
Why Did The Secret Service Take Over Aaron Swartz's Case? - honzzz
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130114/08161821656/why-did-secret-service-take-over-aaron-swartzs-case-two-days-before-he-was-arrested.shtml
======
tptacek
In Techdirtland, the reason is clearly because Swartz opposed Obama's kill
lists, and the administration needed to find a plausible way to have him
killed.

In reality, it's because the Secret Service is for historical reasons the
federal law enforcement agency most responsible for handling computer crimes.
It's been this way since at least the 1980s, when the Secret Service was at
the heart of the Sun-Devil Raids.

As anyone who's ever watched Law & Order can inform you: "two separate but
equally important groups, the police and the district attorneys". In federal
computer crimes, you can often substitute "Secret Service" for "police", and
"US Attorney" for "district attorney".

As I understand it, the Secret Services' role in computer crimes
investigations work is less central today than it was 2 decades ago, but
they're still an important repository of investigatory talent for these kinds
of cases.

Understanding that the Secret Service's involvement in the case was legitimate
in no way means that you approve of the way the US Attorney's coordinating
group for computer crimes led by Stephen Heymann handled the prosecution.
That's a disclaimer I shouldn't have to write, but since this story is being
voted rapidly to the top of the site, it's clear that I do need to write it.

~~~
elemeno
The Secret Service also has jurisdiction over various types fraud - including
telecommunications fraud and computer fraud. Given that the primary charge
against Swartz was for Wire Fraud, it would certainly seem like something that
could fall under their jurisdiction, or at the very least something that
they'd be interested in enough to check if it should fall under them or should
be left to another branch of law enforcement.

~~~
joezydeco
Let's imagine MIT was working on some kind of defense-related project ala
Whirlwind. Could it be possible that the Secret Service gets called in on any
possible suspicious activity on any network connected to such a thing?

~~~
betterunix
IOW any network connected to the Internet, which would basically be almost all
civilian networks and many military networks.

~~~
ianfernz
Someone has to handle it.

------
rhizome
It's the mark of a talentless publication to piggyback on real reporters'
work, and is especially distasteful for this topic, of which a site with the
word "tech" in it should have their own angle on already.

Go to the original, Techdirt adds nothing:

[http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/13/two-days-before-
cambrid...](http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/13/two-days-before-cambridge-
cops-arrested-aaron-swartz-secret-service-took-over-the-investigation/)

~~~
ChuckMcM
Actually its the mark of talentless publication to piggyback on a very real
tragedy with a senseless link-baitey story that they could have answered for
themselves in a completely non-conspiratorial way if they noted that _every
case involving CFAA_ is investigated by and/or handled by the Secret Service.

Didn't stop emptywheel though, nor Techdirt. They got what ever the paranoid
equivalent of rage views is.

------
gregcohn
I thought the most interesting item in this story was not about the secret
service, but rather the MIT counsel's decision to turn over evidence without a
warrant or subpoena, in contravention of its policy. (Though it's possible
they had a warrant and court order preventing its disclosure.)

I am sure the truth will come out.

~~~
josephlord
There is one thing only revealing information about your legitimate users
under warrant or court order. It is another to restrict yourself from
providing information in the event that you have been attacked by someone who
is not a member of your organisation.

Note that this does not mean that judgement should not have changed their
behaviour in this case but that a rules based prohibition on voluntary
cooperation seems like the wrong argument to me.

~~~
gregcohn
very good point. it seems like it would hinge on whether the act was defensive
(MIT asking for help) or in reaction to an FBI request.

------
nessus42
Perhaps for the same reason that the Secret Service raided (and nearly put out
of business) Steve Jackson Games in 1990 because the author of their GURPS FRP
module called "Cyberpunk" was a known "hacker".

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._Un...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._United_States_Secret_Service)

------
jmvoodoo
This isn't all that out of the ordinary. Back in 1995 I had the SS visit my
family's home due to some of my childish behavior at the time. No fun, and
luckily nothing ever came of it, but the SS was involved from the very
beginning as far as I know. I never heard from any other law enforcement about
the issue.

~~~
omarchowdhury
What did you do?

~~~
jmvoodoo
I accessed a network without permission from its owner, and my actions
interrupted the normal operation of the network. That's about all I really
want to talk about. I was very young and stupid at the time, and have since
learned better :)

------
mpyne
<http://www.secretservice.gov/ectf.shtml>

"Significant impact" is a clause wide enough to drive a truck through just by
itself.

If anyone has ever read The Cuckoo's Egg by Cliff Stoll it gives some insight
as to why the government might want to have an organization with the remit to
"bring together not only federal, state and local law enforcement, but also
prosecutors, private industry and academia."

~~~
rhizome
I think it speaks more to the fear Obama et al have of information exploits
such as those embarked upon by Manning and Swartz.

The government has a _lot_ of classified information they'd like to keep that
way, and computers are a technology that civilians currently have more
practical power over than governments. Compare civilian vs. governmental
computer skills to, say, ballistic firepower. This is a fact, regardless of
where your personal preferences are for the line to be drawn for government
privacy, classification, etc.

~~~
tptacek
It has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama, or Bush, or even Clinton. It's an
arrangement that has existed for decades.

Read "The Hacker Crackdown" by Bruce Sterling for the background on this:

<http://www.mit.edu/hacker/hacker.html>

~~~
dfc
"The United States Secret Service is responsible for maintaining the integrity
of the nation's financial infrastructure and payment systems. As a part of
this mission, the Secret Service constantly implements and evaluates
prevention and response measures to guard against electronic crimes as well as
other computer related fraud. The Secret Service derives its authority to
investigate specified criminal violations from Title 18 of the United States
Code, Section 3056."

The scope of this is enormous, the SS webpage gives the following examples:

"Criminal investigations can be international in scope. These investigations
include: counterfeiting of U.S. currency (to include coins); counterfeiting of
foreign currency (occurring domestically); identity crimes such as access
device fraud, identity theft, false identification fraud, bank fraud and check
fraud; telemarketing fraud; telecommunications fraud (cellular and hard wire);
computer fraud; fraud targeting automated payment systems and teller machines;
direct deposit fraud; investigations of forgery, uttering, alterations, false
impersonations or false claims involving U.S. Treasury Checks, U.S. Saving
Bonds, U.S. Treasury Notes, Bonds and Bills; electronic funds transfer (EFT)
including Treasury disbursements and fraud within the Treasury payment
systems; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation investigations; Farm Credit
Administration violations; and fictitious or fraudulent commercial instruments
and foreign securities. "

From: <http://www.secretservice.gov/criminal.shtml>

~~~
mpyne
> The scope of this is enormous, the SS webpage gives the following examples

If this wasn't assigned to USSS to investigate it would simply be assigned to
some other component of the DOJ.

You might claim instead that the government shouldn't have the purview to
investigate "computer crime" at all, but computers have become far too
important for that to be realistic. It might be better instead to explicitly
disclaim some areas as barred from Federal investigation due to the risk to
civil liberties, but even that would be a hard slog in today's America I
think.

~~~
dfc
Is there any precedent to bar certain types of criminal investigations due to
civil liberty concerns? I can imagine implementing stricter requirements but
I'm at a loss completely barring certain investigations.

~~~
mpyne
The closest I've seen is legislation that is worded to the effect
"notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, this does not give the
Department of Foo the authority to prosecute crimes covered under (b) above
where the estimated damage is less than $5,000".

Basically it's a "we told you to do this generic thing, but that doesn't mean
_this_ is included in that".

~~~
dfc
That is "as close to" as an apple is close to an orange. Yes there are
legislative carve outs for a myriad of reasons. I am suggesting that a
complete bar against criminal investigations due to civil rights concerns is
not one of them.

------
fleitz
They didn't take it over 2 days before his death, they took it over 2 _YEARS_
before his death.

~~~
gpvos
which is two days before his _arrest_.

~~~
rhizome
I'm guessing Techdirt had a breathless headline typo, since fixed.

