had a plaintiff (Jstor) and used all of the resources of the legal system to put unneccessary pressure on Aaron Swartz.
That pressure killed him. There is no difference between her holding a gun to his head and pulling the trigger and what she did.
Murder charges would be too kind for her.
Hurrah!
Well said. You'll be downvoted like mad, of course, because the hounds have been released, h4xors=GOD and every person charged with implementing the law is intrinsically evil, and out for their own aggrandizement. Even the judge who would have sat this case has been maligned as a venal, corrupt, clever-person hater and he/she isn't even aware they have been placed in the crosshairs because the case hadn't gone to trial yet.
I find it interesting that so many people are linking Doctorow but none are wondering at why Cory the Great isn't defending himself in a similar action. Could it be he understands that illegal activities have consequences? That changing a law is best done by amassing a consensus than by breaking said law?
Oh well. Have an upvote for being the only person today who hasn't libeled the government and/or its legal representatives simply because they can.
Re: Please use other sources to research the actual case before posting more idiocy
"There is no difference between her holding a gun to his head and pulling the trigger and what she did."
Err, yes there is. There's quite a lot of difference. Are you nine years old?
Re: Please use other sources to research the actual case before posting more idiocy
@AC 15:58 GMT
The innocence of Mr. Swartz has not been proved, and sadly it will never be.
All that we have now are several opinions from different quarters, but not a legal ruling.
I don't know if there are political or personal motivations behind the acts of Mrs. Ortiz and nobody else but herself can know it.
If there are illegal or too far reaching acts from the side of Mrs. Ortiz, then there are legal ways to restrict them, but public lynching is not the method to ensure that they will not be repeated.
Your words about "no difference between her holding a gun to his head and pulling the trigger" are really too emotional to be worth considering.
I, personally, think that there was a violation of the law (maybe I'm right, maybe not).
But I also think that the law itself is wrong, unfair to the citizens and completely out of proportion in the punishments it allows.
Hence, my recommendation to the American citizens of do something about them.
R
Re: Please use other sources to research the actual case before posting more idiocy
R,
My words about there being no difference between holding a gun to his head and pulling the trigger are emotional for a good reason and are certainly worth considering. They are soley to bring attention to this tradgedy.
The prosecutor and the DOJ KNEW that Aaron Swartz was clinically depressed (because they were told). The fact that they knew of his mental state AND played psychological games with him in presenting plea deals then taking them away and back and forth at a minimum constitutes "Depraved Indifference" or Criminally Negligent Homicide" This because they used his weakness against him for legal advantage.
This torture resulted in Aaron being driven to suicide. I know how dark ones thoughts become under undue pressure and I'm still here to talk about it.
As a survivor, this is why this is subject is so concerning to me.
If you look through the Boston Globe you will find plenty of reasons to suspect Ortiz motives (such as she is trying become a candidate for Governor of Massachussetts and more)
That Swartz cannot have his day in court to prove his innocence is all the more tragic because that only happened for an attention seeking politicians personal gain.
The only recommendation that American Citizens need is to take back our government from politicians like Ortiz and others. Only then these unconstitutional laws can finally be repealed.
Re: Please use other sources to research the actual case before posting more idiocy
The "state" is the plaintiff in criminal cases - you can't bring a private criminal case against someone else, so it's irrelevant that JSTOR dropped their complaint - once the criminal case has been initiated, JSTOR was not a direct party to the case, except as a witness. As a Witness, their opinions are no longer relevant, only their knowledge of the facts of the case.
Re: Please use other sources to research the actual case before posting more idiocy
@AC 18:49
My words about there being no difference between holding a gun to his head and pulling the trigger are emotional for a good reason and are certainly worth considering. They are soley to bring attention to this tradgedy.
I'm sorry, you don't get to decide whether your words are "worth considering", at least not by anyone except yourself. As for "bringing attention" to this tragedy - good grief, it's had headlines on every media outlet in the world and a good fraction of all known blogs - how much more attention do you think you're bringing exactly?
That Swartz cannot have his day in court to prove his innocence... - is tragic, sure. But let's be honest - he was never going to "prove his innocence" in court, because he wasn't innocent. He broke the law, he knew he was breaking the law, and he knew there was plenty of evidence to prove he'd done it. The best, the very best that he could have achieved in court was to make a few speeches about how stupid the law is and how it needs to be changed, which might or might not have made a few rumbles of publicity but, let's face it, nothiing like what he's got now.
Civil disobedience is a fine and noble thing, but when you break the law you have to be prepared to face the consequences - no matter how just your cause. Thoreau knew that. So did Gandhi, and Solzhenitsyn, and Nelson Mandela, and Rosa Parks, and everyone else who ever achieved anydamnthing by those means. These people spent time - long time, in some cases - in jail for what they believed.
And if they hadn't been willing to do that, we'd never have heard of them.
Re: Please use other sources to research the actual case before posting more idiocy
So "veti" he wasn't innocent? Are you saying that in America you are now guilty until proven innocent? I thought you still had to have a trial first! I think you have been reading too many Judge Dread comics.
Re: Please use other sources to research the actual case before posting more idiocy
"Hence, my recommendation to the American citizens of do something about them."
Which is very hard to do if you know that the majority of American citizens votes have no meaning. That country is run by corporate greed, rich lobbyists that dictate/steer/bribe the course of governmental direction and political representatives that resemble more of flamboyant moviestars than actually pursuing the job that they're supposed to do (improve welfare for ALL American citizens)!
Just as in every western country I guess :-(
Re: Please use other sources to research the actual case before posting more idiocy
"...so it's irrelevant that JSTOR dropped their complaint..."
Which directly is the cause of this WRONG justice system!
JSTOR initiated the "case" and hence should be able to stop it as well. It starts there AND SHOULD END THERE! Period!
If JSTOR feels that no further actions are necessary to commence in this matter than that should halt the prosecution! Instead of this show down of incompetent administrative clerks with no regards for the consequences of THEIR actions!
Re: Please use other sources to research the actual case before posting more idiocy
... the only real thing he did was downloading documents way faster (using a script) than one by one. From a publicly available source. I (and so does many others) fail to see whats so criminal about that?
Those guys who caused the world wide economic bank-crisis got away with everything (including filled pockets) while something so trivial as this gets the prosecutors attention like he's a worldwide serial killer.
Double standards anyone?
Re: Please use other sources to research the actual case before posting more idiocy
Veti, I get to decide anything I want, because I (for the time being) live in a country where I can say what I bloody well want to. Regardless of YOUR opinion, I know my words are "worth considering". As far as bringing attention goes, there have been a lot of people that agree with the viewpoints I have put forth so again some meager value to my words and more folks that know about this case.
Aaron Swartz was not guilty in the opinions of quite educated people that I have linked to. That their opinions were read by more people is all I can ask for as the more that hear the real truth about this case, the better.
This case has never been about any crime, it has always been a Department of Justice vendetta against Aaron Swartz because he was an Internet & Copyright Freedom Activist, he legally downloaded 20% of PACER database (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) and they got put on the Internet for free and he was one of the people responsible for helping to shoot down SOPA/PIPA.
The PACER case was the real reason why DoJ wanted to make an example out of Aaron Swartz on the MIT JSTOR case The electronic court record system is all based on public information but sat behind a paywall and Aaron used trial free access to the system and used a similar script to download about 20% of all of the court records. Though investigated by the FBI, no charges were filed.
More details are here: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/10/swartz-fbi/
The PACER case was extremely similar to the latest MIT/JSTOR case.
At a minimum, civil disobedience is the LEAST thing that can be done to counter the outright lawbreaking that the DoJ did and continues to do. Mental torture is no different than physical torture and perhaps could be a lot worse based on your state of mind.
Unconstitutional laws should never have been allowed in the first place, cases as tenuous as this one should never have passed a Grand Jury indictment.
"Call, write or email your representatives..."
These "representatives" of which you speak sound interesting. Unfortunately, I haven't got one - they gave me a "lawmaker". I'm sure he represents someone, perhaps the people with names starting with "Americans For ..." something that paid for all his campaign ads, except the one paid for by the US Chamber of Commerce.
Re: Please use other sources to research the actual case before posting more idiocy
> Judge Dread
* Dredd *
Vic.
> A civil servant has several duties, the first among them is to withhold the law.
No. A civil servant's duty is to uphold the law, not withhold it for personal political gain.
Well done for spotting the obvious typo and playing into it.
She wasn't going to recomend 6 months; so not even her husband believes her. I say that because earlier this week, he (an IBM exec) launched a tirade on twitter about it (http://blogs.bostonmagazine.com/boston_daily/2013/01/15/carmen-ortizs-husband-twitter-aaron-swartz/), saying the PLEABARGAIN was for 6 months. When he turned it down, then Ortiz said they'd push for 7, which matches the rest of the claims.
Oh, and the INITIAL indictment was for 35 years max, with just the 5 charges "wire fraud; unauthorized access to a protected computer system; reckless damage to a protected computer system; aiding and abetting; criminal forfeiture"
Ortiz added more charges recently, upping it to 13 charges, and 50+ years max.
Even if...
... Even if she hadn't pushed for more than 6 months, it's up to the judge and the jury to decide the appropriate figure.
And even the judge could overrule the jury's amount, so all her promises and statements are worth nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Re: Even if...(You are completely Naiive)
The Federal Prosecutor is ALWAYS involved in sentencing recommendations on Federal cases. By the way, all plea bargains have to be accepted before trial starts or they no longer matter and he could have gotten 35 plus years if there was a real trial. FWIW, the "Judge" does get to make sentencing reccommendations and also set the framework for the Jury to decide the case.
Who do you think "recommends" who becomes a Judge? Federal and State Politicians do.
This topic is closed for new posts.
