Carmen Ortiz's Husband Criticizes Swartz Family For Suggesting Prosecution Of Their Son Contributed To His Suicide

from the foot-in-mouth-disease dept

As we've stated over and over again, it's a bit simplistic to place the "blame" for Aaron Swartz's suicide on the federal prosecutors, led by US Attorney Carmen Ortiz and her assistant Stephen Heymann. It is still quite reasonable to question their activities, but suicide is a complex thing and going all the way there may be going too far. Still, you can understand why Swartz's family did, in fact, directly call out the US Attorneys given their hardline position on the case, and the stress that created for Swartz. Lots of reporters have been contacting Ortiz and Heymann and the US Attorneys' offices and have consistently been getting back a big fat "no comment." Some reporters are even upset that no one put President Obama on the spot concerning the Swartz suicide at Obama's recent press conference. But, the stance of the government has been to avoid all such questions.

However, some noticed that Ortiz's husband -- an IBM exec named Tom Dolan -- apparently felt no such restriction. He took to Twitter... to complain about the statement from the Swartz family and to further scold anyone who claimed that Swartz faced 35-years in prison. Amazingly, he chose to do this by taking on some "big names" in the tech and media world: Mitch Kapor, Dan Gillmor and the blog ThinkProgress:




Dolan has since deleted his entire account after he either came to his senses or someone suggested strongly that he think better of it. While you can understand his desire to defend his wife's efforts, the tweets aren't just somewhat offensive following Aaron's suicide, but misleading as well. To argue that the prosecution was fair because they offered him a 6 month plea deal is complete and utter hogwash. As many have pointed out, it doesn't appear that Aaron should have been facing any federal charges at all. The 35 years is completely relevant, because that's part of the hammer that his wife was using to pressure him into taking the 6 month plea deal so that she and her assistant could get a big headline about another "guilty" plea. To act like the 6 month offer is some sort of "leniency" is insane when you know the details of the case and everything else that came with it.

Dolan also -- conveniently -- ignores that the government supposedly told Aaron's lawyers that if he didn't take the deal, the next one they'd come back with would be worse, and that if the case actually got to court, they'd try to get the judge (notorious for strict sentences) to throw the book at Swartz.

The one thing that Dolan got right is that "35 years" probably wasn't accurate. But he had it in the wrong direction. The original four charges had a maximum possibility of 35 years. After Dolan's wife upped the charge count to 13, it was looking like the total could possibly be upwards of 50 years -- for a situation where Swartz didn't think he'd done anything wrong. In that scenario, the plea bargain is an insult, but the entire situation must be incredibly difficult. Dolan's response isn't just insensitive, but it's downright misleading.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 7:42am

    As we've stated over and over again, it's a bit simplistic to place the "blame" for Aaron Swartz's suicide on the federal prosecutors, led by US Attorney Carmen Ortiz and her assistant Stephen Heymann.

    Obviously they are not the only culprits. They are but a symptom of a broken system. However they should be held accountable because they played a fairly big role in putting a huge pressure upon Aaron and we can assume quite accurately that this was one of the factors that weighted in his decision to take his life.

    I don't blame the guy for trying to defend his loved partner. I don't blame Aaron's family for pointing fingers for losing a loved one too. The proper course of action would be resigning (both attorneys) and starting a comprehensive review of what leaded to this tragic outcome while attempting to fix it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The Infamous Joe (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 9:05am

      Re:

      However they should be held accountable because they played a fairly big role in putting a huge pressure upon Aaron and we can assume quite accurately that this was one of the factors that weighted in his decision to take his life.

      Held accountable *how*? What law would you charge them with?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        arcan, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 9:13am

        Re: Re:

        all of them

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          btrussell (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 6:47pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          They'd never get to trial. So many laws an Americas' books, they can't even count them.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Ninja (profile), Jan 17th, 2013 @ 2:25am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Manabi got it right. I'm not that good with English so I don't know if I expressed myself well. But losing their job is a good punishment (and not getting any high profile in the area in the future). I don't know if a criminal prosecution is the answer here. We need comprehensive discussion and review of the system to see what leaded to this outcome and maybe then we can start pointing culprits and punishments. It's clear to me those two went too far and need some serious "wrist slap".

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Manabi (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 9:21am

        Re: Re:

        Accountability takes different forms than just being charged with a crime. In this case the prosecutor (and her assistants if they went along all gung-ho) can be held accountable by losing their jobs. If they're doing their jobs poorly, they should be losing them in the first place, and if they're driving people to suicide, they most definitely aren't doing them properly.

        Of course for that to work they'd have to lose their jobs and also never be considered for such a high level position in the future. But that's part of the responsibility that comes with such positions: if you fuck up royally and ruin lives, your life/career may be ruined as well. People taking such positions know (or damn well should know) this is the case, so they have no room to complain when it happens.

        So basically they need to be "charged" with "doing a totally horrible job" and the remedy is losing that job.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 9:28am

          Re: Re: Re:

          True accountability takes many different forms. This is what we are seeing now on the web. The public is currently holding them accountable. Politically their future careers are now effectively over.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            dennis deems (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 9:52am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Why hasn't Obama already called for their resignations?? How long after Breitbart's blog post did it take for the administration to request the resignation of Shirley Sharrod?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 9:44am

        Re: Re:

        MY suggestion would be a Depraved-standard Murder Two. Their harassment and continued refusal to obey the letter of the law and pushing for very heavy jailtime in order to convince Swartz to cop a plea-bargain, forcing criminality on him, knowing that that could be construed as psychological torture.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        btrussell (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 6:50pm

        Re: Re:

        [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted] for the [Redacted] [Redacted] of the [Redacted] [Redacted] [Redacted].

        That one for starters.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 7:25pm

        Re: Re:

        Still the fact remains by abusing and twisting the law to fit this case that should have never been a case played a big factor in what happened.

        The charges were very fucking serious and have the potential to ruin someones life.

        These charges we're not meant to be used on someone who was getting into information anyone could have got into. It was not hacking as some like to put it. The information cannot be found via search engines BUT it is still open to access easily.

        Aaron knew this but he saw it in the way that IT SHOULD BE OPEN TO FIND ON GOOGLE for anyone in fact it should be open to find via any search engine.

        They used the law to go after him because he was an activist and that my friend is why THEY FUCKING ARE RESPONSIBLE.
        They should be put on trial for the absurdly gross misuse of the law.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 7:25pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Futhermore Tom Dolan needs to learn when to shut the fuck up.. What an asshole...

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 7:44pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          They used the law to go after him because he was an activist and that my friend is why THEY FUCKING ARE RESPONSIBLE.

          Many thanks for your mind-reading Amazing Kreskin.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      am, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 10:35am

      no limits

      Live Free or Die is the official motto of the U.S. state of New Hampshire, adopted by the state in 1945. Without the final torments of asphyxiation, the certainty of a lifetime in prison. Federal prosecution means no reduction of sentence due to good behavior in prison. Twenty years down the road, year 2032, we will probably have the same system in place as we have 2012. No hope of setting foot outside as free man. When the prosecutor is on government payroll there are no spending limits - justice will be dispensed. You can not escape death, nor the federal government is the moral of Aaron Swartz. I am saddened that to think that I am partially responsible for this death, by paying my taxes.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      shane (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 11:03am

      Call me an Ogre

      But I really have no use for the excuse making. Sure, suicide is a complex thing. But does anyone REALLY think he would have HUNG himself without the weight of this incredible immoral prosecution hanging over him?

      I think it is entirely appropriate to blame the government.

      As for Tom Dolan, his only saving grace is that it is his wife being talked about, but ultimately if he were worth his weight in salt he'd have been pressuring her daily not to crucify an innocent man on the Cross of IP.

      Oooo... William Jennings Bryan, anyone?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    mhab, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 8:29am

    -.-

    My my... someone is butthurt

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    BeachBumCowboy (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 8:33am

    What a deal

    Mobster: I don't like what you've done, it's been disrespectful to my bosses.

    Store Clerk: I haven't done anything wrong. What did I do? I'll be happy to fix whatever I've done.

    Mobster: Too late. Me and the boys are going to break your hand, and you better sit there and take it.

    Store Clerk: What? No way I'm going to sit there and take it. I like my hand. I'll fight you every way I can. I did nothing wrong.

    Mobster: If you don't sit there and take it, we're going to break BOTH hands, plus your jaw, and your legs, and your arms. We'll make such a mess out of you, you'll be begging us for mercy, but it will be too late. Everyone will know not to mess with us again.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jesse (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 8:40am

    If US prosecutors are going to blame suicide on cyberbullies like Lori Drew I think it's only fair to blame judicial bullies like Carmen Ortiz for Swartz' suicide.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      JWW (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 9:17am

      Re:

      Correct!! Also, I've yet to see a cyberbully that was able to creidibly threaten their target with being locked up for months.

      The prosecution's threats actually carried MORE weight than a cyberbully's.

      The disproportionality of all Copyright law is mind-blowing and the citizens (subjects?) are beginning to notice....

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 8:42am

    Dolan's tweets

    What do you expect from the guy who is married to Ortiz?
    That he is very sensitive and kind person? I don't think that sensitive a kind person can survive a marriage to such a women...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Jesse (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 8:47am

      Re: Dolan's tweets

      Face it Dolan, you married a bully. A bully who bullied so hard, their victim felt the only way out was suicide.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 9:00am

        Re: Re: Dolan's tweets

        There was at least one occasion (long before Swartz arrest) when a co-worker was so concerned about him being suicidal that he called the authorities. Tragically, this young man was mentally ill- had previously written about committing suicide and talked about it often. Maybe his legal problems contributed, but why weren't the family and friends now blaming the prosecutors getting him the help he obviously needed?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          umb231 (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 9:15am

          Re: Re: Re: Dolan's tweets

          "There was at least one occasion (long before Swartz arrest) when a co-worker was so concerned about him being suicidal that he called the authorities. Tragically, this young man was mentally ill- had previously written about committing suicide and talked about it often. Maybe his legal problems contributed, but why weren't the family and friends now blaming the prosecutors getting him the help he obviously needed?"

          Um... so you're saying people close to him did what they could in going to the authorities to notify them of his problem previously... why weren't the authorities (who had been notified) getting him the help he obviously needed? Why was a prosecutor who would have access to this previous problem not take it into account in her bullying of him?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Amber, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 1:35pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Dolan's tweets

            The prosecutor did have access to his information. Their reply is that prison was the best place for him so he'd be safe. I wonder if they will seek the same refuge for themselves when the death threats start coming.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Manabi (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 9:28am

          Re: Re: Re: Dolan's tweets

          So basically he was known to have mental health problems and the prosecutor knew this (or should have known if she'd done her job and research) and still pushed him as hard as possible (threatening jail terms most murderers don't see)? This makes what she did better somehow? To me it makes it worse.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 9:36am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Dolan's tweets

            fwiw he was offered protective custody by the prosecution to guard against suicide. Alternatively, his lawyer or family could have insisted that he check into a mental health facility or petition the court to have him committed involuntarily.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 9:47am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dolan's tweets

              You have never suffered from depression, have you? To say something so idiotic. "Let's just trust that the Attorney won't coerce Swartz whilst in the mental hospital into signing off on this!"

              And people wonder why trusting these morons isn't in your best interest.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              John Fenderson (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 9:53am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dolan's tweets

              he was offered protective custody by the prosecution to guard against suicide.


              So his prosecutors offered to arrest him to keep him safe from himself? In what world would anyone -- particularly someone who is having suicidal feelings -- accept that offer?

              I have a better alternative to what you proposed: how about not threatening someone who broke no law (aside from, maybe, minor trespassing) a felony conviction and jail time?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              DannyB (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 10:25am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dolan's tweets

              What you're ignoring is that Aaron didn't do anything worth prosecuting. At worst it was trespass. The guy was using MIT's liberal guest access policy and downloading excessive amounts of academic papers freely available to him to download.

              He shouldn't need any protective custody for his mental health. The prosecutor should never have been trying to get him to spend 6 months in jail for an extremely minor crime, if it even is a crime. The prosecutor most certainly played a role in this tragedy.

              Spending 6 months in jail and forever being branded a felon is a way to ruin an innocent person's life.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              shane (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 11:09am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dolan's tweets

              First of all, where does info like that even come from?

              Secondly... who volunteers to go to jail for their own health?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 12:25pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dolan's tweets

              You are for sure oblivious as to what a depression entails?

              If he really had a depression, first step would be pills no matter what. Suicide watch is only an additional precaution. First question of interest is: Did he take pills or get offered pills?

              If the pills work, the suicidal thoughts would go away in about 6 weeks after which he would be able to continue his case. Second question of interest is: Did the prosecutor offer to put the case on hold to give the medicine time to work if he took them or had his medicine had time to work?

              If the first pills do not work or has stopped working, we are talking a serious medical emergency. In that case it is/should be considered reckless endangerment to continue the case.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 12:34pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dolan's tweets

                From what I read, his depression was chronic and long term. Presumably ample opportunity existed for treatment. If he was in crisis, it seems his lawyer should have sought a continuance. I am unaware whether one was sought.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 12:50pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dolan's tweets

                  Yes, nice victim-blaming there.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  John Fenderson (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 1:46pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dolan's tweets

                  From what I read, his depression was chronic and long term. Presumably ample opportunity existed for treatment.


                  I don't know the specifics of Swartz's depression, but speaking generally... you do know that with chronic and long term depression there very often is no effective treatment, right?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  JMT (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 2:30pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dolan's tweets

                  "I am unaware..."

                  Key words right there.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 2:38pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dolan's tweets

                    So you are saying there was a continuance requested? Citation please.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      bratwurzt (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 2:44pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dolan's tweets

                      You don't need to prove a negative. You also don't simply insinuate some claim and ask for evidence for contrary.
                      #trollism

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 9:30pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dolan's tweets

                  Please go have depression, and then come back and tell us how much opportunity for treatment there really is. Seriously. It's the only way people like you can understand.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 11:29pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dolan's tweets

                    Our treatment and 'diagnosis' system is broken. One of the biggest problems with our system is that when people get a health checkup a health screening they screen for all the wrong things. They screen for things that no one ever gets, statistically, and they ignore the things that people are far more likely to have. Then people turn out to have something completely different from what they were screened for, something much more common. (Well, part of the reason is that they screen for things that used to be a deadly epidemic problem a long time ago, like T.B., and the continual screening may help prevent future outbreaks and keep the statistic low. But there are a lot of very common problems that they don't screen for).

                    For example, statistically, a fourth of the world has parasitic worms.

                    "Scholars estimate over a quarter of the world’s population is infected with an intestinal worm of some sort"

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_worm

                    Now, if you look at some of the symptoms

                    "One way in which intestinal helminths may impair the development of their human hosts is through their impact on nutrition. Intestinal helminth infection has been associated with problems such as vitamin deficiencies, stunting, anemia, and protein-energy malnutrition, which in turn affect cognitive ability and intellectual development."

                    Also read the "Immune response" and "Delayed intellectual development" sections.

                    "a number of pathways of parasite burden may affect cognition ... poor performance on normal growth indicators appears to be correlated with lower school achievement and enrollment, worse results on some forms of testing, and a decreased ability to focus; iron deficiency may result in “mild growth retardation”, difficulty with abstract cognitive tasks, and “lower scores...on tests of mental and motor development...[as well as] increased fearfulness, inattentiveness, and decreased social responsiveness” among very young children ... These connections are supported by a number of deworming studies."

                    ...

                    [after a deworming session]

                    "“children who were listless and dull are now active and alert; children who could not study a year ago are not only studying now, but are finding joy in learning...for the first time in their lives their cheeks show the glow of health.”"

                    Don't the symptoms of these things very closely parallel the symptoms of depression? If one fourth of the worlds population has these infections, doesn't it stand to reason that a much higher percentage of people with depression and poor immune systems would have these problems? Why do dogs get treated for these things once every six months (I believe, or is it once a year) but humans hardly ever even get periodically screened? Our medical system needs to push for more screening on this and base their actions on statistics and not on whatever makes the most sales in anti-depression pills (well, I'm exaggerating).

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              The Groove Tiger (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 2:57pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dolan's tweets

              Yeah he was offered protective custody. 50 years of protective custody.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 9:24pm

          Re: Re: Re: Dolan's tweets

          It's very difficult for most people to get help to relatives who suffer from mental disorders.

          First it's important to understand that people who suffer from depression don't necessarily want to get help. They might think nobody can help them, they might not trust a psychologist or they might fear the way society will look at them...

          Second, you can't force someone to get help if they don't want to. A psychologist will not accept to see your 18 year old son if your son doesn't want to see him. The only thing you can do is bring your son to a mental health hospital if you think he's suicidal, which brings me to point three.

          Third, bringing your depressed relative to a clinic to be kept there against their will is a very hard decision to make. Will it not make your relative more depressed to be there? Won't it hurt your relationship with them, making it harder for you to help them when they get out?
          Will the clinic even help and if so, how? Will they cure the depression or will they just give your kid a bunch of pills? Or will they keep him there for 2 weeks, just make sure he doesn't kill himself, and then release him while he's still depressed?

          You can't just call 911, tell them your child is depressed and paramedics come over and magically cure him.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 18th, 2013 @ 12:07pm

          Re: Re: Re: Dolan's tweets

          Source or GTFO

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Jesse (profile), Jan 19th, 2013 @ 5:37pm

          Re: Re: Re: Dolan's tweets

          Doesn't make Ortiz any less of a bully.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        John Fenderson (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 10:55am

        Re: Re: Dolan's tweets

        Also, I think you can judge a person by their choice of spouse.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      shane (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 11:04am

      Re: Dolan's tweets

      Probably not very charitable of me, but I was thinking much the same.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Beta (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 8:42am

    laws for thee

    Mr. Dolan stopped short of saying "I'd be willing to go to prison for 6 months for nothing." I'd very much like to ask him --in a public forum-- whether he would object to such an arrangement for one of his children.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    dan, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 8:52am

    MIT was encouraged by students and faculty to make this case go away. They chose, in their own words, to remain "neutral". But prior to remaining neutral turned the case over to the feds. Surprising that they do not know that "neutral" is a stand in itself. Actions have consequences.

    Very sad for all involved.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Applesauce, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 9:05am

    Patterns of bullying

    It seems unlikely that this represents an isolated incident. Someone should look into other cases handled by US Attorney Carmen Ortiz and her assistant Stephen Heymann. I'll bet other cases of intimidation and overreach would be found. More than one or two. Bullies do what bullies do.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Gunntherd (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 9:06am

    Whether he took the deal or ignored it, no matter what, he was going to become a felon, clean and clear and all for something a hand full of over reaching Government a-holes that believed 100% that he broke 13 different laws??????

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 9:08am

    Also...

    To say that his family "blamed" the prosecution for his death is disingenious as well. Their statement said it CONTRIBUTED to his death. There's a big difference there.ffffffff

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 10:51am

      Re: Also...

      You're right, that is a valid and important distinction. I think we all understand that a person who wasn't already suffering from depression wouldn't likely resort to suicide in this situation, but despite all the hyperbolic statements, what it boils down to is how big a factor the specter of jail time was in provoking this sort of rash act.

      FWIW though, Aaron's father did say something at the service today along these lines -that the government killed his son. (Of course, he hadn't yet put it this way when Dolan was tweeting.) Boy, do I feel for him, and the rest of Aaron's family, right now.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 10:56am

        Re: Re: Also...

        I can forgive emotional mistatements from the family though. They of all people are entilted to that. Dolan however, gets no such consideration.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 10:51am

      Re: Also...

      You're right, that is a valid and important distinction. I think we all understand that a person who wasn't already suffering from depression wouldn't likely resort to suicide in this situation, but despite all the hyperbolic statements, what it boils down to is how big a factor the specter of jail time was in provoking this sort of rash act.

      FWIW though, Aaron's father did say something at the service today along these lines -that the government killed his son. (Of course, he hadn't yet put it this way when Dolan was tweeting.) Boy, do I feel for him, and the rest of Aaron's family, right now.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Jim terwiliger, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 9:10am

    Affirmative Action

    Just goes to show what kind of results you get with Affirmative Action.

    the kind Carmen Ortiz has received in her career.
    & the kind she is receiving now from the people

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 9:20am

      Re: Affirmative Action

      This is the type of unwarranted commentary we DON'T need. I personally don't agree with affirmative action but it has no relavence to this case and the inflamatory suggestion that it does only serves to undermine the cause.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jan Bilek (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 9:20am

    Double standards

    I she prosecuted herself the same way she apparently prosecuted others she would be facing death penalty right now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    akp (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 9:32am

    Now where did I leave that...

    *rummage rummage* Oh yes, here it is: This guy's namesake
    http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/dolan

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 9:35am

    perhaps Dolan should be on the receiving end of trumped up charges that involve the possibility of doing serious jail time for committing no crime. even if a sentence of 6 months were issued, it is still a serious black mark against a person for the rest of their life. if he was going to try to defend his wife's disgraceful behaviour, he should at least have been honest enough to state ALL what was happening, before being pulled up over the lack of facts, rather than just the bits he wanted. he must have known he would be chastised but was still twat enough to try to get away with it. what a prick!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      PRMan, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 10:13am

      Re:

      IIRC, Swartz agreed to the 6 months if it could be dropped to a misdemeanor, but a felony conviction means it's hard to get hired for the rest of your life, and Swartz wasn't willing to accept that for doing nothing wrong.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        shane (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 11:15am

        I read that too

        I think though with a resume like his, the felony would probably not be a big deal. Or... it might be actually an issue if he wanted to be CEO of a publicly traded company?

        I don't know.

        From his station as a well known political activist, it could have been a positive boon to go to jail. There was obviously something about it that did not meet with his satisfaction though. I know when I was pretty broke in college and got a ticket for driving without a seat belt, the judge suggested it was perfectly acceptable to just go to jail, which I decided no to do because, holy crap, jail for a ticket???

        He was facing more than an overnight stay, and for something he really did not do at that.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      PRMan, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 10:13am

      Re:

      IIRC, Swartz agreed to the 6 months if it could be dropped to a misdemeanor, but a felony conviction means it's hard to get hired for the rest of your life, and Swartz wasn't willing to accept that for doing nothing wrong.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anon, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 9:37am

    Cause means...?

    Let's see, you are chronically depressed and occasional suicidal. Then, you are threatened with 50-plus years in jail for no knuckling under, for helping yourself to data that is being offered for free. Would this not be ca significant contributing factor to suicide? Who here wants to spend 10 years in jail? 20?

    Conside what it would mean to spend the best years of your life in a human warehouse.

    I would certainly call that "the main reason he committed suicide."

    Sugar-coat it all you want, the justice system has turned into a terror system, where the leat transgression, if actionable, becomes ground to force the accused to knuckle under to the prosecutor's demands.

    Remember the prosecutor in the Martha Stewart case, who use the threat to turn Martha's broker's assistant's life upside down and drag the guy through the courts for years (and bankrupt him) along with all the other bit players who might accidentally be collateral damage, unless Martha copped a plea on her charges.

    Bully or pitbull is the kindest description of this behaviour, but it is typical nowadays.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 9:51am

    For what it is worth, his linked in profile is still up.

    Just sayin......

    http://www.linkedin.com/in/thomasjdolan

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    DCX2, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 10:00am

    It's called a trigger

    If you read discussions by people who are recovering self-injurers, or people who were victims of abuse, you will see them talk a lot about "triggers" and "trigger warnings". Triggers will cause someone who suffers from depression to relapse, so to speak, and puts them at risk of self-injury, hence you will see trigger warnings when describing certain details so that readers who may be currently susceptible to a trigger will have enough warning to stop reading.

    Do I think the prosecution is to "blame" for Mr. Swartz' suicide? No.

    Do I think the prosecution was the trigger? Yes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 11:12am

      Re: It's called a trigger

      What about the role of untreated depression itself. I didn't hear anything about him being in treatment or under a doctor's care. Seems wise for anyone, not just those with existing depression to take some measures to have support in such a crisis.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 11:15am

        Re: Re: It's called a trigger

        You really are defending this lady, reasons?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 11:52am

          Re: Re: Re: It's called a trigger

          I'm not. But if I was suffering from depression and facing a trial, I would certainly be getting treatment. And I know damn well that my friends, family, lawyer and co-workers would be insistent about it.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 1:47pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: It's called a trigger

            Now I know you're talking fluent bullshit.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            John Fenderson (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 1:57pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: It's called a trigger

            if I was suffering from depression and facing a trial, I would certainly be getting treatment.


            If you're like the vast majority of people suffering severe depression, you wouldn't be. In fact, you'd be very likely to actively avoid getting help -- if you even recognized that you were having a major problem.

            And I know damn well that my friends, family, lawyer and co-workers would be insistent about it.


            You know this for a fact? Most people wouldn't. Most people, even close friends and family, when faced with someone who has problems with severe depression, fail to recognize the severity of the situation and even minimize it in their own minds.

            A depressive person doesn't have a big red flashing light warning of impending suicide. In fact, if they're talking about suicide then they are less likely to be about to do it. In fact, a common warning sign of impending crisis is when they stop talking about it and even start acting uncharacteristically and inexplicably less depressed.

            Given all of that, at what point do you take the huge, difficult, and complicated step of getting someone involuntarily institutionalized?

            This is not easy stuff.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 2:03pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's called a trigger

              It's not easy stuff. But his first attorney identified him as a suicide risk to the prosecutor, it seems that was a logical point for an intervention.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                John Fenderson (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 2:41pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's called a trigger

                But what kind of intervention? At that point, all that anyone could do is suggest to Swartz that he seek help. I assume this was done.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Marcel de Jong (profile), Jan 17th, 2013 @ 4:55am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: It's called a trigger

            My best friend has burned and cut himself on multiple occasions (also tried to OD on medication, but we're not sure if that was deliberate or not), DESPITE knowing full well that I am insistent on him not doing that.
            He's manically depressed AND on anti-depression medication. It's only a miracle that he's still alive, and we (his friends) are trying our damnedest best to keep him alive.

            You, sir/madam, are talking out your arse.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            alanbleiweiss (profile), Jan 17th, 2013 @ 5:35am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: It's called a trigger

            everyone so far has talked from 3rd person perspective. So let me set you straight form a 1st person account.

            As a young adult, I was diagnosed with clinical depression. For many years, I routinely got into trouble, and faced "consequences" for my actions. Fired from jobs. Lost relationships. Lost friendships.

            Nothing I did to help my own situation, and nothing others did to encourage me to get help mattered. Sure, sometimes it would get better. For a while. But inevitably, depression would set in again.

            For me, it led to drug use. Rampant. Insane. Completely self destructive. And no matter the law, the ramifications, the harm it caused me or those around me, I did it anyway.

            Most of the time, I did NOT seek help from others, let alone treatment.

            When I finally reached the point of wanting to commit suicide, I told nobody. Those who had concern for my well being didn't know what to do. And nothing that was tried when I was offered help, ever came close to "fixing" me.

            In my particular situation, that all changed when I was invited to 12 step recovery. The first time I attended a meeting, I was zoned out. Heard NOTHING that was said. And I went right back out and continued my life, thinking all the while, "I can deal with this". And "this is too embarrassing to talk about with others". And "that might work for them, but I'm different."

            Six months later, I was invited to a meeting and went. Didn't even consciously understand why I was going, only that I "had to go".

            Over the course of the next several years, I learned that others who really were like me, had found hope, a way to heal and become healthy, and that I too could possibly live that way.

            It required completely relearning how to process thoughts. Completely relearning how to process emotion. I had to completely change my entire life.

            Eventually I relapsed (after many years), and the depression, and destructive ways came back with a vengeance.

            It took me NINE YEARS of living hell, again, to remember that I didn't have to live that way. Even though I had already experienced a better life. I'm blessed because that realization was 8 and a half years ago. And now, all these years later, I'm a productive member of society.

            Yet even still, occassionally, I suffer from depression. From very wrong first thoughts. From very intense, unhealthy emotions. And I know now, from direct experience, that triggers are real.

            And I've attended enough funerals of dear and close friends over the years that I know, for a fact, that the overwhelming majority of people who suffer similarly in any regard, do not seek help. And even those who do, mostly fail to "get it". And even those who "get it" mostly relapse. And most of those die. From suicide. Or from suicide by drugs, whether they be liquid or solid or gas.

            And no matter how much family, friends, co-workers think they can help or can prevent it, more often than not, they are helpless to really make enough of a difference to save someone.

            THAT is mental illness. No friend, no family, no doctor, no treatment, no pill can help all of the time, or for long enough in most cases. Because mental illness is too complex for humans to so far understand. And mental illness is still too much of a stigmatizing disability that society has yet to be able to resolve it in most situations.

            So please. Having never lived in my shoes, I ask you. Stop making such assumptions.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Eponymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 11:47am

        Re: Re: It's called a trigger

        You speak as if this matters in factoring whether or not the prosecuters are guilty of malfeasence in going after Aaron the way they did. Depression or no depression... treated or untreated... it doesn't matter. If the prosecuters overstepped their duties they are guilty as charged in the court of public opinion. Saddly Aaron's death just shines a bright light on their actions; if he tried to ride it out and went to jail for this then the prosecuters most likely would have gotten away with them.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          shane (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 11:58am

          Re: Re: Re: It's called a trigger

          Your user name is hilarious!

          I think they are going to get away with it anyhow, and that's why it is infuriating to me that people are trying to paint this as if it were a tragic but unavoidable death.

          It was gross abuse and something akin to negligent homicide, is what it really was. Yet many seem to feel honor bound to defend the indefensible.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          John Fenderson (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 1:59pm

          Re: Re: Re: It's called a trigger

          Yes, absolutely correct and well said!

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        shane (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 11:54am

        Re: Re: It's called a trigger

        You're not going to tend to hear anything about such things because they tend to be what is colloquially referred to as "none of your business".

        =)

        I mean, I get your concern, but... it's no one's business. The prosecutor, on the other hand, should have been aware and, in any event, was harassing an innocent man, so to my mind is guilty of misconduct. The (other) authorities need to look into her behavior and treat her overreach with the seriousness it deserves.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        DCX2, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 2:19pm

        Re: Re: It's called a trigger

        When you're depressed, you can't even be bothered to do things that you enjoy doing. Video games are no longer fun. Your significant other and your family no longer make you smile. Even the simple act of taking a shower requires a concerted effort.

        Do you really think someone suffering from depression is going to seek help?

        I blame Mr. Swartz's depression for his actions, but the prosecution is pretty obviously the catalyst that triggered this particular breakdown. The fact that they were warned ahead of time that he was a suicide risk, and yet continued to threaten him with decades in prison/millions in fines/labeled a felon despite the injured party in question requesting the lawsuit be dropped certainly implies a certain level of negligence on the prosecution's part.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      shane (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 11:19am

      Re: It's called a trigger

      I believe there is such a thing as negligence. Did the prosecution KILL Swartz. No. But I absolutely believe their negligent, indeed immoral and reckless prosecution, directly caused it, and that at the VERY least she should be fired. There ought to be someone looking into prosecuting HER for her behavior though.

      There is no getting around that this whole situation was idiotic and led to someone being dead. That's not something to be dismissed lightly in my view.

      Not that I am accusing you. I am just spelling out why I disagree with your defense of the prosecution.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        DCX2, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 2:11pm

        Re: Re: It's called a trigger

        I think you may be mistaken. I wasn't defending the prosecution. Far from it, I fully believe the prosecution was Mr. Swartz's trigger. I just wanted to stress that "blame" is the wrong word, and share a little bit about the origin of the term "trigger".

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          shane (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 6:08pm

          Re: Re: Re: It's called a trigger

          Heh.

          Ok, buy I do blame her, and the Feds, and I am pretty sure blame is the word I mean to use.

          The knew they were doing something wrong, and should have known there was a reasonable risk of causing him to behave in a self destructive way, seeing as harassing him was more or less the entire point of the exercise.

          That, to me, is more than blame-worthy. Again, the issue is negligence. You can't just put a paper bag over your head, walk into a nursery, and start wildly swinging your baseball bat, and then get all mystified when someone "blames" you for hurting the baby.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            alanbleiweiss (profile), Jan 17th, 2013 @ 2:10am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: It's called a trigger

            I fully agree with everything you say - Ortiz is guilty, the government's policies and processes are guilty. However where you say "they knew they were doing something wrong". I honestly don't believe they knew it.

            I believe bullies might subconsciously know, but consciously they are so caught up in their power and have absolutely no conscious capacity to pause to consider their actions as being anything but justified. In other words, I believe Ortiz and those like her that created the environment to allow this to unfold are psychologically incapable of knowing consciously that they are wrong.

            It's a primary consideration as to why this country is so screwed up at the Federal level.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 11:55am

      Re: It's called a trigger

      If his girlfriend left him and he hung himself thereafter, do you think she'd be blamed for his suicide? I doubt it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Reality Check (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 12:03pm

        Re: Re: It's called a trigger

        Are you saying that someone choosing to not be a part of your life is comparable to someone actively setting out to destroy you and send you to federal prison?

        If you are from a culture where girls break up with boys by setting them on fire, then I might see your point. But otherwise, your comparison is baffling to me.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        DCX2, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 2:14pm

        Re: Re: It's called a trigger

        I never blamed anyone. I believe people are responsible for their own actions. I also believe it was the actions of the prosecutor(s) that triggered Mr. Swartz.

        If your question is whether a break-up can constitute a trigger for a susceptible individual, the answer is yes. There are a lot of things that can be a trigger, that's why the communities that help the survivors of abuse sprinkle trigger warnings on their commentary as appropriate.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          shane (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 7:33pm

          Re: Re: Re: It's called a trigger

          No, his question was, "are you comparing breaking up with someone with trying to hurt someone intentionally?"

          Your answer appears to be yes. It's not a particularly complimentary picture that that paints of your ability to discern one thing from another.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 7:42pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: It's called a trigger

            What if she did it knowing it would inflict pain? And how do you know what the prosecution's motives were. For someone with three lawyers in the family you are awfully ignorant as to how things work. Why not ask one of them? A pile of charges is the norm. You seldom, if ever see a single charge filed. Go to the criminal docket of any federal court and read 100 indictments. I'll bet not a single one has fewer than three charges.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 9:40pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's called a trigger

              Just because it's the norm doesn't make it morally right. A prosecutor should pursue charges that are deserved, "throw everything you can and see what sticks" is wrong.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 10:07am

    NOTHING wrong?

    Mike - In your passionate response to this tragedy, try not to go overboard. You say this was "a situation where Swartz didn't think he'd done anything wrong"? Aaron himself seemed to realize he was doing something that was at least a little bit wrong. At the very least he realized that other people would think it was wrong. Aaron hid his face so video cameras wouldn't record his face. Even Larry Lessig says he thinks what Aaron did was (at least a little bit) wrong. And I say "even" Lessig not because his standards are low, but because he was so close to and supportive of Aaron.

    The bigger issue is whether the punishment sought was appropriate to the wrongdoing. It's entirely reasonable to ask whether the case should have been brought in the first place, or whether it should have been handled as a small criminal trespass case by the local police, or a civil case, or perhaps just a stern talking-to. And the fact that the US Attorney was offering 6 months is a very important fact. It's been reported by a couple of news outlets, including the WSJ and the Globe, but most stories just trumpet that the 35 year maximum for those charges. Nobody involved in the case, not Aaron's lawyers, not the prosecutors, not whatever judge was assigned to the case, would have thought for a moment that there was any chance Aaron would get 35 years. The fact that the maximum was ever trumpeted by the government was stupid, but now that we all know he was offered better, thanks to public statements by Aaron's lawyer and Ortiz's husband, there's no excuse to just keep repeating "35 years" as though that's the only relevant data point.

    As for Dolan, he's acting like an idiot. And it's incredibly nasty of him to complain publicly about statements by Aaron's family. But while we're complaining about him, let's also try to keep in mind what he might be feeling over the weekend. The world is blaming his wife for this kid's death, and acting as though she, herself, was driving this case. So far, there doesn't seem to be any indication of that. And in most prosecutor's offices, the top person isn't in the loop on every case, and they certainly don't micromanage everything. With his wife being portrayed as having "relentlessly" pursued this kid until her committed suicide, it would be natural for a husband to want to publicize some of the facts that show she's not the ogre she's been made out to be. That's no excuse for Dolan's nastiness, and shame on him for taking that tone with the justifiably angry family of a suicide victim. But let's try to show some of the mercy and understanding that was lacking in Aaron's case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 10:16am

      Re: NOTHING wrong?

      Folks, this is how you disagree with someone civilly on the Internet. Even though I disagree with some of the points made (for example, the point about Ortiz being "out of the loop", she was the one who bandied about the 35-year term initially. And yes, she isn't the only one involved, but as the initial driver of this "criminal investigation", but Heymann was the one who flat-out refused to discuss any options whereby Swartz admitted where he went wrong and didn't have to do jail-time, which was one of Swartz's largest fears.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 10:53am

        Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?

        She once made the following comment regarding the case...

        "Stealing is stealing whether you use a computer command or a crowbar, and whether you take documents, data or dollars. It is equally harmful to the victim whether you sell what you have stolen or give it away."

        That was made in an attempt to justfy her departments actions in pursuing the case. That means she not only let it happen on her watch but she condoned it. She bears responsibility as well.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      shane (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 11:22am

      Re: NOTHING wrong?

      I am incredibly tired of people such as yourself trying to put some of this on Swartz.

      He hid his face? Ooooh, horrors. Not because he knew he was doing anything wrong, or because he knew others thought he was doing anything wrong, but because he knew the powers he was dealing with might well try to demonize him despite the fact that he was doing nothing wrong.

      Even his violation of the Terms of Service for JSTOR was not morally wrong. Rather, it is morally repugnant for knowledge to be locked behind a paywall - particularly knowledge that is used in the formation of public policy.

      Yes, he did NOTHING WRONG, and was harassed by your government until he hung himself to death.

      Hung himself to death? Are you paying good, close attention?

      There is no excuse for your government in this case, nor is it at all appropriate in the wake of a man's senseless death to try to hang unwarranted blame on him for something he did by way of trying to make the world a better place.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 11:41am

        Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?

        Aaron Swartz decided to take his own life rather than deal with the consequences of his actions. Rail on about the merits of those consequences all you like, but no one "made" him do anything.

        As for his perception of his own actions, Swartz did return all documents to JSTOR, pay restitution and apologize. You can certainly argue the matter should have ended there, but you cannot say Swartz didn't know and acknowledge that his conduct was wrongful.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          shane (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 11:47am

          Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?

          And if someone decides to take their own life because someone is currently tormenting them, the tormentor is not the proximate cause? You're not being honest.

          Swartz very obviously did what he did with JSTOR thinking it would allow him to return to life as normal, but I doubt very seriously he thought what he did was wrong for all the reasons I mentioned above and which you conveniently refused to comment on, most likely because you do not have a viable response.

          Blaming the victim is not appropriate.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 12:03pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?

            Here's a far more educated commentary on the virtue of the charges against Swartz. For you to be so dismissive of the unlawful nature of his behavior is indicative of your own bias and/or ignorance.

            http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              The dude, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 12:09pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?

              Biased? A human being died, you can bet your lawyer loving ass that some of us are biased in this case, his death could have been avoided by being a little bit more human, and charging him in a reasonable way, for some reason you dont seem to understand it, and insist in saying that all is fine and dandy, that the prosecutors did nothing wrong; perhaps whe should give them a medal? would that be more to your taste?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 12:31pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?

                I have a hard time accepting that a rational human being would take their own life rather than face six months in a minimum security facility. Would you hang yourself? I know I wouldn't.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Simple Mind (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 1:49pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?

                  I would rather that he had fought all the charges and then offed himself after (if) he lost.

                  But I can see someone like him getting depressed just by the in-the-face realization that some people are so cruel, that the system is so cold, and there is just nothing that you can do about it. I too become depressed when I think about these things, but I can just put it out of mind and dwell instead on snowflakes and unicorns. He couldn't.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Simple Mind (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 2:20pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?

                    I reread that and realize it sounds bad. I wish he hadn't offed himself at all, of course. But I think he should have fought harder to fight the charges rather than giving up prematurely as though he had already lost. The mind is fragile.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Almost Anonymous (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 1:53pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?

                  It's very interesting to me that the government apologists keep bringing up the "only 6 months" in jail, but keep neglecting an important fact: Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, he didn't want to be labelled as a felon for the rest of his life? Are you aware that a felony conviction, even if you "only" serve 6 months, irrevocably alters a person's life in many negative ways?

                  Can we drop the "only 6 months" bullshit, please?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  silverscarcat (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 6:26pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?

                  Only 6 months if he TOOK the deal, you mean?

                  Otherwise he'd spend YEARS in jail, get labeled a felon and LOSE the ability to work in most places when he got out.

                  You DO realize that people with felony charges on them lose a LOT of rights, don't you?

                  Including...

                  The right to VOTE!!

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 6:36pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?

                    Only 6 months if he TOOK the deal, you mean?

                    Otherwise he'd spend YEARS in jail, get labeled a felon and LOSE the ability to work in most places when he got out.

                    You DO realize that people with felony charges on them lose a LOT of rights, don't you?

                    Including...

                    The right to VOTE!!


                    God, you're a moron. Can you not read? From above:

                    "Part I, Title VIII, Chapter 51, Section 1 of the Massachusetts General Laws describes the qualifications for voting in elections. In general, any person age 18 or older who meets residency requirements can vote in any election open to the general or appropriate local electorate. Disqualification can occur due to being a convicted felon presently "incarcerated in a correctional facility." A felon can also be denied the right to vote while they are under a legal guardianship or while disqualified where the conviction is "because of corrupt practices in respect to elections," whether incarcerated or not."

                    And unlike some borderline retarded dipshit like you toiling in a menial job, Swartz was a genius and entrepreneur who had the skills and connections to secure a multitude of interesting work that would have afforded him great wealth. The notion that he would have had trouble securing employment is laughable.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      silverscarcat (profile), Jan 17th, 2013 @ 3:10am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?

                      newsflash for you, dipshit...

                      There's only so many high level jobs out there.

                      And those menial labor jobs? Yeah, there's no reason to be ashamed to do them.

                      Why?

                      Because someone has to do them.

                      Fast food, newspaper delivery, Fed Ex/UPS/USPS (package delivery), cashier, ticket taker, ETC. Yes, they aren't the best jobs.

                      But they have to be done.

                      And, just so you know, I live pretty well off for doing "menial" jobs. After all, I live in a house, I don't live with my parents (which is more than I can say for you), I have a job, and I can get stuff that I want fairly easily.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      silverscarcat (profile), Jan 17th, 2013 @ 5:02am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?

                      Oh, one more thing...

                      Last I checked, an IQ of over 120 was not borderline retarded.

                      Unless that changed.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 6:15am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?

                        By your comments, I doubt your IQ is much over room temperature. No matter, there's a wet spill on Aisle Six. You'd better get over there and handle it.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          silverscarcat (profile), Jan 17th, 2013 @ 6:45am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?

                          *Snort* That's rich, coming from someone who can only attack a person and calls them a moron.

                          The only thing anyone can take from this is that you are the one with an IQ just above room temperature and you keep lashing out at people because you feel insecure about yourself.

                          BTW, I don't do the mopping.

                          Try again, boyo.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  shane (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 6:59pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?

                  Obviously he was not thinking clearly at the time he hanged himself. I find your line of discussion offensive though. Even if he were stark raving mad, that would only further aggravate the sense of the wrongdoing by Ortiz.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              shane (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 5:50pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?

              Have you posted this like three times in three different threads? I find it hard to believe that many different people know about this article.

              It conflates "authorization" with technical alterations to avoid getting his connection cut during downloads. He had full authorization to download.

              Everyone and their dog admits he violated JSTOR's terms of service. That's not a Federal crime, I don't care how many shills you line up to imply he did.

              I am disappointed in Kerr though. He is not normally someone who supports this kind of nonsense.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 6:15pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?

                Here's some remarks on the situation from Lessig:

                "From Larry Lessig’s response:

                Thanks for the forum.

                An indictment is an allegation. It states facts the government believes it can prove. It isn’t proof of the facts. It is one side in a dispute.

                Even if the facts the government alleges are true, I am not sure they constitute a crime. There is considerable uncertainty in this area of the law. Many wonder about the quick conversion of terms-of-service into criminal prosecution. But that’s a question the courts will ultimately have to resolve.

                Nonetheless, if the facts are true, even if the law is not clear, I, of course, believe the behavior is ethically wrong. I am a big supporter of changing the law. As my repeated injunctions against illegal file sharing attest, however, I am not a believer in breaking bad laws. I am not even convinced that laws that protect entities like JSTOR are bad. And even if sometimes civil disobedience is appropriate, even then the disobedient disobeys the law and accepts the punishment."


                You can read the rest here: http://mediafreedom.org/2011/07/larry-lessig-responds-says-swartzs-alleged-actions-crossed-ethical-l ine/

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Eponymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 2:03am

                  Why does it always crucify Christ, and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels (though Larry thinks the should just accept it)?

                  "And even if sometimes civil disobedience is appropriate, even then the disobedient disobeys the law and accepts the punishment."

                  While I respect Larry and his views on things this particular point of his is bullshit. Does Larry support the treatment of Bradley Manning, or his eventual punishment? Should Bradley just accept the punishment and not fight against it? What if they went for the death penalty instead, would that matter to this statement? Should Julian Assange accept his punishment? Should Thomas Drake have? Should Jesselyn Radack have? Should William Binney have? Is it really the obligation of anyone who is persecuted and prosecuted by the state to "accepts the punishment" of their disobedience to said state? No! For the state exists to serve us, not the other way around with us here to serve the interests of the state. Therefore, channeling Thoreau, violating the unjust statutes of the state is just and should be the endevor of a just people. "Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?" And how, being people of dignity, can we accept the punishment for such trangressions for if the law is not just then the punishment too must be unjust. Therefore Larry in essence is calling on the disobedient to accept unjust treatment at the hands of the state. Is he thus intellectually honest in the extreme of this conclusion and think those accused of being terrorists and tortured under such accusations accept such punishment? Or those killed in drone strikes like the Americans Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki (murdered in a seperate strike than his father's remind you) accept that? In the end this acceptance that he is calling for is all in service to what? To what ends does he justify this, and what does he think such acceptance will solve? Again, it is bullshit, and your use of it more so, for even if he puts forth a valid argument to his point he makes no claim that the rest of us are obligated in any way to accept such punishment of others for their transgressions! 

                  Sorry to all others in going so off topic, but I have a real bone to pick over this...

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Eponymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 12:17pm

          Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?

          Wrongful versus illegal, ponder that for a minute...

          One does not equate to the other in all circumstances. Aaron most likely was smart enough to know that others would consider his civil disobediance wrong, though illegal deserving of jail time is another thing. It may be wrong for me to call you a fvcking idiot (it is wrong), but it isn't illegal for me to do so. If a prosecuter then wants to considerate it crimnal and give me a few days jail time for that action of mine it isn't my duty to accept such egregious punishment even if I do admit what I did to be wrong. In fact Aaron actions demostrate just how focused the prosecuters were in making an example out of him for these actions, of admission and return of data, seemed not to factor in their charges. Your attitude in this comes off as a blanket defense of any charges levied against one for a crime regardless if a crime was committed and/or the punishment fits the crime. We have an explicit right enumerated in the Constitution against "cruel and unusual punishment" because of past overreaches by the agents of King George in prosecuting people for claimed crimes against the crown.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Simple Mind (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 12:32pm

          Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?

          Swartz did return all documents to JSTOR, pay restitution and apologize. ... you cannot say Swartz didn't know and acknowledge that his conduct was wrongful.

          And you never just payed the fine or apologized when you knew in your heart you were in the right? No one ever just apologized or paid the fine to make the thing go away or from other outside pressure or just convenience?

          "Ah, since you paid the fine you admit that you ran the red light!"

          "Yeah, I apologize for getting a blowjob in the Oval Office."

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 12:44pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?

            One attribute of Swartz repeated over and over, was that he stood on principle. Some have even suggested his principle led him to take his life rather than go to jail for something he didn't do. If any of that is half-true, then why would he return the files to JSTOR, pay restitution and apologize?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Simple Mind (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 1:39pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?

              You know that there are limits to everything. I consider myself principled, but if somebody held a gun to my head and told me to apologize for something I hadn't done I would do so, just to make them go away.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Almost Anonymous (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 1:57pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?

              Also, I need to point something out: Demanding that the files be "returned" was completely idiotic in the first place. Nothing was ever "taken". He *copied* the files once, and I sure as hell hope he copied them again (somewhere open) before he "returned" the files.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              John Fenderson (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 2:14pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?

              Perhaps because there's a world of difference between having to give a fine and an apology, and having to admit guilt to a bunch of felonies you didn't commit and then spending time in prison over it?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          John Fenderson (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 2:11pm

          Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?

          Swartz did return all documents to JSTOR, pay restitution and apologize. You can certainly argue the matter should have ended there, but you cannot say Swartz didn't know and acknowledge that his conduct was wrongful.


          I don't see how returning documents, paying restitution, and apologizing indicates that he thought his actions were wrongful. It seems more likely to indicate that he was trying stop the harm that was being done to him.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 6:18pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?

            It seems more likely to indicate that he was trying stop the harm that was being done to him.

            So much for standing on principle then.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 1:34pm

        Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?

        Sorry to tire you out. But let's be clear here. Aaron Swartz understood that he was transgressing some rules. He disagreed with some of those rules-just as you, and I, and many others disagree with some of them. And surely he was surprised at how strongly the government came at him. But he knew that what he was doing might get him into some kind of trouble, and that people might try to stop him. In fact, he knew some people were trying to stop him and he took actions to get around those attempts.

        To recognize these pretty plan facts is not to diminish one iota what an enormous tragedy his death is. Neither is it to let the government off the hook for what many of us see as a massive overreaction. But just because the government resorted to hyperbole and exaggeration in characterizing Aaron doesn't mean it's OK for us to do the same thing int he other direction. Aaron was a good guy. He was doing something he thought was ultimately the right thing to do, using methods that he, at least on some level, understood transgressed "the rules" as they stand. He was trying to change the rulebook itself, and make the rules better, and I think he was doing it all in good faith. But his actions make it pretty clear that he understood that, in this case, he was doing something that would upset the powers that be, and violate their rulebook. I suspect Aaron may not have understood how bad the reaction would be, but I think he did understand that there would be some reaction. He knew he was taking a risk, and it took courage to do that. So, when Mike writes that Aaron thought he was doing "nothing wrong," and you repeat it in a way that makes Aaron sound like a clueless babe in the woods, as though he never suspected that he might get in trouble for what he was doing. An it actually seems to diminish him in a way that I think doesn't give him enough credit.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          John Fenderson (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 2:16pm

          Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?

          If by "the rules" you mean "trespassing," then you have a point. But he didn't think he was committing any real transgression at all -- and correctly, because he wasn't.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          shane (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 5:55pm

          Re: Re: Re: NOTHING wrong?

          He didn't understand how bad the reaction would be because he knew exactly what rules he WAS breaking. The Terms of Service. Which, for the thousandth time, is not a Federal offense.

          All the charges against him are bogus. They involve unauthorized access, when he clearly had authorization both through his position at Harvard and by virtue of being in the open MIT computer lab.

          The things he knows he did that the system would call wrong were things that have nothing to do with the charges. He was shocked at the response because it was an illegitimate and wildly disproportional response!

          There is no excuse for what the government did here. They trumped up bogus charges trying to make an effective prank-level violation of a generic terms of service agreement into something akin to using your computer to steal money or goods.

          They lied. He's dead now, little doubt in no small part because of their harassment.

          Now is not the time to wag the head and tsk at Aaron. It's time to take action against the people harassing him.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      btrussell (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 7:20pm

      Re: NOTHING wrong?

      "But while we're complaining about him, let's also try to keep in mind what he might be feeling over the weekend."

      Probably screws being turned by the missus.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 11:11am

    Of course he's going to protect his bully wife, that's what submitted douches do. He's probably scared shitless of her too. I would be. Have you seen her?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Eponymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 11:28am

    Prison term is but one part of his possible punishment...

    I think it should be stated that if he pleaded guilty to the charges there may be additional punishments/conditions put on him after serving 6, or so, months in prison; like a ban on using a computer and other devices for a certain duration of time. We've seen these conditions place on others convicted of some form of hacking before, and I'm sure Aaron being as connected in the community was well aware of this possibility. Thus this eventuality represents one more further overreach he was not willing to accept; to be disconnected from something he loved. Just some food for thought that focusing on the jail term exclusively (whatever it may have ended up being) isn't keeping the full possible punishment in view.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 11:43am

      Re: Prison term is but one part of his possible punishment...

      I think it should be stated that if he pleaded guilty to the charges there may be additional punishments/conditions put on him after serving 6, or so, months in prison; like a ban on using a computer and other devices for a certain duration of time.

      To the best of my knowledge, no one other than you has suggested this is true. I don't suppose you have a citation?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 11:49am

        Re: Re: Prison term is but one part of his possible punishment...

        There's plenty of case law to back up that position.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 1:10pm

          Re: Re: Re: Prison term is but one part of his possible punishment...

          No, I understand it happens. I want to know your source to assert it was happening in this case. You can quit now if you like, it doesn't exist.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Eponymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 1:52pm

        Re: Re: Prison term is but one part of his possible punishment...

        There is no citation needed for, while said prohibition isn't imagined since it has been issued in other trials, in this particular case the obvious context of this statement is completely hypothetical; terms like "possible", "may be", "like", "possibly", "food for thought" all illustrate this. Though the likelyhood of such a ban being issued against Aaron I think is worth looking into by those more capable of doing that than I am. With that said, since we are neither privy to the full discussions between him and the prosecution, or his outlook on these charges' ramification on his future, this potential punishment is open for debate.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 11:48am

    How about we push for Tom Dolan to be indicted on trumped up charges with the possibility of spending 35 years in jail and then offer him a plea agreement where he only has to serve 6 months and see if he changes his tune then?

    Carmen Ortiz is a bully and our government should have no place for bullies.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 12:09pm

    You people are pathetic.

    This person killed himself.

    HIS decision.

    Rather than face 6 months for breaking the law (whether you agree on the law or not, because that's fucking IRRELEVANT),

    HE KILLED HIMSELF.

    You want this guy to be your martyr? "oh I got caught stealing. But since I'm smarter than everyone else and I don't think the law is right, I shouldn't be punished."

    So instead of doing 6 months, HE KILLS HIMSELF.

    He was fucking pathetic and so are you people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Reality Check (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 12:44pm

      Re:

      If there's a point buried in here, it's cleverly masked by all the self-righteous morally-superior vitriol.

      I think your point is that whatever the law happens to be, whatever the authority decides to do to someone, they need to accept it, because authority is always right.

      Or maybe you are trying to say that Aaron killed himself because he thought he was too smart to go to jail?

      Or maybe you are saying that Aaron is pathetic, because YOU would prefer 6 months in Federal prison over suicide? (And the 6 months is debatable)

      Or are you saying that Aaron is pathetic because he had some kind of mental illness, and all people with mental illness are pathetic?

      But as I try to decipher what you are trying to say, I become less and less interested in comprehending what hate you are actually spewing.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Eponymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 12:55pm

      Troll nutritionist

      And yet here you are wasting your valuable time attempting to enlighten us personages of patheticness...

      ...yup, seems legit to me!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 2:28pm

      Re:

      What is more pathetic, standing up for your principles or criticizing those who do?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      JMT (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 2:43pm

      Re:

      "...(whether you agree on the law or not, because that's fucking IRRELEVANT)..."

      Actually it's the most important aspect of the whole sad story. What he did was not illegal. The law was being used in a completely inappropriate manner, and not for the first time by a long way.

      "oh I got caught stealing."

      He did not get caught stealing.

      Are you deliberately trying to look completely ignorant?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 10:37pm

        Re: Re:

        I can't even figure out whose comment you're replying to. But the idea that "What he did was not illegal" is far from settled. There are people (like you, I guess) who think it's somehow clear that what he did wasn't illegal. There are others who think it clearly was. And there is a large group, many of whom are well-educated, enlightened people, who think what Aaron did may well have been illegal, but notwithstanding that the punishment should have been very light (or not at all). You're certainly welcome to take the view that nothing Aaron did was against the law, or that nothing he did should have been against the law. But to claim that this question is settled or clear, or that people who disagree are just "ignorant," is to ignore a large body of the law calls your conclusion into question.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Simple Mind (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 12:19pm

    Plea Bargaining

    Why are prosecutors given so much power over what the end punishment of a criminal is? Seems like there should be more separation between the judge and the lawyers. Another thing I am wondering is if there are any consequences to lawyers for bringing bogus charges to court. Like, say they bring somebody up on 10 charges and the judge finds him guilty of 4. The prosecutor gets a -6 on their record or something?

    Prosecutor: "Unless you sign off on this speeding ticket, chum, I'm gonna throw the book at you. That's right, I'll charge you with everything! You will be in court 20 years at least. You musta done something."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Gregg L. DesElms (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 1:47pm

    My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

    This article also appeared over on the "Opposing Views" website, with the byline "TechDirt" (rather than Mike Masnick's name). Here's the comment I posted there:

    I'm now pushing 60 years old (to my chagrin, it's probably worth adding); and I've been an IT professional and high-tech & general management consultant for going on 40 years (though my current thing in life is my now-nearly-full-time ministry of agency/advocacy to/for the homeless, disabled vets, the indigent elderly, the prostituted, recent parolees and others similarly in need). I was using what has become today's Internet since before it was, technically, that; and I was right in the middle of alpha and beta testing stuff during the pioneering of what is, today, the "worldwide web" part of the Internet in the early 1990's. And so I not only know Swartz's kind, but have both worked with them, and had them work for me. I'm also, for whatever it's worth, a fairly-far-left-leaning both socio-politically and theologically liberal/progressive lifelong Democrat; but I'm nevertheless assiduously law-abiding. I write all that, simply, to establish that I might actually know a teenie, tiny thing or two about all this -- but, as my ex-wife would attest, probably ONLY a thing or two -- to give what I write next a bit of context.

    What Swartz did, bottom line, was unambiguously wrong. There's just no question or doubt about that, and there's no point in trying to sugar coat it or torture it to fit some open-source/hacker-type agenda. However, it's all a very tricky thing, really; an example, if ever there were one, of how our laws, today, haven't yet caught-up with the realities of an increasingly Internet/online-centric world; and how those who technically own all the intellectual property aren't adjusting thereto with a reasonable operational model. And the whole thing gets exacerbated and the opposite site get their backs all up because the open-sourcers/hacker and the intellectual property owners, both, use take-no-prisoners, scorched-earth tactics which just make both sides dig-in their heels and want to draw blood from their opponents...

    ...hence, at least in part, the intransigence of the federal prosecutor. It says, here, that the article is by "TechDirt," but, of course, it's actually Mike Masnick, on that website, who wrote the piece; and though I don't agree with EVERTHING he writes, he sure does know what he's talking about, and I have utmost respect for him. The most cogent thing he wrote in this article was this:

    "To argue that the prosecution was fair because they offered him a 6 month plea deal is complete and utter hogwash. As many have pointed out, it doesn't appear that Aaron should have been facing any federal charges at all. The 35 years is completely relevant, because that's part of the hammer that his wife was using to pressure him into taking the 6 month plea deal so that she and her assistant could get a big headline about another 'guilty' plea. To act like the 6 month offer is some sort of 'leniency' is insane when you know the details of the case and everything else that came with it."

    Amen! Swartz, I'm sorry, had become, as my ol man would have said, "too big for his britches" in any number of ways, as is common among child prodigies. The kid was beyond brilliant... the word "genius" doesn't even cover it; but, sadly, he knew and understood that, and didn't yet have the age, maturity and wisdom to properly parse and put into perspective what was going on. His lawyer probabaly tried to give Swartz the kind of perspective he needed to negotiate this mess, and maybe could have been better at it, who knows; but there is absolutely no question that the prosecutor, like most federal prosecutors (except, at least, my good buddy whom I won't name but who's a deputy US attorney in Indiana, and who's deeply moral and ethical and is on the side of the angels; and whom I wish like hell had been the prosecutor in Swartz's case) went too far; treated Swartz like she absolutely SHOULD treat some really egregious bad actor who really and truly DOES commit serious crimes that really and truly do harm people. Swartz was not such a criminal... and just how much of a criminal he ever really was is reasonably debatable.

    Given those kinds of realities, the very least this prosecutor could have done is pause and reflect and research and learn; and consult with really smart people like, for example, Mike Masnick, just to name one, and try to get a feel for the realities of Swartz's kind of acts in the context of a truly complex modern world where such as intellectual property rights, and Internet freedoms and access, are struggling against one another based on laws which, seriously, need to be updated. Even the argument is complicated, to wit: While it could, of course, be argued that if the open-sourcer/hackers, like Swartz, would just stop taking things, just because they can, then maybe the intellectual property owners would be more amenable to discussion; but the hard reality is that unless Swartz, et al, force the hand of said owners the way they do, then said owners won't even come to the table. So, then, what to do, what to do. The prosecutor, et al, say that what to do is follow the law; but even some intellectual property rights owners say that said law needs updating to reflect the realities of the world in which we now actually find ourselves.

    Oy. [sighs and shakes head in frustrated disappointment] It's a mess. One thing's for absolutey certain, though, and that's that Aaron Swartz didn't need to die for any of this. One of the greatest young minds in this nation -- yes, you read that right -- is now gone. Those of us who've been trained in suicide prevention and counseling know that no one -- and I mean NO ONE -- can ever be responsible for another person's suicide; however, young Mr. Swartz had only BEGUN to contribute and innovate and, yes, knock the status quo back on its heels a bit along the way in order to disabuse it of its inherent misguidedness. So young! His contributions, by the time he finished his life, however many years from now would, I promise, have been downright legendary. The sheer and unmitigated tragedy of his death cannot be underestimated; and the prosecutor's both ignorance of, and arrogance about that cannot be over-stated. Masnick really did say it best, to wit: "...it's a bit simplistic to place the 'blame' for Aaron Swartz's suicide on the federal prosecutors..." but, "it is still quite reasonable to question their activities," yet "suicide is a complex thing and going all the way there may be going too far," too.

    Amen, again.

    It's very sad. I hope that, somehow, something good ultimately comes from all this. I won't hold my breath, of course, but I'm just sayin'. And almost greater tragedy would be if the prosecutors, Ms Ortiz and Mr. Heymann, never even pause to rethink any of this... which, sadly, is the way it'll likely be.

    Pity.

    Gregg L. DesElms
    Napa, California USA
    gregg at greggdeselms.com

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Almost Anonymous (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 2:11pm

      Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

      What Swartz did, bottom line, was unambiguously wrong. There's just no question or doubt about that, and there's no point in trying to sugar coat it or torture it to fit some open-source/hacker-type agenda.

      Well, right up front you damage your credibility with a statement like that. I assure you that there are many of us who do not feel what he did was clear-cut, black and white "wrong" as you seem to think.

      However, it's all a very tricky thing, really; an example, if ever there were one, of how our laws, today, haven't yet caught-up with the realities of an increasingly Internet/online-centric world; and how those who technically own all the intellectual property aren't adjusting thereto with a reasonable operational model.

      And now, to me at least, your credibility is irreparably damaged due to the fact that you used the word "own" in conjunction with the nonsense phrase "intellectual property". Here's a pro-tip: you can't own an idea.

      Having said that, I did read your complete post, and minus the two glaring issues I've already addressed, I hear what you're saying and I agree that Swartz will be missed.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 2:23pm

      Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

      My background is easily as extensive as yours, but I disagree with this:

      What Swartz did, bottom line, was unambiguously wrong


      This seems very ambiguous to me. What did he do that was unambiguously wrong? He didn't hack in, he didn't break any laws, he didn't access any information without authorization. Even the "he trespassed" accusation, although I grant it for the sake of argument, is far from being unambiguously accurate.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 2:41pm

        Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

        Just out of curiosity, have you read the indictment? I understand that he broke into a locked computer closet. It seems logical that an institution would lock up such a resource. I don't see the ambiguity.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          John Fenderson (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 2:42pm

          Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

          That is the "he trespassed" accusation I mentioned.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 5:14pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

            Entering a locked premises is more than trespassing. Someone enters your locked home or business do you think they get charged with trespassing?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              shane (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 5:25pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

              This has really gone on long enough.

              What he was charged with were wire fraud, computer fraud, and something else related to such. Trespassing or anything like it is highly unlikely to be a Federal jurisdiction.

              Just quite trying to make excuses for it, ok? He violated a terms of service agreement and the Feds trumped up some charges because they did not like his political activism.

              There IS no Federal law against what he did.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              shane (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 5:36pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

              Unless you invite them into your campus to use computers for free, which is what MIT does. And MIT didn't press charges.

              If there were a Federal crime to be had it would not matter to me if MIT wanted to press charges or not. But there wasn't.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          JMT (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 2:49pm

          Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

          I've read numerous times that he closet was unlocked. I haven't seen anyone describe how he "broke in" to this closet, which seems like a detail that would've been mentioned.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 5:12pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

            Have you read the indictment?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Eponymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 3:50pm

          Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

          Actually it has been reported that a homeless person used said closet to stash personal items so how much "breaking in" he did to gain access is very much open to question. Thus it is reasonable to assume it is a further trumped up charge from some misguided prosecuters...

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 4:56pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

            The fact that the closet was locked was reportedly disclosed by MIT. As far as the homeless guy's stuff goes, there is no indication that he had a key or could come and go as he pleased. More likely a custodian gave him access. Hard to believe MIT would leave thousands of dollars of computer equipment out in the open, accessible to anyone walking by.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Eponymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 12:14am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

              If an agent of MIT, the custodian, is giving access to the closet to a homeless person that's pretty damn close to them leaving it "out in the open." If this is true it should be of immediate concern to MIT in the least that key holders are opening locked doors containing valuble equipment to people who obviously shouldn't be given such access.

              Maybe this homeless man and your hypothetical custodian should be charged with criminal conspiracy for all we know this may be how Aaron gained access too... /S

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Simple Mind (profile), Jan 17th, 2013 @ 11:09am

          Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

          Raise your hand if you worked at a university and haven't gone into the computer closet to jiggle a few wires to get your connection to work. Sure the door says "Authorized Personnel Only", but I thought that knowing what you are doing makes you authorized.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            alanbleiweiss (profile), Jan 17th, 2013 @ 10:47pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

            I'm not raising my hand. Just giving my own experience. It wasn't in a computer closet. It was sitting at a computer in front of me as I worked in customer service at a bank.

            I noticed that some screens were amber, others green. Mine was green. I was like "hmmm". Noticed on the keyboard a function key to "settings".

            Clicked that key. Oh cool - I've now left my customer service screen and been taken to a settings screen. Oh - look - there's a setting choice for the monitor. Click.

            Oh - how awesome is that? An option to switch to amber. #WIN

            Next thing I know, there's a couple guys in suits up at my supervisor's desk, talking conspiratorially, and looking up at me across the room.

            And in the blink of an eye, they were at my desk. Grilling me. "How'd you change your monitor to amber?" "Why did you do that?" "Who gave you permission to do that?"

            What? Huh? Uh...

            Holy crap. Fortunately I was not fired. Nor prosecuted. The function key was, after all, ON my keyboard. It worked when clicked. The settings screen gave no warning about unauthorized access. No alarm went off at my desk. My computer didn't crash. The bank didn't collapse.

            All these years later, and I wonder what would have become of me if even just one person "in authority" wanted to "make an example" of me.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 5:18pm

        Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

        Since you seem unwilling to bother reading the indictment on your own, here's a link:

        http://web.mit.edu/bitbucket/Swartz,%20Aaron%20Indictment.pdf

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          shane (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 5:28pm

          Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

          Thanks.

          Note the complete lack of a "trespassing" charge.

          These laws were meant to deal with people using computers to steal, not to download stuff that's already free.

          He used his technical saavy to download things faster than the ToS allowed. These charges are bogus.

          Theeeeee end.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 6:07pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

            Actual legal scholars seem to disagree:

            http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 8:47pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 8:54pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

                Granick is not a legal scholar but an advocate. Formerly out of EFF no less. She acknowledges Orin Kerr as the expert on CFAA.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 5:06am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

                  Thanks, your point is what?

                  I see you said nothing about the expert witness opinion.

                  Duly noted.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 6:18am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

                    He is the expert witness on the payroll of the defense attorney. Does there really anything to be said about his objectivity?

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 9:32am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

                      I didn't know his objectivity was questionable at all.

                      Says more about you than anyone else that you don't think these opinions of other people mean anything; as if your opinion is the only opinion that matters, as long as it is shared by someone who is publicly more well known and respected than you. (Deference to the indictment and Orin Kerr's analysis, as if they were the only opinions on the matter, or the only ones that are important)

                      Well, here's another opinion.

                      http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2011/07/articles/series/special-comment/aaron-swartz-computer- fraud-indictment/

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    shane (profile), Jan 17th, 2013 @ 6:51am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

                    This guy never talks about anything, just spews citations and then insults citations from anyone who doesn't agree with his weird view.

                    I've already explained what's bs about Kerr's take on this. Aaron did not bypass authorization. He was authorized to be on the network. He violated the terms of service.

                    It doesn't matter how many lawyers you line up on either side. Violating terms of service is not illegal, and if it were it would still be an evil law.

                    He can't address that, so he tries to make his lame argument look rational by posting various one sided links.

                    AND he likes to try to get people not to post here. He's a weird dude, man. No need to pay any attention to him.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Gwiz (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 3:39pm

      Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

      What Swartz did, bottom line, was unambiguously wrong. There's just no question or doubt about that, and there's no point in trying to sugar coat it or torture it to fit some open-source/hacker-type agenda.


      Please expound on this point.

      What, as a self-proclaimed IT expert, do you think he did that was "wrong"?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 4:58pm

        Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

        How about what a law professor thinks:

        http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          shane (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 5:41pm

          Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

          How 'bout what Ronald McDonald said? That's why we have trials. But this guy, who is admittedly normally pretty pro reform, is conflating "authorization" with access. What Aaron did was fiddle around with his (and MIT's) computer settings in order to get around the Terms of Service, NOT access the files without authorization.

          That's where Kerr goes wrong, and I could care less whether he's a lawyer or a hamburger flipper. You don't prosecute people for violating a terms of service agreement. You let the people providing the service decide if they want to cut off their services.

          JSTOR was quite clear that they did not want to do that.

          So the Feds trumped up a load of bogus charges, and you're complicity here is shameful. Rather than making excuses for their evil, you should be demanding redress. Why are you not?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Gwiz (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 6:09pm

          Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

          There is a huge difference between "illegal" and "wrong". I didn't ask if what he did was "illegal".

          I can't remember the exact figure, but the average person breaks somewhere around 10 laws on a daily basis. If the DOJ turns it's eye on you, something "illegal" can always be found.

          I asked Mr. DesElms why he thought it was "wrong".

          Personally, I find it difficult to equate any of this to "wrong" since the supposed "wronged party" didn't even want to prosecute:
          The criminal investigation and today’s indictment of Mr. Swartz has been directed by the United States Attorney’s Office. It was the government’s decision whether to prosecute, not JSTOR’s. As noted previously, our interest was in securing the content. Once this was achieved, we had no interest in this becoming an ongoing legal matter. Source

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 6:22pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

            There is a huge difference between "illegal" and "wrong". I didn't ask if what he did was "illegal".

            Larry Lessig seems to disagree, read comment #157

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
               
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 2:17am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

              This poor kid swallowed Lessig's bullshit, and look where he is now: DEAD. LIFE EXTINGUISHED.

              How about Tenenbaum? Hmm? Also had his life completely screwed by Lessig's propagandistic zealotry. Thank god that poor fool hasn't also offed himself.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 5:18pm

        Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      shane (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 6:22pm

      Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

      Well, to me this is just the sort of self serving, mealy, "let's all be calm and rational about this" mentality that is tearing this nation apart.

      What Aaron did was unambiguously right, and one of the problems I have with the typical "lifelong democrats" I know of is they are oh so very assiduous about the care and feeding of various social, nigh libertarian causes when it comes to tearing apart the fabric of our culture, and then pass right on by things like banking reform, IP reform, and limited liability reform. Or worse, Thom Hartmann-like, they address these issues, but only in partisan terms.

      What Aaron did was take on the topic head on. IP, at least as it is being done now, and very possibly from its very inception, is the thing that is "unambiguously wrong" here. Aaron being "too big for his briches" as you call it, is your take. It's your opinion. And it's a pretty foul opinion to be hearing just a day or two after he hanged himself dead.

      To reiterate, he did nothing illegal, and in my view what he did that people like you try to pass off as "unambiguously wrong" was about as wrong as Rosa Parks sitting on the bus. That is to say, not at all wrong, and in a very real sense recklessly and bravely right.

      His mistake is taking the hate the world pours out on people who stand up for what is right too much to heart. He did not yet realize the scope of the evil he was dealing with.

      In short, I don't think he counted on so many people being like you.

      Faced with a situation where the government harasses someone until they die, you shrug, sigh, and say, "well, it's a sad story, but he had it coming on some level."

      No sir. No, he did not.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 6:29pm

        Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

        To reiterate, he did nothing illegal, and in my view what he did that people like you try to pass off as "unambiguously wrong" was about as wrong as Rosa Parks sitting on the bus. That is to say, not at all wrong, and in a very real sense recklessly and bravely right.

        I think Larry Lessig made a useful observation:

        "I am not even convinced that laws that protect entities like JSTOR are bad. And even if sometimes civil disobedience is appropriate, even then the disobedient disobeys the law and accepts the punishment."

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Gwiz (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 6:59pm

          Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

          I am not even convinced that laws that protect entities like JSTOR are bad.


          Nor am I convinced of that either.

          I would however put forth that if the "protected entity" itself doesn't wish to prosecute said laws and had determined the issue to be resolved, then the continued (and perhaps pointless, since there is no longer a "victim" of these crimes) prosecution by the DOJ certainty isn't a "good" thing and perhaps needs to be addressed.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 7:36pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

            I'm not sure about that. Awhile back a friend noticed some questionable transaction on some of his business accounts. He alerted his bank and his investment firm. Turns out they smelled a rat and called the cops. Before the cops got involved, a longtime, trusted employee came forward and admitted embezzlement. She admitted to a gambling problem, cashed in her IRA and repaid the amount. My friend was satisfied. The state's attorney was not and indicted her. Whereupon she pled guilty and was sentenced to (coincidently) six months. My friend wrote letters to the DA asking him not to prosecute and to the judge asking for mercy. The response was that as a matter of being made whole, that had been reconciled by her apology and restitution- but violation of the criminal law was essentially violating the social contract that individuals have with society. According, accountability for that (a criminal conviction and jail) was also warranted.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Gwiz (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 8:50pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

              ...but violation of the criminal law was essentially violating the social contract that individuals have with society. According, accountability for that (a criminal conviction and jail) was also warranted.


              I hear what you are saying here and I for the most part agree with it.

              I am just have a hard time reconciling the DOJ's persistence and heavy-handed use of plea bargaining in what seems like a victim-less case.

              Maybe we should base our federal prosecutors' performance on something other than total number of "wins".

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 9:12pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

                Gwiz, I don't disagree entirely. What we have is an adversarial system. Meaning both sides do their best to win. Really, who was the victim in my embezzlement story? But I think most people were accepting of the fact that this lady was convicted and sentenced. Fact is that passions burn brightly on the issues of IP and access to information. Our laws are dated and need to be reconciled. Right now, it's a fucking war. Both sides are dug in and little is being done to explore a middle ground. In any war, both sides bleed. Swartz was an ideological leader of the extreme view, but unprepared for the consequence of acting in that capacity. Without getting into the weeds, I see industry agreements such as enhanced Netflix distribution, six strikes, cooperation of ad networks and payment processors as a hopeful move to the middle. Everyone seems to be holding their nose and giving ground. It's not a perfect solution, but I have no confidence in Congress fashioning a solution. Advocates on both sides would serve their causes better by acting less strident and doctrinaire; and more open to accommodation.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          shane (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 8:00pm

          Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

          Lessig appears to be trying to protect his reputation as a moderate reformer, and Lessig, like any lawyer, has a vested interest in people respecting the law no matter what. However, unjust laws have no validity, and the law that allows an entity like JSTOR to tuck research that is often used in public policy formation away behind a paywall is, in my opinion and the opinions of many others (some of whom are lawyers with a bit more courage than Lessig), immoral.

          Having addressed that, the other issue I have with Lessig is he keeps reiterating Aaron did something illegal, which he did not. He violated a terms of service agreement. That's not illegal. It certainly is not listed in the various indictments against Aaron.

          Excuses pile up while the government abuses citizens. It's not as if Aaron is the only one that has suffered under the current IP regime. I surely wish you had better priorities.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 8:10pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

            So Swartz friend, mentor, lawyer and advisor; Harvard law professor Larry Lessig says this and you reject it based on ..... what? That you know better? And your argument that unjust laws have no validity has no validity. Until those laws have been struck down or eliminated from the books they're valid. Whether you think they're just or not. As citizens we can't pick and choose which laws to obey and expect no consequences.

            And for the record, he was charged under the CFAA- which doesn't really deal with infringement.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          shane (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 8:03pm

          Oh Good Grief!

          That's from LAST YEAR...... It doesn't even address the issue as it has evolved since then.

          Goober.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        alanbleiweiss (profile), Jan 17th, 2013 @ 2:52am

        Re: Re: My comment about this article over on the "Opposing Views" website

        Excellent response to Mr. DesElms. I honestly love the fact that you brought up Rosa Parks. While some may argue Aaron's actions to not be on par with African American's civil rights, in my opinion, they're one and the same on a certain level.

        Not entirely, of course, yet clearly as relates to the notions of human freedoms, of abuse of power against those not in power, of punishment so out of proportion to perceived violations of laws...

        I also personally believe he was absolutely right to do what he did in the accessing of content, yet that too is just my perspective on this world we live in.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 2:00pm

    How would it have altered his life? He was a genius, entrepreneur and well-connected. He couldn't have gotten a job at Walmart, but people would beat down the door to hire him for his skills and probably wouldn't have considered his felony to be of any consequence.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 2:25pm

    It looks like the White House bumped up the petition requirement to 100k signatures on We the people petitions. http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-white-house-raises-signature-limit-for-petitio n-responses-20130116,0,973194.story

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Bob Dobbs, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 2:36pm

    Defense Attorney

    I am not an expert on this case...but the way you fight a bullying prosecutor is to have your attorney look 'em in the eye and say lets go to trial. If its a bully, they will back off because they won't risk a public humiliation. It seems like Swartz defense team would know this. What kind of legal defense was he getting if he was getting pushed around like that? Just asking.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      shane (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 4:57pm

      Re: Defense Attorney

      Whaaaaat you say?

      Look, I'm no lawyer, so forgive me if I speak out of turn, but I do have three in my relatively close family and NONE of them think squaring off with the Feds is a cake walk, innocent or not.

      You don't sound credible to me.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 2:46pm

    Why aren't people marching in the streets over this yet?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 5:00pm

      Re:

      Because, as usual they find talking requires less effort and personal sacrifice- so they do that instead.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        shane (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 5:43pm

        Re: Re:

        Because the information is being spun to make it look legitimate, is the real answer to your question. I imagine there ARE a handful of people marching somewhere, being ignored as usual by your government and your media.

        And by most of you.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 6:22pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Why aren't you there?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            shane (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 6:34pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Why aren't you?

            "You're a sad, strange little man. And you have my pity."

            I mean, seriously, what is your point? That people shouldn't talk? What, do you think people didn't talk a good bit before they took up arms against England? Are you aware that journalism not entirely unlike what is done here at Techdirt was fundamental to ginning up support for independence?

            Anyhow, I'm going to keep posting here, so ... have fun with whatever psychotic little head game you're playing. At least you're presence ups the traffic on the site.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 6:41pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Really? That's the best you've got? My point is that the armchair anarchists on this site who call for protests, demonstrations and action seldom, if ever actually do anything. It's all talk- which I have a hard time respecting. The Swartz kid, however misguided backed shit up. He was a man of action. That much I really respect.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                shane (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 6:55pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                The worst I got is better than your best. This site and sites like it were instrumental in the SOPA protests. What is it you're side is up to that raises awareness?

                Robbing New Zealand to make the Hobbit?

                If you want to do some real good, point us all to a site designed for organizing protests. I do believe they are called for. Maybe one of the "Occupy" sites...

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 7:48pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Robbing New Zealand to make the Hobbit?

                  That New Zealand has such a pathetic film industry that it whores itself just to be in the proximity of the bright lights of Hollywood says more about NZ than anyone else.

                  I'm waiting to see the video of your Prime Minister blowing the producer in the hope of landing the sequel.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    shane (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 7:52pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Wow!

                    Lol... Thanks for clearing the last of my doubts about your character. I kept having this nagging feeling you had a point because, truthfully, I do feel there need to be actual, street level protests.

                    But clearly that's not your concern at all!

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 7:59pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      If you want your actions to match your rhetoric, you should. Don't waste your time screaming into the Techdirt echo chamber or bantering with me. Go do something. People on all sides respect that more the the brainless nattering you've engaged in so far.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 8:01pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Wow!

                      Lol... Thanks for clearing the last of my doubts about your character. I kept having this nagging feeling you had a point because, truthfully, I do feel there need to be actual, street level protests.

                      But clearly that's not your concern at all!


                      Be sure to wear your Techdirt t-shirt so I can point out to the police those most in need of tear gas.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        btrussell (profile), Jan 17th, 2013 @ 3:56am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        So you only want people in the street to round them up?

                        Now you know the answer to your question as to why they aren't on the streets.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 8:18am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          That was my question, not his. He trolled my thread. I'd be more than happy to join you in the streets over this one.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                alanbleiweiss (profile), Jan 17th, 2013 @ 3:02am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                so everyone here who comments (apparently in opposition to your view) is an armchair anarchists?

                You don't believe in people having a discussion online? Or voicing their opinion online (other than trolls like you who have nothing viable to offer intellectually?) And let's clear up your utter clueless beliefs.

                One way people in the United States can take action is by signing petitions. They are not the only action people can take. Yet they are one form of it. And oh how shocking. I found out that there WAS a petition related to this case because I read This article.

                Further, I'm not an anarchist. I believe in government, and shock, even capitalism. I own a business. I pay taxes. And do so because I actually think while imperfect, they do at least help to keep streets paved, police and firefighters and military protecting our country and way of life.

                I do NOT, however, believe that government, unfettered, and unchecked, is an acceptable concept. So maybe instead of the rest of us "anarchists", you might want to look in the mirror at your pathetic "contribution" to a noble dialogue.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    David, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 3:31pm

    Prosecutorial Misconduct?

    Why is this man's wife discussing a court case with her husband? Why is he so intimately involved in the details of a Federal court case? I am sure that the details were entered into the public record, but still....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 3:35pm

    Felons lose rights

    In the US, the loss of rights of felons vary from state to state, but may include a loss of the right to vote (in some states only while imprisoned, in others indefinitely), prohibition from jury duty, and prohibition on owning firearms.

    It will also significantly restrict the ability to travel internationally. Swartz, for example, would probably have needed to get special permission from Canada to be allowed entry.

    In the tech world, the travel restrictions might prove more onerous than the other losses of rights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 4:06pm

      Re: Felons lose rights

      Seems like he could use the Internet to handle most if not all international business.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        btrussell (profile), Jan 17th, 2013 @ 3:59am

        Re: Re: Felons lose rights

        After being convicted of wire and computer fraud you think he will be allowed on the net? On a computer?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 6:20am

          Re: Re: Re: Felons lose rights

          Perhaps you can provide any support for that being the case here? It is not automatic, you know. It would have been part of any plea agreement.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Marcel de Jong (profile), Jan 17th, 2013 @ 7:08am

        Re: Re: Felons lose rights

        Ask Kevin Mitnick how all of that went for him. Or for that matter, also ask Bernie S.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 5:04pm

      Re: Felons lose rights

      No, not voting other than during his six month stay:

      "Part I, Title VIII, Chapter 51, Section 1 of the Massachusetts General Laws describes the qualifications for voting in elections. In general, any person age 18 or older who meets residency requirements can vote in any election open to the general or appropriate local electorate. Disqualification can occur due to being a convicted felon presently "incarcerated in a correctional facility." A felon can also be denied the right to vote while they are under a legal guardianship or while disqualified where the conviction is "because of corrupt practices in respect to elections," whether incarcerated or not."

      Read more: Voting Rights for a Felon in Massachusetts | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_7697575_voting-rights-felon-massachusetts.html#ixzz2IBrTgatu

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 7:52pm

    It appears that Attorney Ortiz has violated the attorney client privilege (her client is the US Government, and by extension all of us) by discussing the details of this matter with her fool of a husband who didn't have the good sense not to broadcast her ethical violations across the Internet. It would seem a Board of Bar Overseers investigation is in order. Hopefully they will hound her in a similarly harsh and unyielding manner.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 7:54pm

      Re:

      I'm not sure that matters if the defendant is dead. No suggestion the husband had knowledge before that.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 8:15pm

        Re: Re:

        The privilege exists between Ortiz and the government. The defendant being deceased does nothing to change the privilege. And it speaks volumes about her judgment that she blabbed to her husband that didn't have the good sense not to reveal her blabbing in public

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 8:33pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The defendant being deceased does nothing to change the privilege.

          Why? You cannot slander or libel the dead, why can't you disclose details of the plea agreement. Privacy rights die right along side the individual. And who said he got the info from his wife? It seems like Swartz lawyer and plenty of others were blabbing away about the details.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 9:45pm

    "Shwatz fabilly, stahp!"

    Why you do this Dolan?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jan 16th, 2013 @ 10:28pm

    DOJ actually had to put a rule in the books to remind their staff that it is naughty to hide evidence from the other side.

    Think about that, they had to remind them that they aren't allowed to hide evidence... and there are still investigations where this has happened repeatedly... and no one has been fired.

    You think a body count is enough to get change?

    They couldn't find enough evidence of wrongdoing when they looked into Goldman... think they will find any here?

    Its cute he decided to defend his wife then wants to pretend he can delete it from the net... it is a wonder IBM is doing so well with execs that dense about the world.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    The Old Man in The Sea, Jan 16th, 2013 @ 11:48pm

    Legal/Illegal, Moral/Immoral, Letter/Spirit of the Law

    What is legal may not be moral, what is illegal may not be immoral. Following the letter of the law may not be following the spirit of the law.

    Many have made their views known and it may well bring about changes in the law.

    However, we no longer have any opportunity to know what Aaron's thinking was. We do not have any opportunity to now judge what he did in terms of being moral or immoral. By her and her sidekick's actions as reported, it does appear that though she may have been acting within the the letter of the law but she and her sidekick doesn't appear to have been in the spirit of the law.

    Her reported actions do however show that even though she didn't go out to murder Aaron (and in fact can't be blamed for his suicide as that is an act he is responsible for), she seems to have had the spirit of murder against Aaron (that is destroy him at all costs).

    She is solely responsible for her own actions and she will be so judged for them, if not now, then at a later stage. All of us are that same position, we are solely responsible for our own choices and decisions.

    Just remember, she and her sidekick will have to live with this for the rest of their lives and they will face condemnation every day from here on from their extended families, circles of friends (if not now former friends) and neighbours and others.

    She can no longer hide who she is any more and this (without a fundamental change of heart on her part) will continue to come back and bite her over the years in all sorts of ways, including in time the possibility of her husband divorcing her because of this event.

    I do not in any way want to be in her shoes going forward, nor for that matter in her husband's shoes.

    What needs to be done is to support the family and friends of Aaron in their time of grief without making it a public spectacle and to revoke such stupidly written laws so that the defenders of the law don't act in collectively stupid ways.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Tex Arcana (profile), Jan 17th, 2013 @ 6:36pm

    Hey, Carmen Ortiz: you're a murderer.

    Hey, Tom J. Dolan: you're married to a murderer. And because you defend her actions, and aided and abetted her selling-out to corporations like yours (were you the biggest depositor, too?), which makes you an accessory to said murder.

    Put em in D-block, they'll have full dance cards for a VERY long time...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jesse, Jan 17th, 2013 @ 9:50pm

    Tom Dolan

    You can email Tom Dolan here to ask him why he likes to break the IBM social media guidelines by being a ****.

    thomas_dolan@us.ibm.com

    http://www.ibm.com/blogs/zz/en/guidelines.html

    You can find his email from the IBM.com website just by typing his name in.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Mick Magill, Jan 18th, 2013 @ 12:13pm

    Prosecutors need to be held accountable for malicious prosecution. Since they have immunity for this, doing it in the press and via political pressure is the only way to do it.

    I hope she loses her job, and is held up to so much ridicule she becomes an object lesson.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 26th, 2013 @ 7:06am

    Carmen Ortiz is a piece of shit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Carmen Ortiz, Apr 27th, 2013 @ 6:30pm

    I, Carmen Ortiz, am a murdering cunt.

    This fucking miserable miscreant Carmen Ortiz should face life in jail for putting a hero to the people in such a helpless position. This absolute cunt through and through, without exception or pardon to her other contributions wherever they may be, should now live forever in a cold cell with the full weight and burden of the murder of this boy. Imagine how he felt Carmen, when you put that last nail into his conscience and destroyed his life. I want you to feel every bit of his psychological helplessness, and feel the hope in you slip away slowly in the same jail cell you would have sent him to, you cruel worthless cunt. You are an accessory to murder Carmen Ortiz, you are a piece of shit and you are the one who should be hanging from that rope, not that great and promising young man with a bright future ahead, YOU KILLED. Burn and be tortured in Hell you piece of shit, you've committed a great Mortal sin you fucking murdering bitch, i spit on your grave you ugly whore.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This