
DOJ Admits Aaron's Prosecution Was Political - rrbrambley
http://tarensk.tumblr.com/post/44047376234/doj-admits-aarons-prosecution-was-political
======
thejsjunky
> "Guerilla Open Access Manifesto" played a role in the prosecution,

The fact that something Aaron wrote "played a role" in the prosecution __does
not mean it was politically motivated __.

It's a fundamental principal in our legal system that intent matters. Of
course if you are charged with a crime the prosecutors will use whatever
evidence they can to try and back their claims of what your intent was.

The HuffPo article explicitly states that _this_ is what is being discussed:

> The "Manifesto," Justice Department representatives told congressional
> staffers, demonstrated Swartz's malicious intent in downloading documents on
> a massive scale.

So we're not talking about anything "political" here, they planned to use it
as evidence. One can make a strong argument that it's lousy as evidence...but
the fact that they planned to use it as evidence does not suggest any sort of
political motivations (on it's own)...only that they are bad at selecting
evidence for their case.

My comment should absolutely __NOT __be construed to say it __wasn't
__politically motivated or that it was handled well....I'm strictly speaking
about that one little line...you can't use that one line to support an
assertion that it was politically motivated, because it's just not valid. Use
other information to bolster the case instead.

~~~
droithomme
> It's a fundamental principal in our legal system that intent matters.

Context error.

If Bob dies by falling off a bridge while I am grabbing at him, my intent
matters a lot. Was it completely an accident, Bob slipped and fell and I tried
to pull him back? Or did I hate Bob and plot for months to kill him and was
pushing him? From a distance the two things may look the same - it's important
to figure out what I was thinking.

But let's say I dislike Bob and even once wrote a blog post about him and his
annoying toenail clipping habits several years ago. Some people might even
speculate I would not be unhappy if annoying old "Toenail Bob" was dead. I
haven't actually done anything to Bob though. Charging me with murder at this
point because it is speculated I am thinking about killing Bob and might do so
in the future on account of my having complained years ago about his toenail
clipping habits would be prosecuting a thought crime. Even if I happen to have
bought an axe and rope recently. Or maybe I even stole the axe. What about
that? So I could be prosecuted for stealing the axe, that's fair. But
prosecute me for killing Toenail Bob because I once disliked his clipping
protocols? Claiming that is reasonable to charge people with things they may
or may not be thinking of doing but have not actually done because "It's a
fundamental principal in our legal system that intent matters." just doesn't
make sense. Especially when there's plenty of evidence the axe and rope were
for some other purpose, such as I buy a new axe every winter, I need the rope
for my spelunking hobby, or I have an established and documented history of
downloading large datasets as a professional academic researcher in order to
do statistical analysis on them.

~~~
GHFigs
Your analogy doesn't fit, as Aaron was not charged with something analogous to
murder.

It would be more akin to attacking, but not killing, Bob after having publicly
declared that "It is a moral imperative that we should kill Bob." You might
then be charged with attempted murder. The law[1] recognizes attempt and
conspiracy to attempt as crimes, just as it would if you had attempted to or
conspired to kill Bob.

This is not "thoughtcrime", either: it still requires you to take a swing at
him with your axe.

 _I have an established and documented history of downloading large datasets
as a professional academic researcher in order to do statistical analysis on
them._

Consider (again, because I mentioned this in reply to you once before) that
Aaron did not make use of his status as an academic researcher when he did
what he did. It might have made a good defense had he gone to trial, but it
isn't a magic bullet that absolved him of scrutiny for what he was observed
doing.

[1] <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030>

~~~
droithomme
You bring up attempt, but we both know perfectly well he did not attempt to
distribute papers. It's clear at this point you are arguing in bad faith and
making specious arguments.

~~~
GHFigs
I assure you, it's just a misunderstanding. I am not saying or in any way
attempting to imply that he attempted to distribute papers. In fact, I will
emphatically state that _Aaron Swartz was not charged with attempting to
distribute the papers he downloaded_. That's the reason the analogy doesn't
work: it's not only that he didn't "kill Bob", it's that nobody even accused
him of killing Bob.

If you look at the law, it's the _combination_ of the actions that we all tend
to agree that he did (the downloading and what that entailed) with the
(alleged) intent of republishing them that constitutes the crime he was
charged with.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
>If you look at the law, it's the combination of the actions that we all tend
to agree that he did (the downloading and what that entailed) with the
(alleged) intent of republishing them that constitutes the crime he was
charged with.

Except...no. He wasn't charged with copyright infringement, he was charged
with violating the CFAA and wire fraud. How is whether or not he would have
subsequently infringed copyright by publishing the papers to the world
relevant to whether he committed those crimes?

That's why this is a big deal. The DoJ came in and said "we think he's going
to commit a copyright crime after downloading all these papers, look at his
politics" but they couldn't prove _that_ (or else why didn't they charge him
with it?), so they poked around for something entirely different to charge him
with even though their motivation in prosecuting him was to punish him for the
thing they couldn't prove he was going to do. Raise your hand if you think
that's how prosecution decisions are supposed to be made.

~~~
GHFigs
_he was charged with violating the CFAA and wire fraud_

Um, yeah. That's exactly the law[1] I am referring to. That's why I linked to
it before and why I'll link to it again. _Go read it_. Because the rest of
your comment is just plain ignorant, and please understand: I don't mean that
as an insult. You may mean well, but it's really counterproductive to make up
your mind about something while remaining untethered to reality.

[1] <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030> (You may find the phrase
"and with intent" to be relevant to answering both of your questions.)

~~~
AnthonyMouse
The only place "and with intent" appears in the linked statute is when it
makes up the phrase "and with intent to defraud." I'm not seeing how an
intention to post articles on the internet would defraud anyone, so how is
possible intent to infringe copyright going to satisfy a requirement for
intent to defraud? Does the CFAA have some non-standard definition of
"defraud" that I'm not aware of that would encompass copyright infringement?

------
tptacek
No, they didn't admit that. An anonymous staffer told the Huffington Post they
felt that the prosecution was overcommitted to a token prison sentence and
felony convictions to justify the effort they had put into the case, and
Swartz' "Guerilla Open Access Manifesto" was used as evidence to establish his
intent.

4/5ths of Hacker News believed the day the news about Swartz came out, when we
learned about the prison time demand, that this was what was happening. There
has been no revelation, unless Taren or one of her peers was at the hearing
and learned something different than the Huffington Post.

~~~
ScottBurson
_the prosecution was overcommitted to a token prison sentence and felony
convictions to justify the effort they had put into the case_

In short: to keep themselves from looking bad.

I wasn't sure, before I read this, that I actually wanted to see Ortiz and
Heymann fired. Now I'm starting to think I do. Putting someone in prison just
so you don't have to publicly admit that you shouldn't have been prosecuting
them in the first place... I can hardly think of a worse reason.

~~~
tptacek
I commented yesterday when these HuffPo rageview pieces started spooling out:
you should listen to the WBUR piece on Ortiz's office:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5264200>

Unlike Mashable or Techdirt, WBUR did actual reporting, talking to multiple
defense attorneys that handled Ortiz-managed prosecutions, tracking down
judges admonishing Ortiz, even finding people who had recommended Ortiz for
the post who have since backed away. The WBUR investigation is packed full of
details.

They don't paint a pretty picture! There is good reason to be concerned about
Ortiz. There are concerns about the way she manages her office, sets up
incentives for AUSAs, oversees cases, and handles transparency. The story they
build is of a US Attorney appointment that is simply not working out. It's
damning enough that I actually started to reconsider whether Heymann was
really the root of the problem; if he'd been reporting to a different US
Attorney, things might have worked out differently.

The most disquieting thing Ortiz says in the WBUR show is an offhand comment.
"It's an adversarial system" she says, defending her aggressive handling of
prosecutions. But while that's true at one level (prosecutors are technically
& mechanically adversaries of defense attorneys), it's deeply untrue at the
level she seems to mean it on. She comes off as believing that her job is to
present the most aggressive possible case for conviction and let the judge &
jury sort out the truth. But that's _not_ the prosecutor's role in the US!
Prosecutors have discretion over what cases they bring and are required to use
it. It's very worrying when a US Attorney implies that it's not their job to
deploy that discretion.

~~~
AceJohnny2
I hate to be the devil's advocate in this case, but how else would an
adversarial system work? If you want to see an opposite situation, where the
prosecutors have full discretion to the point that courts basically always
side with them, look no further than Japan and its 99% conviction rate.
<http://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwple/9907001.html>

~~~
tptacek
_Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick
people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be
prosecuted._

[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/)

In addition to being a Supreme Court justice, Robert Jackson was also Attorney
General and also the chief prosecutor at the Nuremburg trials.

 _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._

------
grandalf
The government is chosen through a political process and so everything it does
is political.

The DOJ's actions were heavy-handed in a way that has freaked out a lot of
people who evidently never realized that the government was like this.

Anyone who has ever gotten a letter from the IRS or has been pulled over by a
surly police officer knows well that even though there are laws which apply to
everyone fairly, the way those laws are enforced is mostly left up to the
discretion of whoever is enforcing them.

Try being an immigrant and dealing with INS officers or a traveler dealing
with TSA. Our government has created all kinds of thugs whose job it is to put
on a big show of force to intimidate people.

Why are government buildings so big and grand? To create a show of force and
make our government seem formidable. Why are there so many ceremonies
involving soldiers, government officials, marching, etc. Simply to put on a
show and create the impression of solemnity, gravity, and importance.

Governments must continually act to keep the power they have achieved. They do
this mostly through propaganda and PR efforts. Every white gloved soldier in a
ceremony is a PR stunt. Every wood paneled room, dramatic monument, motorcade,
marble building, podium, flag and seal are part of the PR show.

The world is full of greedy people who seek power over others. Whether it's an
ambitious Carmen Ortiz or an up-and-coming young congressman or a mild
mannered traffic cop. Each seeks to control others as a _very_ significant
portion of his/her motivation and life's goal.

Most people who do startups just want to build something and work with
interesting technology and so we often forget just what government is. We must
wake up and realize that it's about control and force, and now and then the
victim of this control and excess is a fellow hacker and we start to take it
seriously for a few minutes before we forget about it again. Don't assume that
you won't be the target, don't adopt that conservative worldview.

~~~
kristenlee
I find it overreaching to conclude that every individual who is employed by
the government in a law enforcement capacity chose their job out of a need to
control other people. The world is not black and white and there are shades of
gray. The police officers you despise hunt down the murderers, rapists, and
child molesters that harm society, the soldiers fight against genocidal
sociopaths like Adolf Hitler & Sadaam Hussein, and the congressmen you despise
fight for things like universal healthcare. With regards to startups the
primary motivation for most entrepreneurs, but not all, is to make money, not
some noble goal of making the world a better place. Apple, Facebook, Twitter,
Foursquare and the like do little or nothing to solve the world's most serious
problems, they're just toys for upper middle class people with money and time
to burn. Finally no reputable news source has reported on this story because
everything is based on hearsay on what a "DOJ representative" allegedly said
which fails to pass the credibility test for reputable news outfits such as
the NY Times, Reuters, Washington Post, CNN, with reporting standards. Before
you act on the word, consider the source.

~~~
Wintamute
But he didn't conclude that "every individual who is employed by the
government ... chose their job out of a need to control other people", you put
those words in his mouth. Neither did he say he "despised" anybody, you put
that word in his mouth too. He didn't claim that startups weren't in it for
the money, and neither were any of his statements predicated on any new
information in the "unreputable" linked article.

I'm not sure why you've chosen to attack his comment on these spurious
grounds. It'd be more interesting to discuss why it engendered an emotional
response from you, or perhaps if you disagree with it then make a coherent
criticism of his main point: that there exists a formidable power structure in
our society and many of us chose to remain unaware of it.

~~~
antoko
He said this:

 _The world is full of greedy people who seek power over others. Whether it's
an ambitious Carmen Ortiz or an up-and-coming young congressman or a mild
mannered traffic cop. Each seeks to control others as a very significant
portion of his/her motivation and life's goal._

That does imply that everyone who ends up in a position of government power
does so in order to control other people. That's the problem when someone uses
such strident language and paints with such a broad brush - its very easy to
just call them out on their lack of nuance and over-generalization

~~~
tammer
"The world is full of..." is not a totalizing phrase. "Each," refers back to
this clause.

The semantics leave space for people in power to work against that power. It
does not imply what you believe it does.

You seem to take issue with questioning power at all.

~~~
antoko
I read the "Each" to refer to the prior sentence. Which is <example list of
objectionable and non-objectionable government roles> which I interpret to
mean, all government roles. While you may read it differently - I don't
believe my reading is inaccurate or unfair.

~~~
Wintamute
Your interpretation of the sentence is arguably valid, but its derailing the
discussion.

------
pyre

      | The same law that says that anyone using a fake
      | middle name on Facebook is committing a federal
      | felony.
    

Federal prosecutors tried to get this interpretation through the courts with
that mother that drove her daughter's 'rival' to suicide via MySpace. It
didn't work. The judge threw it out, rightly stating that interpreting breach
of ToS as a Federal crime effectively allows companies to set the bar for what
is a Federal crime (e.g. "You must always access this website while standing
on one leg or else we revoke your permission to use it! Now you're a 'hacker'
with a felony conviction. Have a nice day.").

~~~
AnthonyMouse
It should be pointed out that unless the case went to the Supreme Court, a
different circuit could yet come to a different conclusion, so better to fix
it nationwide through Congress than risk some other court siding with
prosecutors (and that defendant having to argue it to a different circuit's
appellate court even if the court comes to the same conclusion).

Also:

>interpreting breach of ToS as a Federal crime effectively allows companies to
set the bar for what is a Federal crime

Reminds me of something Larry Lessig said during his speech last Tuesday: The
alternative interpretation is that it's a violation when someone violates
code-based restrictions, right? So you're still allowing companies to set the
bar for what is a Federal crime, they just have to do it in code instead of in
contract. Write some nominal piece of code whose stated purpose is to prevent
the thing you want to prohibit, even if it's facile and trivially bypassed,
and now bypassing it is apparently back to being a federal crime again. Is
this really something we want to allow? Shouldn't the law require prosecutors
to prove there was some actual harm before we go throwing people in federal
prison?

~~~
rhizome
_It should be pointed out that unless the case went to the Supreme Court, a
different circuit could yet come to a different conclusion_

Sorry to pedant, but a case will typically not get to the Supreme Court at all
_unless_ two circuits come to different conclusions.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_split>

~~~
Natsu
If we're really going to be pedantic, it won't get to the Supreme Court unless
they grant a petition for a writ of certiorari or it's one of those rare, few
types of cases where the US Constitution says the Supreme Court has original
jurisdiction.

They do deny most such petitions, though, and resolving circuit splits is one
reason they might grant cert.

~~~
rhizome
Circuit splits are by far the most common way of getting cert. They don't
grant cert to every circuit split, but most of what they _do_ , however...

~~~
Natsu
Indeed, and I should probably clarify one thing from what I wrote above: if
the Supreme Court had original jurisdiction over a case, it would start with
them, rather than being appealed to them. There aren't a lot of cases like
that, though.

------
dccoolgai
In light of this, it is clear that Ortiz and Heymann should be in prison. I
made this same comment in a thread earlier and got a bunch of snivelly
equivocating about "intent" as a reply...that is just invalid here. These
people either didn't like or criminally misunderstood something Swartz did and
used that and the position given to them by the government to terrorize him.
Inexcusable, at least and it should be criminal (if it's not outright
already).

~~~
GHFigs
_got a bunch of snivelly equivocating about "intent" as a reply_

As somebody that took time out of his evening to address your prior comment
with what I felt was sincerity and (I hoped) clarity, I'm sorry it came across
to you as "snivelly equivocating".

 _that is just invalid here_

It may help you to understand the relevance of intent better if you look at
what Taren writes in the footnote: _"His lawyers instructed him very strictly
that he should never talk about motive with anyone before the trial, as it
could play a key role in the defense and they didn’t want the prosecution to
get any hint of what line of argument might be used."_

As I said in my prior comment: In law, intent (if it can be proven) can make
an enormous difference in what you get charged with or convicted of. Far from
being invalid here, the importance of someone's intentions in a case like this
is exactly why prosecutors would look at Swartz's prior writings and why his
lawyers would instruct him not to discuss it.

~~~
dccoolgai
Assuming that what is charged here is true - namely, that the prosecutors
brought the case against Swartz _because_ of his philosophical writings on
open data - any minutiae of the case is irrelevant. Thank you for your
explanation of the importance of establishing intent in the context crminal
law, but couched in the bed of prosecutorial misconduct that it apparently is,
it _just isn't relevant here_ and even bringing it up is compositional
sophistry.

If I, as a prosecutor, decide to charge you with felony assualt because I
don't like the color of your shirt, it _simply does not matter_ that you
either A) Slapped someone in the face last year or B) Wrote on your blog that
you intended to do it. My case is _prima facie_ invalid - I am not allowed to
charge you with felonies because I don't like the color of your shirt __or
__because I don't like your philosopy on government transparency.

~~~
GHFigs
_Assuming that what is charged here is true - namely, that the prosecutors
brought the case against Swartz because of his philosophical writings on open
data_

The whole point is that it's _not_ true! It's just something HuffPo, et al.
are spinning out of a much less controversial statement about what evidence
they considered to establish intent. The strongly-conclusive headlines do not
match the actual story here. Defending the bullshit headlines doesn't make
them true--that's not how truth works.

------
andreyf
_Many people speculated throughout the whole ordeal that this was a political
prosecution [...] but Aaron actually didn't believe it was_

Aaron was an idealist that had some idealistic misconceptions about reality.
Being an intelligent and nationally famous activist, which he was well on his
way to becoming, is not something you can do without ruffling the feathers of
some very powerful people. He knew it [1], but his idealism stopped him from
understanding what it meant for him, personally. I'll admit I don't know much
about "how Washington really works", but I wouldn't be surprised if those with
such power over senators have some sway with prosecutors, as well.

1\. "You don't just introduce a bill on Monday and pass it unanimously a
couple of days later [...] but this time, it was going to happene [...]
somehow, and the kind of thing you never see in Washington, the senators had
all managed to put their personal differences aside, and come together to
support one bill they were persuaded they could all live with, a bill that
would censor the internet, and when I saw this, I realized, whoever behind
this was good [i.e. powerful]".
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgh2dFngFsg#t=411s>

~~~
InclinedPlane
That video is heartbreaking to watch.

------
nonamegiven
OT: Why doesn't web text flow anymore?

I increased the text size of this post because it started uncomfortably small
(for me). Curiosity made me keep increasing the text size until it hit both
ends of my browser, then I increased it some more and the text disappeared off
the ends. The text did reflow as the size increased, within some internal
margin set by the site's style, so it's clearly possible to reflow within the
bounds of the window.

Why doesn't it reflow to stay inside the window, and why is this considered
good? I vaguely recall that it used to be normal to reflow and keep everything
visible.

I checked with FF and Chromium on linux, same behavior.

~~~
lerouxb
Basically: browsers started scaling pixel sizes years ago, so if you set the
width of the page as a pixel size it will scale when you zoom the page. If you
use sizes relative to the size of the text (ems or rems) to set the widths of
containers, then those will scale when you increase the text size.

Developers can turn zooming off on mobile devices by specifying a fixed
viewport which obviously upsets a large subset of people. (But then you
potentially have the pinch gesture to yourself and it isn't intercepted by the
system, but I digress..)

Alternatively percentage based and max-width css can be used on containers and
then you can probably start to get the behaviour you're looking for. I'm not
100% sure if browsers will scale max-width. You can probably set pixel widths
on containers and use percentage based sizes for fonts, but then a) you're
assuming the default font size is 16px forever and b) the results are still
going to depend on whether the browser scales text or zooms the entire page.

In this website's case it probably wouldn't be very helpful if the text scaled
up without the design going wider, though. Maybe one or two steps but at a
point the main column width gets ridiculously narrow.

Oh and obviously you can just never give containers widths, but then you
probably get that html 1.0 look where text just goes all the way from one edge
of the screen to the other.

I don't think it really is a solvable problem in a way that will make everyone
happy all the time.

------
api
"This is making me angrier than almost anything I’ve heard since Aaron died. I
finally figured out why: Because I worked my ass off to elect the Obama
administration in 2008. I helped these people get in power. And then they
drove the man I loved to suicide because they didn’t like something he said
once."

A lot of people think the Democrats are lot more socially and politically
liberal than they really are. Look no further than their repeated reiteration
of punitive "War on Drugs" policy. The Democrats play that tune during
elections, but it's a scam... as much as the Republicans and their Jesus
babble. (Karl Rove is an atheist.) Both parties are absolutely status quo
parties. Since the Reagan era, their stances have differed significantly only
on hot-button "culture war" issues-- because these issues are really just
tools to segment the electorate. On issues that matter to money and power they
differ little if at all.

------
rdl
I don't know her, but I wonder if Taren S-K is going to define the rest of her
life w.r.t. being Aaron's "widow". That can't be healthy, either.

~~~
beagle3
It hasn't been two months yet. Many cultures settled on one year as the
reasonable mourning time, after which people are expected to get on with their
life. Some people need less, some people need more.

Your comment might be warranted in five to ten years if she does indeed define
herself that way.

------
LAMike
Is the governments recent announcement that they would make all tax-funded
research papers free to access a big enough silver lining for people to forget
about Ortiz and Heymann?

------
mkhalil
I hate to say this, but the DOJ didn't kill Aaron Swartz...he took his own
life. Selfishley, if I may so. Many activists stand up to the oppressor, raise
awareness, fight, he didn't. Not taking anything away from what he was trying
to do with JSTOR (semi-noble), but don't blame the DOJ on his death.

Do blame them for bringing down the sledge-hammer though.

------
known
"If you wish to keep slaves, you must have all kinds of guards. The cheapest
way to have guards is to have the slaves pay taxes to finance their own
guards. To fool the slaves, you tell them that they are not slaves and that
they have Freedom. You tell them they need Law and Order to protect them
against bad slaves. Then you tell them to elect a Government. Give them
Freedom to vote and they will vote for their own guards and pay their salary.
They will then believe they are Free persons. Then give them money to earn,
count and spend and they will be too busy to notice the slavery they are in."
-Alexander Warbucks

------
SagelyGuru
Surely 'intent' only becomes material after some crime was actually committed?
Otherwise prosecuting just for intent alone makes it into a thought crime?

Specifically, in this case, I do not understand how the shills are hoping to
keep justifying the use of the manifesto as proof of intent to distribute the
articles, when he has NOT actually distributed them? How can that be possibly
relevant?

Or is it the case that we are not only not allowed to read research that we
paid for but now are potentially all guilty of thought crimes as well?

~~~
twoodfin
Please refrain from referring to hn posters who disagree with you about the
scope of "thought crime" as "shills". It's unbecoming.

Yes, intent only matters if you've committed a crime, but it's not at all
difficult to argue that Swartz probably did commit a felony under the CFAA. If
you can't see that, imagine he had downloaded loosely protected private emails
or credit card account lists.

~~~
analog
_"imagine he had downloaded loosely protected private emails or credit card
account lists"_

Respectfully I don't think that's a great argument. That what he did is in the
public interest (imo) is central to the issue. You can't just ignore that.

~~~
mpyne
That's more of a factor for the sentencing phase of a trial (a "mitigating"
factor to be considered when adjudging a proper sentence).

What you propose is vigilante justice (though without the violence we normally
ascribe to it) and though I too am often sympathetic to that, the legal system
is not (and we as a society have chosen that on purpose).

~~~
analog
I don't think I am proposing vigilante justice, are you confusing comments
here perhaps?

The intent is absolutely a factor at the decision to prosecute stage.

You're trying to equate an act in the public interest (freeing academic
information), with an act with clear criminal intent (credit card fraud). They
simply aren't treated the same way and nor should they be.

~~~
rada
I read your comment as essentially advocating vigilante justice as well. If
you are _not_ saying "we are free to steal if we think it's for the public
good", then what _are_ you saying?

~~~
analog
You're describing civil disobedience, not vigilante justice.

~~~
mpyne
"Vigilante justice" is simply justice applied outside of the legal framework.

I see what you're getting at with civil disobedience though... I suppose the
difference is in scope and scale.

Someone passively resisting a bad law can certainly be said to not be a
vigilante; they're not actively trying to to bring about their desired brand
of justice, they are simply refusing to comply with the current legal version
of it.

One would not expect to bring out change only by themselves via civil
disobedience, it's power comes from being applied across a group of people.
Vigilante justice is different; you simply fix whatever situation is unjust.

If Aaron had simply complied with his own manifesto (e.g. downloading an
article at a time, organizing others to download articles, etc.) I think we
could safely say he was simply being civilly disobedient.

But he kicked it up a notch. He used technology to speed up his extraction of
the entire JSTOR database. He evaded network blocks in the process. When he
finally could go no farther on Wifi he hooked his computer directly within the
assumed-safe MIT subnet. In short, civil disobedience was taking too long for
him and he decided to escalate.

So even if one agrees substantially with his desire for open access I hope it
is understandable why people might disagree with his methods, and furthermore
to understand why the legal system would disagree. We as a society have
deliberately chosen to punish vigilantism because it breeds a world where
justice applies only to those strong enough to enforce their worldview.

Although Aaron was not physically violent he certainly had a leg up on 99.9%
of the rest of the U.S. population with regard to "cyberskills", does he not?
If I stole a million cars and returned them without a scratch to their
rightful owner in order to achieve some desirable positive goal I would still
get in trouble, because I am not Caesar and therefore don't get to decide
which laws do and do not apply to me (however virtuous I might be as a
person).

We can debate about misdemeanor or felony, whether 3 months of prison or no
jail time at all is appropriate but people seem to be shocked and amazed that
the legal system would have taken an interest _at all_ in this case, and I
just don't understand why people think that.

~~~
analog
I'm sorry but vigilante justice and civil disobedience are quite different
concepts.

My comment advocated neither. I merely pointed out that pubic prosecutions
should only proceed if they are in the public interest. Hardly that radical.

~~~
mpyne
> I merely pointed out that public prosecutions should only proceed if they
> are in the public interest.

Sure, everyone agrees on the tautology, just like no one in Washington claims
to like "Big Government" or wasteful spending.

If one considers it in the public interest to ensure that those with advanced
computer skills do not use those skills to essentially write their own laws,
then it's not hard to see why prosecutors like Ortiz and Heymann would
consider it necessary to bring charges against Swartz.

It's "cybercrime", which they are responsible for prosecuting, the suspect has
a manifesto indicating that this won't just be a one-off affair, the suspect
has in fact done stuff like this before at a lesser scale, etc. etc.

Now you or I might say that it's all for a good cause and that we can trust
Aaron not to do anything actually seriously malicious, but I can also see why
a reasonable Federal prosecutor just doing their job would not agree.

That's not to say Ortiz has clean hands on all of this, just that there really
is a plausible "public interest" reasoning to charging Swartz with
_something_. If Swartz were allowed to continue unfettered where would it end
(when you answer this remember that you're a lawyer, not a computer expert)?

It's easy to say that IP law is stupid in a world of patent trolls and
continuously-expanding copyright for corporations but that doesn't mean the
right answer is to burn the whole building down.

For instance, how did Swartz verify that he only downloaded publicly-funded
articles? How much collateral damage is acceptable in the name of Open Access?

Swartz may have had answers to all these questions but they're questions none-
the-less, and questions I would expect that a reasonable U.S. prosecutor might
have as well.

~~~
analog
So you think people should be prosecuted for something they might do?

~~~
mpyne
I don't think I even hinted at anything that stupid... Swartz did enough to
face the possibility of charges even without counting what he might have done
later.

I _am_ saying that the possibility of re-offending is one of the things a
prosecutor has to consider when judging the public interest, especially in a
resource-constrained environment.

~~~
analog
What do you think his offence was then? He had the right to access all of the
articles he downloaded individually. You seem to be suggesting that he should
be prosecuted because he _might_ have distributed them.

~~~
mpyne
> He had the right to access all of the articles he downloaded individually.

Had he downloaded them all individually he might have retained that right. As
it stands, MIT and JSTOR both took action to remove _his_ specific permission
to do so, so it is incorrect to say that he had permission to download
anything from JSTOR after his download permissions were removed.

He should be prosecuted for repeatedly gaining unauthorized access to a
computer network that he had no permission to be on. The manifesto simply
shows to the prosecutors _why_ he was doing that in the first place, and why
he wasn't just some bored MIT student on a pen testing spree.

------
mschuster91
I believe that this behavior is just the same as effectively murdering him.
Ortiz and Heymann should be convicted of whatever the US equivalent of "Murder
with intent" is. Let them rot in hell forever.

~~~
corin_
At best you could make a case (and I'm talking you making a case here, not
talking from a legal point of view) for involuntary manslaughter, not murder
with intent, unless you can show that they knew prosecuting would lead to his
death.

~~~
oleganza
So it is okay for some people to threaten other people with jail when some
files get copied? Do you know what the "jail" means? Humiliation every day,
statistically guaranteed rape and possible murder.

~~~
mpyne
As far as I can tell he was never charged with any variant of copying files.

He was charged with unauthorized access to a computer network and wire fraud.

Given your idea of what jail means for rich white kids like Aaron though, I'd
just like to recommend that you actually look into the U.S. prison system (at
worst you'll find out what's _actually wrong_ with it and not have to make
stuff up).

~~~
oleganza
If he declines to go to a nice little jail, he'll be shot down when trying to
defend himself. So the threat of jail is an ultimate threat of murder, right?
Do you think it is appropriate measure for unauthorised access to a computer
network? Especially after the fact, not while he's busy doing that.

When some guy comes to your porch and does not go away, what would you do?
Would you try to push him out on the street, or you will chase him with a gun
in attempt to put him in a cell? What would you do if the same guy already
stepped on your porch and broke your chair? Will you threaten him with death?
Or you will ask policemen and court to do that dirty job for you?

~~~
corin_
You've just used logic to prove that we have a death penalty for every crime
that exists.

~~~
oleganza
In the realm of government-imposed law? Yes. There is also lynching, but it
generally does not occur.

Outside the government people use peaceful dispute resolution organizations,
reputation systems, rating agencies and insurance companies.

------
jheriko
Can we stop giving a shit about this already please?

There are a million and one worse things perpetrated and supported by this
government that they actually do happily admit to and which are actually
/really bad/ - i.e. resulting in the murder of tens of thousands innocent
children.

I refuse to pity self entitled pricks who should have known what they were
doing and taken some responsibility for the relatively tiny consequences of
their actions instead of topping themselves.

Disrespectful tone fully intended.

~~~
beedogs
Authoritarian prick detected. "He deserves bogus prosecution because he had it
coming for acting like a douche." Yep, that's all it takes to justify ruining
someone.

~~~
jheriko
I'm not saying its right - just that the amount of fuss is massively
disproportionate. Bogus prosecution is basically nothing compared to having
your life threatened with bona fide aggression.

First world problems, in the extreme.

~~~
jbooth
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess you've never so much as been in
court, let alone charged with something serious and facing jail time.

~~~
jheriko
Not true actually.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you've never so much as had
to fight for your survival, let alone face what appears to be certain death.

Everything is relative. This is why I have a seriously hard time showing any
pity or tolerance with this...

~~~
jbooth
I'm not a military vet, so no, although I have been places and seen how the
world works. Generally have been smart/lucky enough to avoid serious trouble.

So, political prosecution, facing jail-time for something pretty innocent, and
you can't find the least bit of pity because nobody's threatening to kill him?

I'd suggest developing some empathy, it will make you more successful in
business and more importantly will improve your life.

------
abraininavat
_This is making me angrier than almost anything I’ve heard since Aaron died. I
finally figured out why: Because I worked my ass off to elect the Obama
administration in 2008. I helped these people get in power_

So stop being a chump. Stop voting in the same career politicians from one of
two sides of the same political coin. A coin that's entirely beholden to
corporate interests and only nominally beholden to the people.

 _Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different
results_

~~~
weareconvo
> Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different
> results

I think insanity has to do with how one perceives reality, rather than one's
aptitude for inferring future results based on past ones. Wouldn't this more
aptly be characterized as naivety?

~~~
abraininavat
It's a commonly referenced quote. I didn't coin it.

------
nwzpaperman
What is the statistical probability of a .920+ batting average over a decade
period? If the Feds come after you, forget about how much money or connections
you have; it won't be enough!

Page 42:

[http://www.justice.gov/usao/reading_room/reports/asr2011/11s...](http://www.justice.gov/usao/reading_room/reports/asr2011/11statrpt.pdf)

