
A time for silence - danielpal
http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40845525507/a-time-for-silence
======
jacquesm
Lawrence Lessig is an amazing person, and this piece underscores that. I
really hope he will find that a time-out will help to heal these wounds and
will begin to close the gap. Of all the words written about Aaron's plight
these hit closest to home for me and I am halfway torn between following his
example of tuning out and re-connecting with those around me (who I've been
somewhat neglecting in the last week) and switching into 'action' mode from
idle.

If there is one thing that all this has done it is that it has shocked me like
not much has done in the last couple of years and I thought I was pretty
tough. Lessig is a giant, imagine how much it would take to hurt a man of such
stature that he needs to recover incommunicado and contrast that with the
piece written by Mrs. Ortiz.

Worlds apart.

~~~
FireBeyond
"Lessig is a giant, imagine how much it would take to hurt a man of such
stature that he needs to recover incommunicado and contrast that with the
piece written by Mrs. Ortiz. Worlds apart."

Come on. One was a close, dear and personal friend of Aaron's for many years,
the other was someone who saw him as the defendant in a prosecution.

It hardly dehumanizes Ortiz to react and respond differently to Aaron's
suicide than Lessig, and is something of a pattern in your posts over this
week dehumanizing and demonizing her.

I work in EMS. I see death regularly, including suicide. Though I see (however
fleetingly) the pain of those surrounding the deceased, including their loved
ones, I don't feel it. The person is, to me, a person and a patient, but I
cannot be expected to have the same dark despair as I would, had I lost a long
and close friend, and it makes me no less emotional or human to not have that
response.

~~~
jacquesm
Feel free to compare MITs reponse to Ortiz response if you feel that Lessigs
response as a personal friend is a bad comparison.

I have not dehumanized Ortiz, she did that to herself, she wrote that piece.
It feels insincere and her husbands response seems to confirm that it is
insincere.

I fully respect your professional detachment, but if you go so far as to make
a public statement about a person you lost, possibly through your own actions
then you should _really_ mean it and get out of CYA mode, even if that's a
life-long ingrained instinct.

~~~
FireBeyond
I'll give you that. Ortiz's statement is impersonal. But on the flipside, any
acknowledgement of any impact that the prosecution may have had in Aaron's
suicide could be instrumental in a suit, so her hands are somewhat tied.

Certainly, though, I'm not disputing that the default mode of many in law
(when acting as an attorney) is CYA.

~~~
jacquesm
> But on the flipside, any acknowledgement of any impact that the prosecution
> may have had in Aaron's suicide could be instrumental in a suit, so her
> hands are somewhat tied.

I fully agree with that and noted exactly that earlier in another thread. And
because that risk exists it would be a real breath of fresh air if she had
accepted the _possibility_ of responsibility. At a minimum she could have
asked for an external party to investigate if this was all done properly.
Categoric denial was exactly the wrong thing to do.

------
purephase
Very well put, and surprisingly earnest. I respect Lessig immensely and this
sentiment only reinforces it.

There is a very pervasive and troubling thread of professional "politicking"
invading every single aspect of our lives both institutional and private. No
one cops to anything, no one apologizes, and no one ever sees the errors in
their ways. Admitting otherwise is weak and will undermine ones political
future, career etc.

It's sad that honesty is no longer the best policy.

------
BenoitEssiambre
At this point, the DOJ should apologize, investigate internally and fire those
who were involved in Aaron's case.

If they refuse and insist that this is business as usual for them then it
should be legislated by the government that all previous cases involving heavy
handed plea bargaining under the current DOJ staff should be re-opened and re-
negotiated under saner conditions.

This is clearly not justice.

Aaron Swartz himself wrote about this kind of situation:
<http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/semmelweis>

~~~
wissler
"At this point, the DOJ should apologize, investigate internally and fire
those who were involved in Aaron's case."

This is a bit naive. Certainly it would help the DOJ's image if they did this,
and certainly firing those involved would be just, but that act alone misses
the point: why are prosecutors who behave like this thriving? This isn't an
isolated case at all. There's a more sinister factor at work, and doing only
as you suggest would cover it up.

~~~
discountgenius
Firing someone is still a step in the right direction if it forces other
prosecutors to even think about the possibility of them being fired as well.

~~~
wissler
It is only a step in the right direction if it's not thought to have solved
the problem. If it is thought to have solved the problem, then it's a step in
the wrong direction, even if it means that justice has been partly served.

I.e., the real problem here is cultural. We live in a culture that creates
opportunities for people like these prosecutors, and merely firing these
people sweeps that under the rug so it can flourish in the future.

------
RyanMcGreal
"Ortiz’s statement is a template for all that is awful in what we as a
political culture have become."

------
res0nat0r
Everyone is blaming the evil government over this issue. Shouldn't we be
blaming Aaron himself; maybe just a little?

Shouldn't someone if they are going to commit an act of civil disobedience be
aware _just a little bit_ of the possible consequences?

~~~
bjustin
No. The response was so disproportionate to his actions that no reasonable
person would have expected it.

~~~
mpyne
That's just it. The response wasn't at all disproportionate.

That's why, before aaronsw killed himself, the highest-rated comment _on HN_
about Aaron being arrested and starting a legal fund was, to paraphrase: You
broke it; You bought it.

Nothing about the evidence of what he did has changed significantly since.
Substantially the same charges are on the books, pretty much the same
evidence, the same political manifesto on display.

The only difference between then and now is that Aaron broke his own neck and
a bunch of armchair lawyers and legislators magically popped out of the
woodwork of HN (where were they _before_ he killed himself?).

Is that what this has turned into? It's now OK to invade and do what you want
on a computer network, as long as the security is feeble enough?

The response of the prosecutors was right in line with the law as it stands.
Although it's surprising that MIT refused to buy off on a plea deal with no
jail time, it's hardly new for a victim to want someone to "smell concrete" to
think over what they did.

There's a lot that can be done in response to this such as Kerr's suggestions
about modifying CFAA to make it much more difficult to fall into felony
provisions, increased awareness of the crippling effects of depression, and
more.

But acting like the prosecutors were on some special kind of witch hunt for
Aaron is silly (read Kerr if you haven't already). Why wouldn't a reasonable
person have expected that the law applies as equally to the rich white kid
from HN as it did to the "computer hackers" who came before him in the decades
that CFAA has been on the books?

~~~
theevocater
No that is the highest comment because people don't have a clue about the
actual court case. Your strawman comparisons are nonsense.

------
Millennium
"Yes, Ms. Ortiz, you obviously can “only imagine.” Because if you felt it, as
obviously as Reif did, it would move you first to listen, and then to think.
You’re so keen to prove that you understand this case better than your press
releases about Aaron’s “crime” (those issued when Aaron still drew breath)
made it seem (“the prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against
Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his acts for personal financial
gain”). But if your prosecutors recognized this, then this is the question to
answer:

Why was he being charged with 13 felonies?"

Swartz was being charged for what he did, not for why he did it. Crimes do
not, as a rule, become "better" or "worse" based on why someone does them.
I'll buy that this was a misguided attempt at civil disobedience, but the
point of civil disobedience is to pay the price: that's where the protest
truly begins, not when you do the deed.

~~~
bjustin
> Crimes do not, as a rule, become "better" or "worse" based on why someone
> does them.

Yes they do. Intent is usually taken into account during sentencing, for
example.

~~~
jamesaguilar
And, in all likelihood, the same would have happened in this case.

------
javajosh
This attitude of not taking responsibility for anything, of simply denying
reality, not to mention humanity, has a very specific beginning: George W.
Bush's defeat of Al Gore. He demonstrated to everyone in government and in the
private sector that you can reach out for power, nakedly, without respect to
any kind of decency, and take it. And, gasp, the American people would _not_
clamor for justice. They would _not_ demand something (or someone) better. It
was a watershed moment for government, when everyone realized: we can do
whatever the fuck we want, and no-one can stop us.

And this thesis, hesitant at first, has been demonstrated again and again. By
Bush himself - NSA wiretapping, gitmo, the TSA and the most epic 'fuck you'
ever spoken to the American people: the attack and occupation of Iraq under
false pretenses. Cheney's massive expansion of power of the office of the Vice
Presidency was a more subtle but still important expression of this disregard
for American oversight. Carmen Ortiz is an Obama appointee, but she is very
much a product of the Bush era.

Bush was a wake-up call for all government employees: you have unchecked
power. If you want to use it, expand it, abuse it then do it. No-one is going
to stop you. Our justice system is so expensive that it's out of reach of
most, and really, in the end, _you're playing on the same team_ so go ahead
and do what you want. 'Justice' has your back.

But the key to making this power grab work is to follow the Bush playbook:
_never, ever admit to any wrong doing_. Do not, under any circumstances, even
acknowledge the concerns of others - except possibly in tones of smirking
dismissal and contempt. If you don't follow that playbook, then you give your
opponents an opening, and weaken your position. Pretty soon you'll be
explaining yourself, and when you're explaining, you're losing. You're losing
power.

Stonewall, deny, and fight with every last tool given to you. Do not cooperate
or discuss. Force your opponents to find leverage against you: don't just give
it to them.

Ortiz is a smart woman, and learned her lessons well.

~~~
jacoblyles
I've always wondered what Democrats think should have happened in the 2000
election. As far as I can tell, it was a very close one. The idea that Bush
"stole" the election lacks credibility with me.

1,000 more votes on either side, and the controversy would have disappeared.

~~~
zecho
When people say "stole the election" I think that's shorthand for "Bush won on
a technicality." Bush v. Gore lead to an agreement from the court that Florida
badly fucked up certification, but because of Title 3, the fuck up would have
to stand.

What I think everyone fails to remember, however, is that independent analysis
of recounts that could have happened may have led to either Bush winning or
Gore winning, depending on the type of recount, which gives you an even better
idea of just how much Florida fucked up in 2000.

~~~
enraged_camel
This assumes that the voting process was fair to begin with, when it wasn't.
There was plenty of intimidation, disenfranchisement and blatant cheating done
by Republicans that skewed the numbers in their favor significantly. It also
happened in 2008 and 2012, but Obama won despite it.

------
pasbesoin
He is taking a break, for his personal need. I don't think he is advocating
that we all do.

Time for us to carry the ball.

Personally, I have no hope in Congress. But I still do, perhaps, have some
hope in the people. Who have the power to change Congress, and to reform the
judicial system.

For decades, people clamored for "tough on crime". Many of those voices may
not change; however, many other voices may arise to insist that we... well, in
the nature of things here, "look at the data" and "make some sense".

P.S. I meant to add, that we currently -- as we did last year with SOPA/PIPA,
have momentum and national attention. We should not miss the opportunity to
take it and use it to (metaphorically) burn away at least some of the
corruption before our eyes.

And this should give at least some pause, hopefully, to those seeking to foist
ever more corruption upon us. They are relentless; such respite would serve us
well while continuing to construct an effective response.

------
jamesaguilar
Honest question: how many felonies the MLK _commit_? If he committed a lot of
felonies but was charged with none, that would be quite surprising.

------
phren0logy
There are few people I respect more than Larry Lessig, and stuff like this
this is why.

Thank you for doing what you do.

------
endlessvoid94
I know that in our most emotional moments, we tend to act rashly and sometimes
say things we eventually regret.

I'm not saying Lessig will regret writing this, but I wonder.

~~~
garretruh
What (in your opinion) might he eventually regret? Honestly curious.

~~~
endlessvoid94
I'm not sure, I was really just curious. It's probable he won't regret any of
it.

Perhaps in his profession? I don't know.

------
Create
_To the press — especially the press wanting “just five minutes” — I
apologize. This isn’t a “just five minutes” story, at least from me._

[http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/14/an_incredible_soul_law...](http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/14/an_incredible_soul_lawrence_lessig_remembers)

------
Daniel_Newby
I do not understand the hoopla around this case.

Aaron Swartz picked a huge fight with the feds over, well, pretty much
nothing. He then proceeded to run a spectacular PR campaign where he rubbed
their noses in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the copyright laws.

They did what the feds always do: calmly, carefully beat you to death with a
billion dollar prosecuting machine. What happened to him was a foregone
conclusion. He basically threw himself off a cliff a year ago.

I am flabbergasted that folks like Lessig, people who appear knowledgable and
together, were _egging him on_. Swartz may have been an overenthusiastic young
man, but his elders and advisers _knew_ about Steve Jackson Games. They _knew_
about Mitnick and the hundreds of other crackers, hackers, and phreaks that
have been crushed by the Feds. They as good as wrote his eulogy a year ago,
and now they cry crocodile tears.

Count me in the ranks of the unimpressed.

------
wissler
What a profound moral sense and courage. We need more people in the world like
Lessig.

