
IBM Exec Husband of Aaron Swartz Prosecutor Takes to Twitter to Defend His Wife - lovekandinsky
http://betabeat.com/2013/01/tom-dolan-defends-carmen-ortiz-aaron-swartz-twitter/
======
nlh
He's obsessing over this supposed 6-month offer. Sounds exactly like what I'd
expect the husband of a prosecutor to sound like.

Does he have any idea what even 6 months in jail would have been like for a
20-something? How would he feel about spending 6 months in jail for, say, that
March Madness office pool he might have joined (illegal gambling!) or that
time he recorded and re-played an NFL game to his buddies (violation of the
disclaimer at the start of the game!). Etc.

~~~
tcuk
I'm sorry, but if you are arguing that Aaron Swartz did absolutely not break
any current laws (whether you agree with them or not), then you are
delusional, I urge you to read Orin Kerr's analysis of the situation, and
refute anything he has stated, in a logical coherent manner, with solid
evidence.

I'm sorry but I'm sure this man, his wife, or any of the prosecution team did
not expect Aaron to commit suicide or was their intention. I'm sure they are
just as upset as everyone else.

Try and put your emotions aside, and let your logic take control again.

~~~
shock
> I'm sorry but I'm sure this man, his wife, or any of the prosecution team
> did not expect...

> I'm sure they are just as upset as everyone else.

What makes you sure about those things? Do you have private information that
the rest of us don't have? Based on the information in the press it sounds
like the prosecution just didn't care, or worse it sounds like this is the way
they act as a matter of policy.

~~~
tcuk
Hi Shock,

Basically we operate in a society (thankfully in my opinion), where actually
the onus is on the accuser to prove the accusations, with evidence, beyond
reasonable doubt.

The above humans outlined unless have some emotional deficiencies, I believe
are like the rest of us, and it's safe to assume when anyone kills themselves
it's a sad situation, and can empathise with said person.

So in fact I turn your statement back on to you, please provide solid evidence
that would make me to believe they WOULD NOT be upset at the situation.

~~~
shock
Apparently you don't know the meaning of the word "sure" which you used
plenty. I didn't accuse you of anything so I don't have to prove anything. You
told us you were sure of some things and I asked you what made you to be sure.
I was genuinely interested in the information you might have. It seems there
was none and you just use words liberally, without regard for their meaning.
In fact, I am sure of it. See what I did there?

~~~
tcuk
It read to me as if you were accusing the prosecutors of not having any
empathy to Aaron in this case. I believe the default human reaction is to feel
said emotion, and such I think it's reasonable to assume they did feel empathy
unless we have evidence that directly contradicts that. Sorry for any
confusion.

------
hammerzeit
I'm a little scared to post here, given how abusive HN has become over the
past few days.

As someone who's been reading Aaron's writings for years, it's clear he was a
student of civil disobedience. It _seems_ like the JSTOR act was a deliberate
act intended as a statement of civil disobedience, given the little I've read
here. My facts may be wrong here.

But if that's the case, going to jail seems like a common component of civil
disobedience as a way to demonstrate how unjust a law is. The men I'm certain
Aaron admired -- MLK Jr, Gandhi, etc. -- all served time in jail as a
mechanism of galvanizing society around the injustice of the laws they were
fighting.

I ask this as a legitimate question: Did Aaron not expect to go to jail for an
act of civil disobedience?

~~~
vph
Not only does he have a history of disobedience but also a history of unstable
mental health.

Frankly, you can't break the law even with just cause, kill yourself for being
prosecuted, and blame the government for prosecuting you.

Although imperfect, we have a pretty good justice system that is based on an
adversary model whereby the prosecutors will try their best to prove you are
guilty; the defense will do their best to prove you are not; and a jury of
peers guided by the judge will decide.

Everyone in the right mind will see that there is no way Aaron would get 35
years. Now, in fact, he was offered 6 months.

~~~
shock
> [...] there is no way Aaron would get 35 years.

I have no idea what is the basis of that statement. I think that if he didn't
agree to a plea bargain, if found guilty he could have gotten more than 35
years if the prosecution got their way. In fact, the prosecution just upped
their accusation count to 13 a short while before Aaron's suicide.

~~~
tomku
Jail sentences are not speed limits. The maximums are set high so that a judge
determining sentencing has flexibility in extreme cases, not because they
expect most sentences to actually be that high. Yes, he could've gotten more
than 35 years if they threw the book at him on every count, but he also
could've gotten the minimum sentence, which everyone completely ignores. I
don't know what the minimum sentences are for the crimes in question off the
top of my head, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were very light. If anyone
feels like doing the legwork on that, I'd love to have some definite numbers
to throw around.

------
scrumper
I have some sympathy. His wife, a public servant, is implicated in the suicide
of a well-loved young man and a great deal of anger is coming her way. It's
deeply distressing when one's spouse is attacked, especially by outsiders, and
I respect him for sticking up for her in public.

His message and his timing are terribly misguided, but he is at least trying.
No doubt she appreciates the support and, I hesitate to say, he does have a
point: the 6 month offer hasn't been widely discussed by the mob.

(Just for the record I think it's a scandal that these charges were ever
bought. Proportionality utterly failed here, and I hope the government and the
nation learns something from this tragedy.)

~~~
throwit1979
_the 6 month offer hasn't been widely discussed by the mob_

It's been discussed. It's just that it's been dismissed as irrelevant. What
_is_ relevant is that the process itself has bankrupted a brilliant man,
distracted and stressed him for two years of his life, and required that he
declare himself a felon, abdicating his right to vote, among _many_ other
rights, for a fucking TOS violation, that the "victim" did not even want to
pursue. Additionally, it's quite likely the bargain would have included some
degree of probation during which a man whose passions run deep in computing,
would be banned from touching a computing device of any kind.

How you government sycophants sleep at night is beyond me. Is there nothing
the agents of the Almighty State can do that would make you stop defending
them?

~~~
scrumper
> How you government sycophants sleep at night is beyond me. Is there nothing
> the agents of the Almighty State can do that would make you stop defending
> them?

Wait, OK wow. I'm pretty sure I said it was a scandal, and a tragedy, and they
needed to learn from it. I stopped short of calling for her to be fired
because there are enough people pouring fuel on that fire. The changes that
need to happen are far bigger than one person's job.

I'm also fairly sure that my comment simply explained why a husband of an
embattled wife might choose to come to her defense in public. How you get from
that to "government sycophants" is as beyond me as my ability to sleep is
beyond your comprehension.

Finally, the irony involved in your baseless attribution of bad motive to my
post when we're discussing a prosecutor's attribution of evil intent to what
you call a 'TOS violation' is profound. It's a pity, because the first
paragraph of your post contains a reasonable point, less the swearing.

~~~
throwit1979
Sorry, I should clarify that the sycophant label was not actually directed at
you per se, but at the larger group of people coming out of the woodwork on HN
to defend this disgusting display of highly selective prosecutorial
discretion.

I'm mainly looking at you, philwelch. Your defense of law & order has been
incomparable since the beginning of this story. May your jackboots be forever
bloody, good sir!

~~~
philwelch
You know nothing of me, troll.

------
btilly
The best response is buried in
[http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-
deficit...](http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/15/humanity-
deficit/bj8oThPDwzgxBSHQt3tyKI/story.html?s_campaign=sm_tw) in the paragraph:

 _"The thing that galls me is that I told Heymann the kid was a suicide risk,"
Good told me. "His reaction was a standard reaction in that office, not unique
to Steve. He said, 'Fine, we’ll lock him up.' I'm not saying they made Aaron
kill himself. Aaron might have done this anyway. I’m saying they were aware of
the risk, and they were heedless."_

If there is ANY truth to this at all, then firing the prosecutors is not
enough. They had a prosecutor who was dealing with a suicide risk, who had
triggered a previous suicide due to being overly aggressive, and the standard
response was to offer to lock the person up??

That's manslaughter in my books. And if the system had justice (it does not)
it would be so prosecuted.

~~~
emkemp
I'll bite. What should a prosecutor do when the defendent is a suicide risk?

~~~
djt
One of the main problems is that once the prosecutors become lenient with
suicide risks then every person prosecuted says they're a suicide risk.

unfortunate for the people that really are at risk.

------
ChuckMcM
I am not surprised this guy is doing this, the coverage has been almost
universally favoring Aaron's story and positioning the prosecutor as the bad
guy (or gal). Stories like this sort of take on their own narrative once they
get going, and a lot of folks are using this as an exemplar to curb abusive
prosecution.

I am surprised however that the husband thinks anyone cares what was offered.
That suggests he really missed the root of the anger completely (which is as
far as I can ascertain egregious prosecution by copyright interests and their
lapdogs regardless of human cost or mandate) The only thing that would make
people sit back and go "Huh?" was if we found out the Justice Department had
dropped the charges weeks before Aaron's suicide.

~~~
tcuk
I believe it's because for most people who read the case, there's so much mud
in the water, the first impression one receives of the case, is that Aaron was
facing 35 years in prison, and 1 million dollar fine.

Especially non USA-natives who have no idea how the juridical system there
works, for the first few days, I actually believed the above, that if found
guilty he would face that sentence, I had no idea how plea bargains works
there, it's been a frustrating experience to say the least.

~~~
btilly
The million fine is effectively an underestimate when the average cost of
defending yourself is $1.5 million. And to avoid prejudicing the judge, Aaron
was unable to say how bad his problems were, which made asking for assistance
hard. Kind of makes a mockery of "the right to a lawyer".

Being a convicted felon is no walk in the park either. That shows up on every
job application you submit, and makes it much harder to find jobs for the rest
of your life. (Which is something Aaron would have faced, because he'd
exhausted his financial resources.)

~~~
djt
Im sure having a felony conviction would be terrible for your ordinary person,
but with Aaron's resume and public presence I dont think it would be hard for
him to find work.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Some felony convictions more than others, having a felony embezzlement
conviction for example would certainly make it hard to get a job in
accounting. Stock traders who have been convicted of fraud often find it hard
to get jobs on Wall Street. But I agree with you that a felony copyright
conviction on Aaron's record would probably not be a barrier to him working in
a technical capacity.

------
tcuk
This whole Aaron Swartz episode, has really shown how un-objective this
community is. The last few days I've never seen such hyperbole and
sensationalism plague a community. It's the exact same you'd expect from the
comments section from any mainstream media comment section.

Even within this submission, the comments here still talk and insinuate Aaron
was facing life imprisonment, danger to being raped daily, and suicide was his
only option.

The more I sift through the crap most of the community is posting, and
actually find more objective facts (why is Orin Kerr's objective analysis of
the law no where to be found after a day?! Does this not speak volumes of the
community?).

I actually feel sorry the Tom Dolan, and his wife and everyone else involved
(isn't it weird how you can empathise with multiple polarizing parties??).

I don't actually think from the facts I've observed that 6 months (his lawyer
actually suspected a suspended sentence), is actually a bad deal in this case,
given all the facts, but this is my personal objective opinion.

I would like to see people be more objective, and communicate with less
emotion and more reason, but it's something I've observed happening over the
past few years, and I think this just highlights what type of community it's
mutated into.

~~~
SwellJoe
Your "personal objective opinion" isn't objective (and your use of the word
"objective" over and over again in contexts where you are clearly stating your
opinion rather than "objective facts" to dismiss those who disagree with you
is contrary to a productive discussion), and it's missing the point of all of
these discussions (the law is wrong, and the prosecutor used the law to bully
a brilliant kid past his breaking point). Your dismissive tone, in general, is
annoying and generally not welcome in this community.

I also find it interesting that your account is 27 minutes old, and was
created specifically for this discussion. Your concerns about "how un-
objective this community is" seem self-serving...it seems pretty clear you
aren't of this community, and exhibit few signs of understanding what makes
this community tick. Also, as a nerd who values clear, concise, and accurate
language, your misunderstanding of the word "objective" really bugs me. And
that's my "personal objective opinion".

~~~
tcuk
Without getting into a philosophical debate, you can read 'objective opinion'
as 'it is my un-biased opinion in a neutrally emotional state, to believe the
facts to be..' if it helps.

I agree the law is perhaps wrong, but who could have known he was being
bullied past breaking point and would lead to suicide but himself? Do you
believe that if someone disagrees with a law they can break it to cause
reform, and if so which laws do you draw the line at? Is this the best way to
act? Do you not think regardless of whether we agree with it or not, if we
break it we should be punished? He clearly broke the current law, is 6 months
imprisonment, a felon, and a highly likely suspended sentence really such a
grave punishment? Do you honestly believe Aaron if convicted felon would
struggle for work? Do you think he was emotionally sound and compos mentis at
the time of taking his life? Do you believe this man did not show traits that
he could possibly go on to further break other laws he didn't agree with in
the name of his version of liberation?

I don't think Aaron went about his goal in an amicable way, and I don't think
he believed he was either, he knew what he was doing, and unfortunately if you
break laws, whether or not you agree with them, you ought to be punished. If
you don't like the laws, cause reform without breaking them,there are other
ways.

Whats the minimum requirements to be considered part of this community?

~~~
SwellJoe
I believe non-violent civil disobedience is an ethical imperative in the face
of unjust law. I've participated in non-violent civil disobedience on a number
of occasions, and hope I will have the courage to do so again in the future.

Civil disobedience is not the only, or often even the best, way to change
oppressive laws...but, it has been a necessary component of most major
cultural shifts. Civil rights, LGBTQ equality, etc. They all happened because
a few people were brave enough to break the law, even in cases where the law
was popular. However, it is very much worth pointing out that most
prosecutors, when pursuing charges against participants in non-violent civil
disobedience exercise restraint. They rarely pursue felony charges (though
this has been changing; activists in Texas are alarmed by the new use of
bizarre old laws to charge participants in the Tarsands Blockade with
felonies; but this is the exception rather than the rule), and it is usually
possible to continue your life without major impediment, perhaps after a short
stint (a few days or weeks) in jail, and without the weight of a felony
conviction following them around for life. A political act with no profit
motive should be treated very differently by prosecutors, and judges, and the
law, than an act committed for personal gain.

So, I disagree with your assessment that breaking the law is not a valid part
of changing the law. Often, it is the _only_ way change happens, and I have
great admiration for the people willing to lay their own well-being on the
line for something they believe in. In this case, an unjust law was broken,
and I consider that an ethically sound decision.

Aaron Swartz was known to be a suicide risk. Prosecutors responded to this
knowledge with, "We'll lock him up." Evil rarely looks like a James Bond
villain...it's usually somebody just following orders. Evil was committed in
this case, and it's part of a systemic problem in our culture and in our
state. "Well, he broke the law!" is no justification for hounding a kid into
bankruptcy and deep depression. It simply isn't. There is no justification for
the behavior of the prosecutors in this case, and there is no justification
for the way the law treats non-violent offenders in politicized cases like
this.

Had Aaron hurt someone with his actions, I would have little sympathy. But, he
didn't; he sought only to help people, to free the poorest people from an
oppressive lack of access to information. When someone spends their entire
life trying to help those least able to defend themselves, and the state
responds with threats of decades in prison, the state is committing a great
evil. I'm not even going to discuss the distraction of a six month sentence in
a plea deal; this case damned near bankrupted him and that was used to back
him into a corner where he had no options, and that's deeply unjust.

The requirement to be a part of this community is to respectfully discuss
topics. Your approach has been to insult the intelligence, objectivity, and
knowledge of anyone you engage with. In a community like this, which contains
some extremely bright (famously so, in many cases) and curious people,
dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as not being objective, or being too
emotional, or being biased, while staking out your own claim of being
unfailingly objective, unemotional, and unbiased, is insulting. Shutting down
conversations by way of insult is unproductive, and unwelcome here.

Many people here disagree with you; if you can't convince them by way of
reason, you're going to have to deal with being in the minority. To suggest
that disagreement with you is uninformed or unobjective, on issues that many
of us have taken very seriously for decades (and have seen the force of the
state used to oppress friends or acquaintances on a number of occasions in
similarly unjust fashion), is not productive.

------
wavesounds
Her husband is just wrong. The only deal on the table was plead guilty to all
13 felonies and get "possibly six months but up to seven years" - the
prosecutors would not negotiate with Aaron's lawyers.

<http://mashable.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-plea-deal/>

~~~
toyg
From what I understand, the prosecutor is not even bound to keep his/her word:
after you admit the charges, they can just turn around and throw the book at
you regardless.

Considering the gross disproportionality of filed charges and the fact that
there was no real incentive for the US Attorney office to "keep Swartz happy"
(i.e. no chance he'd turn any co-conspirator or recover any loot, this
basically being a mostly-symbolic solo operation), obviously you wouldn't
trust their word.

------
Confusion
One would expect someone with that kind of job to understand the logical
fallacy of "you didn't have to run a 5 million dollar risk: you could just
have paid the $5000 for an insurance policy", when the insurance company is
the one responsible for the 5 million dollar risk.

P.S. Please, don't argue whether the analogy is imperfect: the point is that
argument is logically fallacious.

------
spdy
Mh looks like he wants to protect his wife and take a stand, this would work
in reality but he does not quite get how the internet works.

He put even more fuel into the fire and he gave up his anonymity.

~~~
bau5
It also doesn't help that his last name is "Dolan".

~~~
remi
Why is that?

~~~
thebrokencube
There's a meme with a character called "Dolan"
(<http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/dolan>) which is pretty popular for reasons
that probably no one can explain.

------
Yaa101
While I understand that he stays by his spouce, it does not mean that he has
to agree with her point of view, part of being spouces is to be and stay
critical.

My reply to him is and stays:

The qualities of a good prosecutor are as elusive and as impossible to define
as those which mark a gentleman. And those who need to be told would not
understand it anyway. A sensitiveness to fair play and sportsmanship is
perhaps the best protection against the abuse of power, and the citizen’s
safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks
truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who
approaches his task with humility.

Source: [http://www.roberthjackson.org/the-man/speeches-
articles/spee...](http://www.roberthjackson.org/the-man/speeches-
articles/speeches/speeches-by-robert-h-jackson/the-federal-prosecutor/)

------
Shenglong
Six months is not really a mitigating factor for her overreach when he should
not have spent a minute in jail in the first place.

I feel like this case feels strangely reminiscent of the extortion of patent
trolls, where they levy exorbitant risk over a company in exchange for a
payout. Except, of course, this time the price was a significant portion of a
talented young man's life. I have no grace for sympathy here.

------
pms
Didn't Ms. Ortiz argue that she cannot comment on Swartz's case because of the
respect to his family? And now his own husband breaks the silence? Isn't this
all superficial and for their own profit?

So, here was a trade: 6-months in a jail for breaking Swartz's own sense of
what is good and what is not, something he believed in the most, free
knowledge. Obviously, this was out of question for Swartz. He simply couldn't
agree for it!

I admire Swartz even more for doing what he did. He did not have any other
options left, as he symbolically writes in his last post about Dark Knight.

------
silentmars
"Ok, Tom Dolan, we'll offer you a deal. The entire internet will leave your
wife alone and stop saying nasty things about her, if you agree to plead
guilty to possessing child pornography and serve 6 months in prison."

------
pstuart
Something tells me that this won't work out the way he expected.

~~~
gavinlynch
You're right, it's a tragic situation where a bright young man extinguished
his own flame. Emotions are so raw that no matter what he says right now, it
will not be well received. Even if what he is saying is accurate.

But frankly, I'm disappointed the coverage has stopped being about suicide
prevention. Nobody should ever take their own life, and if you are feeling
like life is not worth living please immediately call 1-800-273-8255. Thanks.

p.s.: I'd appreciate responses for downvotes, as I know this isn't popular,
but would enjoy a real discussion.

~~~
_delirium
> Nobody should ever take their own life

I guess I personally disagree with this, at least for my own personal utility
function. I would prefer suicide over a lengthy prison term, and I think
that's the rational choice, at least with the inhumane conditions in American
prisons. _And_ you have to make that decision before sentencing,
unfortunately, because courts often order suicide watches around the time of
sentencing, precisely because many people share that preference.

I agree with you in cases where you have an option of continuing to live as a
free man, however. In those cases seeming dead ends are usually irrational,
borne of depressive pessimism. And treatment can make the situation improve
and make it clear that there are ways out. But a lengthy prison term is an
_actual_ dead end, and treatment can't produce ways out of it. When someone
kills themselves to avoid torture, it's the fault of the torturer.

~~~
gavinlynch
I think this is a dangerous thought and I'm sorry you feel that way.

~~~
tejaswiy
It's a tradeoff. 6 months? Probably manageable. 30 years? No, thank you.

------
honzzz
He is saying that like "it was just six months so it's no big deal"... but I
feel it's not just about months or years in prison - it's more about human
dignity.

Face 35 years in prison or plead guilty and get only six months - how many
innocent people would confess guilt just out of fear? And those confessions
are as valuable as those that inquisition got... and that's sickening.

System that creates strong incentive for innocent people to plead guilty
belongs to middle ages and not to a supposedly civilized country. How many
Americans had to go through something like this and now have to live the rest
of their lives with this horrible injustice, labelled as criminals just
because they were afraid to take their chances and risk spending years or even
decades in prison?

~~~
crescentfresh
> System that creates strong incentive for innocent people to plead guilty
> belongs to middle ages

Relevant discussion from earlier today:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5058703>

------
brown9-2
I'm curious what the ethics are in the legal profession as far as a prosecutor
sharing details of plea negotiations with a federal defendant with a spouse.

~~~
peejaybee
Irrelevant here -- the 6-month deal has been made public by other sources.

------
sp4rki
I would argue that a conviction on record in the "security field" is arguably
more a PR boost and a boost to his cause than something that hinders your
ability to either get a job or support yourself financially post jail time.

I reckon that if Aaron would have gone to trial, he would have most probably
not done 35 years, more probably from one to four years - that is taking into
account most high profile hacker convictions in the past ten years, with one
exception of five years and change plus a screwed up supervised release which
I can't remember the timespan of. Six years would have been even better than
that.

Look at Kevin Mitnick (the exception to the rule mentioned above), Adrian
Lamo, Mark Abene, Kevin Poulsen, etc, etc... They've all had successful
careers either as Security Consultants, Technologists/Speakers, Journalists,
et al. And you could easily argue that having served time has made them all
notable figures in the technology and security scenes. Aaron Swartz could have
pleaded guilty (he did steal the documents and trespass) and do his 6 months
or go to trial and end up doing a couple of years - and come out a hero with a
strengthened cause and higher profile. A Reddit cofounder and high profile
activist doing some jail time for his cause is something that would not have
been forgotten.

Don't get me wrong, I'm on Aaron's side. The charges where preposterous and
the way he was treated was barbaric. I can definitely sympathize. That been
said I would have taken the charges and 6 months of jail time as a badge of
honor. I mean he did break the law and caused monetary damages to JSTOR. At
the end of the day this man would probably have entered that elite group of
"convicted computer criminals" who have been able to turn their convictions
around to become successful entrepreneurs, public figures, and hell maybe even
a Movie/TV personality. Hell Mark Abene even had his debut as an actor in some
movie I can't remember.

------
jerryhuang100
6 mos and being labeled as a felony for life for a young man for nothing but
BS is OK for Tom Dolan? Why doesn't he try to spend six days in a prison for
nothing? This guy even states "...enjoy supporting the inspirational students
at Roxbury Prep." in his Twitter profile. Is it how they teach kids there?
Sicko.

------
Zikes
Six months is still a long time for an innocent man.

~~~
michaelfeathers
Six months plus a felony conviction that follows you for life.

~~~
BrokenPipe
Six months plus a felony conviction that follows you for life plus being
financially ruined by the two years in the case.

------
hsmyers
In the spirit of Twitter I would reply FOAD---If you don't recognize the
acronym, think about it for a while it will come to you...

