
Life Inside the Aaron Swartz Investigation - rdl
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/13/03/life-inside-the-aaron-swartz-investigation/273654/
======
jrochkind1
Never, ever, ever, talk to the prosecutors.

Learn from this story, and just don't talk to them.

The dangerous part of this story is that she reports her grand jury experience
as a success, suggesting that you _can- talk to the state and 'win'. Maybe it
was as successful as she thinks, maybe it wasn't. And we can't say that you
can _never_ be succesful talking to the prosecutors; never say never. But what
we can say is that they are _experts_ at 'winning' in those confrontations,
they've trained for it and practice it every day, no matter how smart you are
you're _probably_ going to end up hurting yourselves or your friends and loved
ones by talking to the prosecutors.

Stick with the conclusion from the first part, never, ever, talk to the
prosecutors.

~~~
thinkcomp
This is a tricky subject but I feel compelled to point out that it's not so
simple. If I hadn't talked to the USAO when I received a proffer letter in
2006, I might have been in Aaron's position trying to defend myself at trial
for doing nothing wrong. Instead, the U.S. Attorney (a different one) decided
to drop the issue
(<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/13/technology/13secure.html>).

I don't know if there's really a lesson to be learned from the story other
than to be very careful when it comes to doing anything that might be even
remotely perceived as "hacking" because the justice system is incredibly
broken. You don't get to choose your prosecutor.

~~~
thomasz
"Do not talk to the police" does not mean "do never cooperate or be utterly
destroyed".

There may be some damn good reasons to cooperate, but you need an attorney to
estimate the impact of any statement you make, even if you did nothing wrong.

------
ck2
The entire wealth and resources of the federal government when wielded by a
prosecutor against an individual is truly terrifying, and not surprisingly
abused constantly.

Those powers are meant to go after "well armored" entities like organized
crime and "well entrenched" corporations, bankers, wallstreet, etc. to protect
the people of the state from what they could not individually protect
themselves against.

But going after individuals guarantees wins which helps the victory scoreboard
and political careers. Going after entities that have armies of lawyers and
boatloads of cash is far less profitable and far more risky.

------
emhart
From the Editor's notes on the article:

"A couple of publication notes. First, Quinn Norton did not accept money for
the publication of this story. We offered. She has chosen to donate the money
we're paying her. Second, I edited this story. Third, we've published several
snippets of writing that Norton penned during the time of the trial along with
her present account because their content -- a letter to the prosecutor and a
reflection on Norton's father -- are an important lens for her state of mind
at the time of the investigation. "

[http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/13/03/editors-...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/13/03/editors-
note-to-quinn-nortons-account-of-the-aaron-swartz-investigation/273666/)

~~~
sneak
> First, Quinn Norton did not accept money for the publication of this story.
> We offered. She has chosen to donate the money we're paying her.

No wonder she's too broke to afford medical care. :(

~~~
emhart
This one article would not make the difference, though I wonder if your
greater point may be that it can be hard to get by in this country when you
grant money an ethical/emotional/moral or otherwise personal value beyond
beyond the apparent financial value.

------
rdl
Wow. I had no idea she was so relatively destitute; it's a lot easier to
criticize someone's actions and unfamiliarity with the legal process when
you're used to dealing with startup founders, people who have had Jennifer
Granick on speed-dial, etc. I guess being an independent journalist doesn't
pay well, and if you're being entangled in something in your personal life,
vs. through through something you've published, you're kind of on your own.

Still, a personal "document retention policy" is essential if you do anything
interesting at all. In addition, I have a pretty bad memory.

~~~
rdouble
Wasn't Aaron a fellow at Harvard Law school and didn't he hang out with Larry
Lessig? The part of the story I don't understand the most is why the high
profile lawyer who was egging Aaron on to break the rules seems to have played
a minor role after his arrest.

~~~
neurotech1
As far as I can tell, Larry (Lawrence) Lessig is a civil
copyright/technology/IP rights attorney, and not known to be a criminal
defense attorney. Even with his high profile status, he may not have much
criminal defense experience.

~~~
jacquesm
Yes, but that does not explain that the EFF as a whole didn't see fit to help
out.

~~~
rdl
Why is weev getting relatively no support?

EFF circa 2013 is a large institution. It does good, but it isn't at all
focused on defending people in "boring" cases, which was kind of its original
mission (Steve Jackson Games).

There isn't an organization in the tech community which defends people from
computer related crimes on bogus but boring grounds the way the ACLU does for
pure, conventional free speech.

I think that would be a useful organization; even if a defendant is a racist
troll, he deserves a competent defense, and computer crimes are still complex
and novel enough that normal legal defense is probably not ideal.
Unfortunately I'm not (yet) in a position to fund something like that.

~~~
dannyobrien
EFF isn't that large (I work there). It takes on cases in exactly the same way
as ACLU does, for impact on the law.

It was involved in the Swartz case, but mostly as a resource to help people
find other criminal defence lawyers. Lots of people got caught up in the
investigation, and they couldn't all be represented by the same firm.

------
kamaal
>>These days, I not only don't log, I refuse to talk to anyone who does. I
often refuse to communicate without encryption.

This is the lesson to take away from all this. People on this forum have
always talked about freedom to bear arms. It is not that difficult to realize
this fact, Freedom to bear arms in our times is cryptogrphy/encryption not
guns.

~~~
guiambros
Encryption is not relevant when prosecutors can subpoena all your electronic
equipment and find every single trace, log files, historical messages, etc.

But agree, the real lesson to take away if you ever find yourself in a similar
situation is: don't ask, don't talk, don't write.

Sadly, Aaron was right in trying to avoid any conversation about the case,
even with loved ones. The only way to "win" is not to play.

~~~
mindslight
Computers are an extension of one's mind, and should be subject to the same
fifth amendment protection. We wouldn't say that protection against self
incrimination no longer applies once information can be scanned directly out
of the brain (although the doublespeaking sovereign nine probably would,
sigh). I have hope that ubiquitous stenographic file systems can maybe show
people the way and encourage such push back. We'll see.

------
ScottBurson
To me this paints a striking, and damning, picture of these prosecutors as
egos run amok.

These are not the kind of people I want to see paid with my tax dollars.

------
unreal37
I feel sorry for Quinn Norton an innocent bystander in all this. It seems
everything she did including talking to the prosecutors she did what she
honestly thought was the best thing to do. She did need to protect herself and
her daughter. Her life was thrown upside-down during those months she was
involved in this case, unfairly.

------
MWil
"I was told that changing my behavior while being investigated could be held
against me, because in an investigation it is suspicious to learn from your
mistakes."

Google "subsequent remedial measures" and know that this isn't always true.
INAL yet but I'd love to represent tech-savy clients who need help navigating
the horrible world of the law.

------
lawnchair_larry
According to this, he never planned to release the documents at all?

~~~
vidarh
According to this there is no _evidence_ he planned to release the documents
at all.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
Right, but not only that, there was a very plausible explanation as to why he
downloaded them, which had nothing to do with releasing them.

~~~
MWil
"I told them about the Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto. And in doing so, Aaron
would explain to me later (and reporters would confirm), I made everything
worse. This is what I must live with."

Not just worse, she gave them a case they didn't have (although arguably a
better prosecutor would have googled)

