
Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out - pron
http://harpers.org/blog/2013/01/carmen-ortiz-strikes-out/
======
Vivtek
I agree with the sentiment here, but some of the specific claims are certainly
wince-worthy. College prank? Greatest prodigy of his generation? Little to no
commercial value? All those claims are a lot more complicated than that!

Not to mention it makes it sound like Ortiz was cooking this all up behind
closed doors and everyone else was shocked! shocked! to realize how the
"prosecutorial misconduct" had gotten out of control, when this is the way DoJ
does everything it touches and everybody knows it.

~~~
moxie
I think this is the hardest part. Ortiz is obviously disgusting, but she's not
really different than anyone else in her position. These kinds of tactics are
employed every day.

So what do we do? I support the demonization of Ortiz purely on the level of
revenge. In a world where we typically have no agency, it's satisfying to make
someone like her uncomfortable.

But on another level, it's frustrating that it's impossible to put the system
on trial. It's unfortunate that by demonizing Ortiz, we play right into the
hands of those who appointed her (and will appoint her successor) by making
this out to be the fault of an individual. It makes it easier for them to act
shocked, replace her, and be done with it.

~~~
MichaelSalib
I get that vengeance can be satisfying, but it means sending a message. And
the message that US attorneys are going to hear is "don't fuck with young
affluent white hackers with powerful friends".

I never met Swartz, but I'd be surprised if he'd have wanted his legacy to be
people that look like him getting a pass while everyone else suffers the same
as before.

~~~
pekk
There is no reason to suppose that this will be taken as a reason not to
prosecute _white people_. The specific act and its context are clearly more
important.

~~~
MichaelSalib
In international relations, there's a whole literature devoted to signalling:
looking at how states send signals to other states. There's a huge amount of
evidence showing that the signals received are very often different from the
ones transmitted.

~~~
pekk
The race of the defendant isn't a salient part of this. We don't have to wait
for a black Aaron Swartz to act, on the far-fetched premise that the only
thing that will be noticed by prosecutors was his color. This is a far-fetched
idea.

Federal prosecutors are certainly intelligent enough to understand many of the
factors which make this sensitive, including a suicide, internet backing, the
specific alleged crime and the open access issue. Without deciding that the
whole problem is that you can't prosecute white people. So many white people
are prosecuted without fanfare that this would be an impossibly irrational
conclusion to draw.

~~~
MichaelSalib
Are we really going to pretend that federal prosecutors are colorblind, that
aren't significant racial disparities in federal sentencing already?

~~~
jlgreco
Did he say anything of the sort?

------
cardamomo
This is a very intelligent, informed summary of the mounting case against the
prosecutors. The author minces no words when describing Ortiz' and Heymann's
strategy of charging Swartz with a battery of preposterous charges with the
express intent of making any action _except_ accepting a plea bargain (and
thereby pleading guilty to all charges) the only reasonable approach: "[T]hey
assumed that the risk of their success even on bogus charges would be enough
to pressure Swartz into accepting a guilty plea on all the counts in exchange
for a reduced sentence — which is what they offered him."

But what raises the deepest concern when I read this article is that the
author continues on to describe Swartz's case not as a particularly bad
example of prosecutorial oppression but rather as an exemplar of justice in
the United States: "The process was fundamentally corrupt and shameful. But
observers of the American criminal-justice system also know that it was a
common one."

What can we do about this?

~~~
polemic
This.

While Ortiz will be the convenient (and rightful, I suppose) scapegoat in this
instance, she's a symptom of the problem and not the cause. There are far more
fundamental problems with the DoJ, and until they're addressed (time and cost
of mounting a defence, overly aggressive prosecutions, lack of oversight and
discretion), nothing will change.

~~~
tunesmith
I know that "don't treat the symptoms! treat the root cause!" is a common,
almost unassailable sentiment, but lately I've been thinking there are
problems with it.

In order for it to be completely ineffective to "treat the symptom", it rests
on the assumption that successfully treating the symptom will have zero effect
on the cause behind it.

A good example of that is taking pain meds to mask the pain of a knee injury.
So then you go and run on it, and it makes the knee injury worse. You treated
the symptom, and nothing changed.

But there are definitely examples where treating the symptom _does_ help. For
instance, someone is temporarily depressed because of a unresolved situation
in their lives. And yet, they cannot address the situation because the
depression is in the way. So, they take an anti-depressant, and then maybe
they can resolve their root cause, and then maybe they can go off the anti-
depressant.

Someone like an Ortiz, yes, is a symptom of a deeper problem. But I'm not
convinced it is like the pain in a knee, where treating it will make zero
difference. A bum knee isn't exacerbated by the pain. But the system may be
exacerbated by Ortiz. A bum knee doesn't become a bit less bum from witnessing
the taking of a pain med. But if the system recognizes an Ortiz downfall and
receives a data point of what "going to far" is, then maybe that _would_ have
an effect.

Probably not a sufficient effect, probably not enough, but I'm just pointing
out that the fact that Ortiz is a symptom, is not, by itself, sufficient
reason to believe that "nothing will change". Also not sufficient reason to
believe that the symptom should not be treated.

~~~
dhimes
I agree with your point, but treating the symptom must be done in such a way
that the problem is still seen to be a problem. Another case in point was when
the banking collapse hit, 'leaders' blamed things like 'excess greed' and so
on, and dodged the real problem (IMHO).

I'm afraid of throwing Ortiz to the wolves, washing our hands and saying,
"Well, that's that."

~~~
pekk
What was 'the real problem' with the collapse, in your view?

~~~
dhimes
People smarter than I will have to figure that out. I'm talking about fairly
soon after, before any investigation, we had politicians (McCain, for one)
blaming "excess greed." I think this is a straw-man. The people in that job
get paid to be greedy. You can't blame that, you have at least recognize that
a system (regulations and work flow) is broken if it is so obtuse that people
can't even know what decisions are in their own best interest.

~~~
tunesmith
I actually sort of see this as a real-life tragedy of the commons situation,
although you kind of have to squint your eyes and wave your hands a bit to
make it fit.

The "common resource" is the client opportunity. The Nash equilibrium is every
employee maximizing their own bonuses. The group optimum is the health of the
company. It turned out that the individual self-interest did not align to what
was good for the health of the companies. And in fact, that if they had
cooperated and worked for the health of the companies, the employees may have
ended up with higher individual payouts. This is exactly what the tragedy of
the commons is about, and it's what apparently shook Greenspan to his core. So
basically, it was the (predicted (over and over again)) failure of
Objectivism.

~~~
dhimes
That's an interesting take. I always thought that they didn't know that their
actions would result in such disaster.

I worry about the same non-effect with the gun-law blitz we're seeing after
Sandy Hook. I worry that we're not attacking the problem- which may have more
to do with mental health issues than gun laws.

------
dexter313
Important part:

Prosecutors Ortiz and Stephen Heymann turned to a standard trick while
pursuing the case, mounting a total of thirteen felony counts against Swartz
and arguing that his college prank aimed at “liberating” a collection of
academic articles with little commercial value was a serious crime. Although
each of these counts bordered on the preposterous, Ortiz and Heymann clearly
reckoned that at least one or two would stick during the jury-room bargaining
process. More to the point, they assumed that the risk of their success even
on bogus charges would be enough to pressure Swartz into accepting a guilty
plea on all the counts in exchange for a reduced sentence — which is what they
offered him. The process was fundamentally corrupt and shameful. But observers
of the American criminal-justice system also know that it was a common one.

~~~
mr_luc
Thanks for highlighting that; I read the article and felt that this paragraph
stood out for the right reasons.

I've read some negative comments about the article, which surprised me; as
this paragraph proves, the article isn't painting Ortiz as a rogue exception
to the rule.

------
DanBC
> _Heymann responded by saying “Fine, we’ll lock him up.”_

Cruel and barbaric. This comment is horrifying.

Many people commit suicide in prison. Being under suicide watch reduces, but
does not eliminate, the risk. (I know someone who was under "level 2
observation" (a member of staff within arms reach at all times) in a MH
hospital. They managed to self harm so severely they needed to be transported
to a general hospital for several surgeries.)

America sends many people to prison. America has awful mental health care. The
care for people with mental health problems is so awful that prisons are often
the largest providers of mental health treatment.

"Prisons are the largest providers of mental health treatment" should be a
statement that we should only read in dystopian science fiction.

~~~
monochromatic
On the other hand, if saying "my client is suicidal" got defense attorneys
anywhere, the only result would be that suddenly every criminal is suicidal.

~~~
DanBC
Ideally you'd have mental health hospitals with a variety of security levels.
Some of those hospitals are for people who pose no risk to others and who have
never been involved in offending behaviour. Other hospitals are forensic, are
part of the criminal justice system, and take people who are mentally
disordered offenders. You have different levels or different wards - wards for
people who pose a serious risk of harm to others; wards for people who pose
little risk of harm to others but who are really ill and who would otherwise
be in jail.

In the UK prisoners have a sentence. They serve the sentence, and then are
released. A prisoner who develops a severe mental health problem is
transferred to a secure[1] mental health unit (a forensic unit). They stop
being a prisoner and become a patient. They get returned to jail when they are
well. Some criminals are ill at the time of the offending behaviour, and get
sent straight to secure hospitals. These people do not have a sentence. They
just have to convince people that they're well. And once they've done that
they get returned to jail to continue serving their sentence. So being a
patient means things like forced medication, and a lack of information about
when you're going to be released or what you need to do to get out.

I take your point though. I hope I haven't suggested that people can use
mental ill health as an excuse for offending behaviour.

[1] Secure is a jargon word here, meaning units for people with some police
involvement. There are plenty of locked wards, but they don't get called
secure units. And there are 'section 136 places of safety' which used to be
police cells (still are in many places) but which should really be somewhere
therapeutic / clinical. (Section 136 is used by police to take people who are
'mad in public' to a place of safety to be assessed by a doctor.)

EDIT: Wow, wall of text. Sorry.

------
waterlesscloud
This column is a little over the top in places, but it links to this
interesting article on a retired federal judge who is familiar with Ortiz &
co. commenting on the case.

[http://www.wbur.org/2013/01/16/gertner-criticizes-ortiz-
swar...](http://www.wbur.org/2013/01/16/gertner-criticizes-ortiz-swartz)

------
olefoo
It may be unfair to single out Ms. Ortiz, she is after all only one of many
federal prosecutors; but reforming the american justice system is an urgent
priority, and we must start somewhere. A society where justice is widely
perceived to be available only to the most powerful and well-connected is one
that is primed to fall prey to any number of severe and most likely violent
pathologies.

The legitimacy of the legal system is the result of centuries of work by
jurists, judges, legal scholars, politicians and others; each of whom added
their effort to making it so that not only they believed the law had dealt
fairly with those who came before it but also that it had appeared to be fair
to the rest of society. When that legitimacy is eroded, for personal benefit,
for career aspirations, to please those whose favor is sought, for any reason;
it takes much less effort. But the damage is subtle, people give lip service
to institutions long after they have become hollow shells of their former
glory.

In this country, at this time; the law is an instrument of social control, of
thievery ( read the literature on civil forfeiture, if that statement bothers
you ), of vengeance, and only rarely and incidentally of justice. Most of us
know this. But it is one of the truths that cannot be spoken in polite
society.

At this time, most of us know but are unwilling to acknowledge, that the law
is an outrageously powerful instrument that acts randomly and capriciously. If
you happen to be of the wrong color, speak the wrong language, or practice the
wrong religion in the wrong place at the wrong time; you can be given a status
equivalent to Orwell's formulation of an 'unperson'. If you happen to cross
the path of someone who has access to the controls of this fearsome legal
apparatus, your guilt or innocence, your rightness or wrongness; is
irrelevant. All that matters is whether they decide to take an interest in
your case; if you are deemed a target, all that matters is what crime can be
made to fit your situation.

It would seem axiomatic, that this is an untenable situation; that once this
state obtains, it will not be long before the law becomes a disreputable joke,
a sad reminder of former greatness, and a jungle in which everyone is a
predator and fears becoming prey.

That is why the reform of our justice system is such an urgent matter. We have
eroded the legitimacy of our courts to a degree that their proclaimed fairness
is a dismal jest to anyone who has been in prolonged contact with them.

We have allowed our legal system to be infected with concepts of intrinsic
guilt, of theft under color of law, of monarchical privilege, of illegal
truths; all of which are antithetical to a functional and free society.

~~~
keeptrying
Change happens behind a single event. That event becomes "the cause".

You can't change society by starting from an abstract concept like "justice".

We didnt get the civil rights movements from the concept of "slavery". We got
it from a bus incident in which the conductor acted like every other bus
conductor in the nation.

------
danbmil99
Interesting note -- the WSJ editorial report (a Fox show I doubt most HN folk
regularly catch) had a segment on the Swartz case. One editor (Joseph Rago)
came out strongly in his favor, speaking out against Ortiz and prosecutorial
overreach.

I think it was Sun Tzu who said, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It's
important to realize there is still a strong strain of libertarian thought on
the right, that is supportive of civil liberties and is concerned about the
ever-increasing power and overreach of the government.

~~~
philwelch
I think that aside from a few very specific issues, no one supports civil
liberties per se. They support civil liberties when their side doesn't have
the presidency and oppose them when their side does have it. The real issue is
executive powers, and you're obviously going to support more executive powers
when your side controls the executive branch while opposing it when the other
side would benefit from them.

This is why the exceptions tend to be cases where restraining civil liberties
doesn't really help the President do as he pleases. For instance, the American
left supports regulating and prohibiting gun ownership even under a Democratic
president, while the right opposes it even under a Republican president. The
same is true, in reverse, for abortion or gay marriage, with both sides split
on marijuana. But when it comes to drones, wiretapping, Guantanamo, or federal
law enforcement and prosecution, it's not a question of principle anymore but
a question of empowering or disempowering the President and his Attorney
General. Hence, conservatives will be angry at Janet Reno, but will stay mum
about Ashcroft and Gonzales for eight years, or even be supportive, before
coming out against Holder. Meanwhile, the actual civil libertarians haven't
liked a single one of them!

~~~
danbmil99
I agree that each side is apparently blind to the civil liberties abuses of
their own proponents. If a president named Bush were doing what Obama is doing
wrt drones, wiretapping, Justice dept overreach, deportations, and zealous
prosecution of Marijuana laws (even when states have clearly taken a different
path), I can only guess how many HuffPo articles a week would be foaming at
the mouth.

What the Left fails to seem to realize is while they may love Obama to death,
the Presidency is not any one person, it is an office. Obama's extension of
executive powers is inherited by the next Republican president just like Bush
and Cheney's were inherited by Obama.

This is probably another downside of the hyper-partisan tone of today's
politics. Obama supporters stay quiet about his abuses for fear of weakening
him in his zero-sum fight with the Tea Party. But this ends-justifies-means
selective outrage is not a principled stance, and in the end the next Romney
type who gets in there will reap the benefit of our collective silence.

~~~
philwelch
It's already happened--Clinton, not Bush, was the originator of "extraordinary
rendition".

------
anonymouz
I've rarely read a more sensational and one-sided piece. At this point, the
bending of facts to serve the idealization of Swartz and the demonization of
Ortiz starts to seem like nothing more than throwing gasoline into the fire of
an enraged lynch mob.

~~~
ucee054
Enraged lynch mobs are why you have democracy and justice systems and human
rights rather than the Diktat of the King, which is what we used to have
before enraged lynch mobs.

~~~
anonymouz
It is a fallacy to assume that just because some lynch mobs took part in an
effort with ultimately positive outcome (it took much more than a mob to
establish democracy or justice systems), all, or even most, of them are
positive.

A vendetta against a prosecutor, carried by hugely one-sided, unreflected and
self-reinforcing blog-posts does not even come close.

~~~
ucee054
But a vendetta against a prosecutor _because people are fed up with plea
bargain abuse_ DOES.

~~~
anonymouz
So you propose an overzealous and exaggerated prosecution of one individual
based on doubtful accusations just to drive a point home and serve as
deterrent to others?

Sounds awfully like the thing you claim to be protesting.

------
Fishkins
Why do they call it a prank? My impression is what was nothing of the sort.

~~~
DanBC
No-one got hurt. No damage was done. If I have to chose between "prank" or
"federal crime" I'm going with prank.

'Pranks' have a history in political activism - see _La Barbe_ or _Pussy Riot_
or others.

~~~
raldi
> No-one got hurt. No damage was done.

If a burglar is sneaking out of a house with a sack of stolen goods, and the
police catch him and return everything to the owner, you'd still consider that
a crime, right?

If so, then you agree that situations where nobody is hurt and no permanent
damage done can still be crimes.

~~~
NickNameNick
If a user gets caught leaving a library with photocopies of public, published
documents, would you consider that a crime too?

~~~
raldi
No, but I don't see how that's relevant to my point.. which was merely that
it's possible for a person to commit a crime without harming anyone or doing
damage.

~~~
ucee054
Were you making that point in the abstract, or were you, I don't know, in a
thread of comments on an article about _Aaron Swartz?_

~~~
GHFigs
He was responding to a comment making the argument that something cannot be a
crime if no damage is done and no one is hurt. He even quoted the as much of
the comment he was replying to.

Please, please, _please_ , pay attention to context before accusing someone of
ignoring context. It makes it very difficult for people to have nuanced
debates about complex events if nobody is allowed to isolate a part of the
problem independent of others.

~~~
DanBC
> cannot be a crime

I don't think I said that! I did say that if I had to chose between "federal
crime" or prank that I'd chose prank. But if you extended the list to include
misdemeanour or somesuch I guess I could see that.

~~~
raldi
> I did say that if I had to chose between "federal crime" or prank that I'd
> chose prank.

Sure, but that's a false dichotomy. The author was under no such constraint,
so it was sensationalist and misleading for him to keep referring to it as a
prank.

And when I say that, I'm not casting judgement here. The Boston Tea Party and
the Rosa Parks protest weren't pranks either.

------
lordlicorice
> Although each of these counts bordered on the preposterous, Ortiz and
> Heymann clearly reckoned that at least one or two would stick during the
> jury-room bargaining process. ... Prosecutors were also revealed to have
> offered a reduced sentence, but only if Swartz pleaded guilty to every
> charge

This is what really hit home for me. They weren't just filing court documents
in a legal strategy to get a conviction. They were telling a man to his face
that they expected him to plead guilty to patently insane trumped-up charges.

------
tosser23
It is now taken as an article of truth that Ortiz drove him to suicide. Is
there any direct evidence that he did it because of the prosecution or is it
only assumed?

~~~
lhnz
Not sure what the purpose of that question is as it seems fairly obvious that
without Aaron around it would be impossible to prove with 100% certainty that
the suicide was due to the prosecution.

However, I am sure you agree that it is highly-likely due to the aggressive
nature of the prosecution and voiced opinions by his family and friends that
this was having a very negative affect on his emotional well-being. That might
be conjecture but it's better conjecture than believing he committed suicide
for no new reason.

edit; I noticed you just down-voted me; I understand it's difficult to deal
with being called out online. That said, I would like to point out that your
implication that the burden of proof should be on proving Ortiz has some
responsibility for his suicide in your insinuation that ”It's now taken as an
article of truth that Ortiz drove [Aaron] to suicide” is false. There has been
a lot more evidence that there the prosecution was over-reaching and that
Swartz was affected negatively by this than there has been otherwise.
Obviously your intention by asking that question was to create an easily
discredited strawman and perhaps it's a shame I gave you the benefit of doubt
when I responded...

------
lizzard
I'm glad the coverage of Aaron's death continues to deepen.

------
SagelyGuru
Damage limitation action stations: 1) Protect and support Ortiz 2) If the
going gets tough, throw Ortiz to the wolves 3) In either case, 'problem'
solved, resume business as usual

~~~
sparkie
#2 Most likely. Ortiz isn't important enough to the status quo to risk
significant damage. By "unfriending" her, the state will appease the wolves,
at least until the next victim appears - and they repeat the process.

------
jrockway
It makes me sad how reactionary government is. Oritz was overreaching before
Swartz killed himself. Why wasn't something done before someone got the death
penalty for downloading a few free journal articles?

I'm happy to see the change and the backlash against Oritz, but I wish this
happened sooner.

~~~
olefoo
Yes. We all wish that Aaron had not reached that conclusion. We don't know
what he was thinking at that moment, and whether anyone could have said
something to change his mind.

My personal view is that suicidal impulses are similar to septic fever; the
causes are understood, the consequences are terrible, and both prophylaxis and
treatment are effective.

But, it is not always possible to reach victims when they need help.

Beng the target of an unjust and overreaching prosecution is the sort of
stressor that could provoke even a strongminded person to suicide.

------
rexreed
If only it didn't take a suicide to reach this point where there is finally a
conversation and criticism of prosecutorial overreach and looking at the human
side of the equation.

------
at-fates-hands
Wondering if anybody else is scared this is going to set a precedent for
people who feel like they cannot endure a federal trial and simply opt for
suicide instead.

Over the past several weeks, I've been completely numbed by all the outrage
and media this event is generating. If I was a well known hacktivist and saw
what has transpired here, it makes it look like being a martyr for your cause
is considerably more beneficial than simply lawyering up and going through a
trial.

~~~
jessaustin
If someone feels strongly enough about an issue to give his or her life to
advance it, I'm not going to contradict that sentiment. On the scale of
things, the media exaggerates far worse things (e.g. they'd have you believe
that violent crime in the USA hasn't been dropping precipitously over the last
two decades). Also, giving one's life for a cause is a much more ethical
action than taking others' lives for that reason, but it seems quite a bit
rarer.

(I know that Swartz is said to have suffered from depression which could be
considered another factor in his suicide, but I'm specifically addressing this
point which is unrelated to mental illness.)

------
drcube
I'm 100% behind changing the laws and punishing the overzealous prosecutor.
Don't get me wrong.

But I'd like to see the millions of poor black kids whose lives are destroyed
by the justice system every day get this kind of response, and not just when
it's a handsome rich white kid like Aaron.

~~~
illuminate
It's easier to take on a specific cause than address every systemic ill at
once.

"But I'd like to see the millions of poor black kids whose lives are destroyed
by the justice system every day get this kind of response"

People are taking on the war on drugs, what else is clear-cut and concise
enough to address? "Poverty" and "racism" are wayyyyyyyyyyy too complex for
anyone to easily identify around it, and the conditions and systems built
around both are evasive enough for politicians and lawmakers to blame the
systems on "a few bad eggs".

~~~
drcube
Sure. I agree, it's a hard problem. Doesn't mean it shouldn't get attention.

~~~
illuminate
Getting attention doesn't always identify easily addressable factors, there's
a lot to un-knot. Granted, I don't think the slactivism and internet
petitionry is going to do a heck of a lot with Aaron's case either.

------
kenthorvath
Ortiz will answer for her actions, perhaps not as a matter of law, but
certainly as a matter of common sense and decency.

No one should be exempt from behaving like a decent human being, and one does
not need to break the law in order to be fired for executing poor judgment.

------
sociotech
It reads like a parody of journalism.

------
bane
So serious question, what prevents Aaron's family from suing the pants off of
the DOJ parties responsible?

~~~
sociotech
A rule (called _prosecutorial immunity_ ) without which it would be almost
impossible for the criminal law to function. Would you prosecute Bernie Madoff
knowing he could tie you up in court, personally, with millions of dollars'
worth of lawyers?

Even without that rule, a tort law claim against Ortiz or Heymann would
probably not succeed, absent some proof that their intent was to torment him
emotionally. Lessig and bizarre bloggers like Danah Boyd seem to occasionally
accuse them of that, but it all seems rather groundless.

------
malkia
I hope this does not lead to another suicide. Really - this is becoming a
grilling contest.

------
pavanky
What is going after one person going to achieve ? The problem is with the
system.

------
amoxibos
Anonymous need to get active on her. No one will make her life hell like
anonymous can. She will quit by her own will.

~~~
amoxibos
#oportiz

------
meh01
"Her prospects look grim. Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.)"...

And that's when _everyone_ should stop reading. Issa is a tea party loon.

~~~
alexqgb
Issa is corrupt as hell. I mean, he has a business empire that he runs from a
different part of the floor on which he has his CA office. Even by the shady
standards of Congress, this is pushing it. But he was on the right side of
SOPA/PIPA, and he was there before it was the safe, obvious place to be. He's
got brass and he's very aggressive. If I were Ortiz, I'd take him seriously.

~~~
eitland
Is corrupt the right word here? Doesn't corruption have to be linked to
bribery in some form?

~~~
alexqgb
No.

~~~
eitland
No to what? That corruption is the right word or that it has to be linked to
some kind of bribery?

~~~
alexqgb
The latter. Consider embezzlement, for instance. That's a case in which a
person abuses their position for personal gain without expecting payment from
another. Abuse that festers in the wake of successful attempts to frustrate
legitimate competition or oversight is also properly regarded as corrupt,
since the system intended to prevent it has been (that's right) corrupted.

