
Whitehouse response to Aaron Swartz petition - btilly
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-district-attorney-carmen-ortiz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck
======
declan
The White House's non-response on the two-year anniversary of Aaron Swartz's
death shows why these petitions are not only flawed, but should be avoided by
people who actually care about political or policy change.

Look at the nearby discussion: Instead of asking why Carmen Ortiz, who's been
in her current job for nearly six years, is still there, we're debating the
_terms of use_ of the petition site. Instead of wondering why a law originally
designed to protect NORAD was used to drive Aaron Swartz to suicide -- despite
his JSTOR "victim" never asking for a criminal prosecution -- we're
reminiscing about other, equally useless, petitions in the past.

I admit it's a brilliant move by this administration (to be sure, Rs would do
the same thing). Instead of having people sign up to be members of EFF or ACLU
or TechFreedom.org, which will send email alerts when legal fixes like
"Aaron's Law" are pending in Congress, people slap their names on a petition
that results in a committee-managed non-response on the two year anniversary
of his death.

Imagine if even 5% or 10% of the 61,179 people who signed that petition
instead organized rallies in their cities, or a kind of Leave The Internet
Alone rally in DC. That might or may not accomplish something; it surely would
accomplish more than signing the petition did. (You could wrap in a bunch of
related topics: DMCA/copyright reform, NSA reform, CFAA reform and more.)

I'm sorry if I sound frustrated. I spent hundreds of hours interviewing folks
involved in the case and reading court documents about the Aaron Swartz
prosecution while I was at CNET before leaving to build
[http://recent.io/](http://recent.io/). What happened to him was a tragedy,
but Carmen Ortiz will leave for a seven-figure law firm job at a time that's
convenient for her, and an effort in Congress to fix things actually coughed
up a bill to make current law worse: [http://www.cnet.com/news/aarons-law-
rewrite-backfires-reform...](http://www.cnet.com/news/aarons-law-rewrite-
backfires-reformers-now-on-defensive/)

If you're interested, here's a detailed piece I wrote about the federal anti-
hacking law Carmen Ortiz wielded against Aaron Swartz, and how it was never
originally intended to cover what he was accused of doing:
[http://www.cnet.com/news/from-wargames-to-aaron-swartz-
how-u...](http://www.cnet.com/news/from-wargames-to-aaron-swartz-how-u-s-anti-
hacking-law-went-astray/)

~~~
TheHydroImpulse
> Imagine if even 5% or 10% of the 61,179 people who signed that petition
> instead organized rallies in their cities, or a kind of Leave The Internet
> Alone rally in DC.

Because the truth is that people generally don't care enough to do anything
worth while ("signing" a petition is pretty minimal in terms of effort). There
will always be the activists that are local to the cause who will do
everything they can to fight, but everyone else, living their own lives,
working, being parents, having hobbies or what have you have their own
personal problems to take care of.

It's just routine. With the added regular news from the regular sources, who
knows how manipulated they are, they're just so removed from what's actually
going on. Not to mention, many people won't ask "What can the people do?" but
"What can I do?" and their answer will be: "Nothing!"

We live in a world where people are told to live their lives, handle their
business and the rest will be taken care of.

Maybe that's just common in Canada.

I don't like this situation, but this is what I'm seeing.

~~~
thaumaturgy
A slightly more charitable argument would be that people _do_ care, but are
currently under too much financial and day-to-day stress to simply drop
everything and participate meaningfully in lots of political causes.

And in this particular case, there are ancillary issues too. The Aaron Swartz
case doesn't immediately sound important to non-hackers, and there are no
shortage of people who will helpfully point out, over and over and over again,
that, "Aaron actually did break the law, and if he didn't want to go to jail,
he shouldn't've broken the law, and he had a mental illness besides so the
outcome is nobody's fault but his own." I disagree with those people, but
they're still able to move the discussion away from where it should be:
federal prosecutors acted absurdly.

Gay rights have only recently made serious political progress, obnoxious drug
enforcement is being fought against, people are talking about the NSA in light
of Snowden's leaks (and, fortunately, the law-worshippers' "Snowden is a
traitor and a coward" position didn't stick).

People aren't totally inactive. They're just broke and stressed-out and
overwhelmed by a relentless tide of political issues.

~~~
justizin
"A slightly more charitable argument would be that people do care, but are
currently under too much financial and day-to-day stress to simply drop
everything and participate meaningfully in lots of political causes."

When has this not "currently" been the case? This is exactly the problem. You
are always going to be under financial and day-to-day stress. Aaron is the
only person I'm aware of whose reaction to the removal of everyday stress was
to get more involved in politics and not become a venture capitalist.

There is time today, tomorrow, next week, and next month - not _only_
tomorrow, next week, and next month. The latter mode of thinking yields an
infinite number of "todays" with no time for doing anything.

Do something! You can! Start small. Talk to a stranger about an issue of
concern, and stop crying in the choir chamber.

~~~
thaumaturgy
Well, congratulations, I guess, to earning the title, "Dude who will probably
piss me off the most today."

Listen.

Last month my personal account was overdrawn by $400 (people don't pay their
invoices in December). It typically hovers well under $1000. Would you like
screenshots, would that be satisfying in any way to you? I bust my ass all
week long for an awful lot of other people and businesses in my area,
including non-profits like Habitat For Humanity. I've been doing this for
several years now. And somehow I still find the time and resources to be
involved in other ways -- _in my community_.

And I'm not alone. A huge number of people are struggling really bad right
now. It's been a frequent topic of journalism the last few years, maybe you
missed it.

Aaron? With all due respect to Aaron, he had a family that I didn't have, that
was financially well enough off to support him in whatever he wanted to do,
and then he cashed out of a startup with more damn money than I expect I'll
ever see in my life -- money that gave him the luxury of pursuing whatever
subject interested him.

Good for him. I respect what he did, I do. But you deserve a punch in the face
for trying to make someone else feel bad for not doing the same, especially
when you can't even bother yourself to get to know anything about them.

You've still got a bit to learn about encouraging other people to take up a
cause.

Maybe you could start with your Instagram profile, it makes you look a bit of
a hypocrite.

------
olefoo
So, I am the person who wrote that petition. (and yes I'm aware of the issues
with the wording )

The decision to name Carmen Ortiz was deliberate; she is a political appointee
and thus could be dismissed at the administrations pleasure. That they chose
to hide behind the 'cannot discuss personnel matters' figleaf is to put it
plainly; bullshit. Political appointees are just that, political; and the fact
that the administration is too cowardly to defend their choice in this matter
speaks volumes.

It doesn't really matter; Aaron is still dead, Carmen Ortiz still has her job
(although hopefully her political career has topped out) and we carry on.

~~~
tootie
Honestly, the fact that she's a political appointee is what makes your
petition moot. They'll just appoint someone else. She was following directives
from the DOJ based on the law. The petition should have called for end to the
acadmic papers paywall racket. If you call for a rule that any research
receiving government (or at least NIH or NSF) funding must be made freely
available upon publish, that is within the purview of the executive and would
solve the root problem once and for all.

~~~
dangrossman
> If you call for a rule that any research receiving government (or at least
> NIH or NSF) funding must be made freely available upon publish, that is
> within the purview of the executive and would solve the root problem once
> and for all.

That already happened --

[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/increasing-
public-...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/increasing-public-
access-results-scientific-research)

------
ecaron
Does it make me too cynical that my initial reaction to anything on
petitions.whitehouse.gov is "Who cares?"

Can someone point me to a petition that actually made a difference?

~~~
snowwrestler
The SOPA petition drew a clear statement from the White House that they would
not support any bill that messed with DNS. That was a win for the anti-SOPA
folks because DNS redirection was a key part of that bill.

~~~
thaumaturgy
IOW, it happened to be one of the few cases where the White House's intentions
were already aligned with the public's wishes.

~~~
snowwrestler
Yes, I agree that the SOPA petition did not change the White House's mind on
DNS. But it did provide a good PR hook for them to put a stake in the ground,
and clothe it in the veneer of public support.

It's probably best to think of the petitions as a PR tool, not a policy tool.
Getting a petition over the signature threshhold, or getting a response, is a
great news hook that activists can use to generate press coverage of their
issue. For example: this discussion would not be happening today if this
response had not been issued.

It's also possible that a petition can help affect policy over a long term. In
general, people outside of government greatly underestimate just how long it
takes to go from an idea or complaint, to a policy shift, to a change in the
law. It's not uncommon for it to take a decade or more. For example _Silent
Spring_ was published in 1962, but DDT was not banned in the U.S. until 1972.

------
codingdave
Federal prosecutors always throw the book at people. That is their job, that
is how the legal profession works - 2 sides come at a case from the most
extreme positions, knowing that the end result will fall somewhere in the
middle. Of course they found inappropriate laws to throw at him. Of course it
seems over-zealous. That is how our system works. But people need to realize
that prosecutors do not expect every charge to stick. They do not expect to
actually get the horrible sentences that they threaten.

Because this case never went to trial, any decisions or reactions based on the
worst-case scenario threats of prosecutors are unfounded. Any criticisms of
laws being unfairly applied would have been argued in court.

The tragedy here remains that Mr. Swartz needed professional psyche help, and
did not get it. A smaller tragedy was that he needed better legal help.

Across the board, this is a horrible story. But people continue to focus on
the wrong points. Petitions to fire the prosecutor? Really?

We should be working towards better mental health in our society. I would also
love to see a change in our legal system, but that one seems a tougher nut to
crack.

~~~
SCHiM
Even if it's just a 'day on the job' for the prosecutors it's not for the
people they accuse and prosecute. Although I understand that that the
prosecution in America seems more like bargaining than real justice and that
you should always ask for more than you can reasonably achieve in bargaining,
I think that the threat of years of your life wasted in prison is not
acceptable. I agree with your point about better mental health-care, but the
fact that Aaron needed, and did not receive, care does not redeem the
prosecutor who drove him over the edge in my opinion.

Saying that it's unfair to challenge the prosecutors behavior because the case
never went to court does not seem relevant in light of the consequences the
threats have had.

~~~
codingdave
It is unfair to act like this was a singular effort against one man. This
happens every day in every court case. I think we agree on that.

I'm not condoning it, I'm saying cherry picking one case to fight is missing
the point. His real story is one of a failure in our mental health system.
This focus on the prosecution is twisting the story into areas that are harder
to change, and had a smaller impact on the end result.

This is not the story of a good guy being pursued by a bad prosecutor. This is
a story of someone who did commit criminal acts, did get caught and
prosecuted, and then did not have the personal capabilities to deal with the
consequences. Yes, the story includes a bad legal system. But focusing on the
prosecutor diminishes the actual problems in our legal system, diminishes the
problems with our mental health system, and diminishes Mr. Swartz own
responsibilities in his own story.

~~~
marcosdumay
May I ask you what criminal acts he commited?

~~~
FireBeyond
Apropos of your thoughts on copyright infringement, he at the very least
committed trespass. Even if MIT had no interest in prosecution. That is
undisputed.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> he at the very least committed trespass.

Which is typically a $100-500 fine, and classified as a misdemeanor.

~~~
FireBeyond
Certainly. But the question was "May I ask you what criminal acts he
committed?" which, in the context of this discussion, seems likely spurred by
a belief that his offenses were purely civil in nature, or should not have
been offenses at all.

I place no judgment. But misdemeanor, felony or otherwise, it's a correct and
accurate answer.

------
njovin

      "You agree to only create petitions consistent with the 
      limited purpose of the We the People platform, which is to 
      allow individuals to petition the Administration to take 
      action on a range of issues — to address a problem, support 
      or oppose a proposal, or otherwise change or continue  
      federal government policy or actions. To focus discussion, 
      the platform is limited to a discrete set of topics, which 
      may be adjusted over time."
    

I wonder how releasing the white house beer recipe[1] fits that standard any
more than the Aaron Swartz petition?

[1] [https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/ale-chief-white-
ho...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/ale-chief-white-house-beer-
recipe)

~~~
snlacks
That link, they put hours into writing those recipes and formatting... Aaron
Schwartz got spin (which admittedly, probably took more work hours to not-
create)

------
tomschlick
It's sad that the most on point response I have seen to one of these things
was the response to the "Build a Death Star" petition. Everything else just
seems like a media spin.

~~~
nmc
Link for the lazy: [https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/isnt-petition-
resp...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/isnt-petition-response-
youre-looking)

------
jmct
It makes me wonder, what does the White House consider a suitable forum for
holding appointed officials to account? Or more appropriately, holding the
_appointers_ to account.

~~~
btilly
They should have at least called out which term of
[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/how-why/terms-
participation](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/how-why/terms-participation)
was being invoked. My best guess is the following passage:

 _To avoid the appearance of improper influence, the White House may decline
to address certain procurement, law enforcement, adjudicatory, or similar
matters properly within the jurisdiction of federal departments or agencies,
federal courts, or state and local government in its response to a petition._

If that is the case then I strongly disagree. Prosecutorial overreach and our
broken plea bargaining system is a national issue that desperately needs to be
addressed. The wording of the petition may have been very specific, but it
still provides an opportunity to address the issue.

Another possible term that applies is this:

 _You agree to only create petitions consistent with the limited purpose of
the We the People platform, which is to allow individuals to petition the
Administration to take action on a range of issues — to address a problem,
support or oppose a proposal, or otherwise change or continue federal
government policy or actions._

In that case only the person who created the petition is in violation. The
broad interest in signing the petition is a sign that there is an issue that
should be looked at. And indeed there is - the undue impact that prosecutorial
overreach can have thanks to our broken plea bargaining system.

I also note that 1.5 years to respond does not fit my notion of "timely" that
the platform promised us...

(At a guess they waited to respond to a bunch of these until after an election
cycle finished and new legislators were signed in. Best way to guarantee of
both low publicity and that anyone outraged will forget about it before any
future vote.

~~~
geofft
I don't know what term this is, but We The People has historically refused to
respond to petitions about specific individuals as opposed to systemic/generic
problems.

I'm curious if the petition would have worked better if it were phrased as,
e.g., "Direct federal prosecutors to be extremely cautious in invoking CFAA"
instead of "Do something about this one person".

------
synesso
What a surprise. The response to the petition is meaningless dribble. I'm
surprised they didn't reaffirm their commitment to using the Internet to
further the cause of making politicians seem useful.

------
jayleno
Here's a documentary about Aaron Swartz.
[https://archive.org/details/TheInternetsOwnBoyTheStoryOfAaro...](https://archive.org/details/TheInternetsOwnBoyTheStoryOfAaronSwartz)

Edit: It was educational, emotional, and enlightening to see what he went
through to make the world a better place. Also it's scary to see how much the
government can get away with. .. Makes you think.

------
jimtla
There's a feedback form here: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/webform/tell-us-what-
you-think-abo...](http://www.whitehouse.gov/webform/tell-us-what-you-think-
about-we-people-and-petition-response-us-attorneys-office-personnel-m)

It's likely that nobody will ever read my feedback, but if enough people
respond then maybe somebody will. In any case, here is my feedback.

Please provide any additional comments about the We the People petitions
system:

The technology worked fine, but the response was utterly vacuous and without
empathy.

Aaron Schwartz took his own life almost exactly two years ago. He was a
leader, a visionary, and a friend to many of the people in our community. Most
importantly he was a person trying to live his life.

Aaron was subjected to unjust and vicious prosecution for an act of peaceful
civil disobedience. That prosecution lead directly to his death. He received a
death sentence for downloading academic journals.

This is not a petition about "openness" and "economic growth". This is not
about ensuring that "the Internet remains a free and open platform." Hell,
it's not even about firing Steve Heymann for his actions. It's about the way
we choose how to prosecute civil disobedience (and the way we choose not to
prosecute murder
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner)).
It's about a justice system that feels increasingly unjust.

Mostly, though, it's about the death of our friend. We'd like an apology for
his death, but if you're not willing to do that, at least acknowledge the
value of his life. Sympathy is not enough.

------
vpeters25
As frustrating as the lack of action by the white house might be, I think this
petition accomplished something:

I can almost bet Carmen Ortiz' name has been thrown to the hat for career
advance nominations (federal judge, justice department) only to be immediately
dismissed by white house staffers because "the internet would bury us"

~~~
gamblor956
Carmen Ortiz is already a US Attorney of the District of Massachusetts,
meaning that she _is_ the head honcho for the DOJ in that state. There isn't
much higher that she could go. A federal judgeship (to a district or non-
appellate court) would actually be a demotion in pay, responsibilities, and
prestige.

That said, the internet has very little to do with her future. The Schwartz
case, legally and ethically will have little effect on her career. She has a
long and sordid history of not respecting plea deals and of exaggerating drug
ties in forfeiture cases. Consequently, she already faced an uphill battle in
ever being seriously considered for a judgeship, and she had essentially no
chance of receiving a recommendation from the ABA judicial candidate
evaluation committee. Like most US Attorneys, she will either go into politics
or into a very lucrative position with a law firm as a white collar defense
attorney.

------
PostOnce
Someone should write a plugin or bookmarklet that adds an "official whitehouse
response" to every petition which just reads: "Okay? Whatever, we're going to
take no action on this." because that's been the response to every petition
I've seen so far.

------
tempodox
Do I get this right that this so-called response actually represents the
absence of any response? And in good government manner it's phrased in a
language that could mean anything and therefore means nothing at all. This
just makes me want to barf.

------
JabavuAdams
Is anyone else embarrassed that the text of the petition is ungrammatical and
contains typos?

~~~
olefoo
Yes.

Originator of the petition. Pressed enter. When I thought I could edit after.
So PEBKAC

------
kyleblarson
Hope and change

------
IvyMike
Whenever there's one of these petitions that goes nowhere, there are a ton of,
"I typed my name into a computer and it didn't make a difference! This country
sucks!" responses.

Look, I sympathize with this a little--these petitions imply more than they
ever deliver. But realistically if you want to force any significant change
it's going to take money, time, and a lot more effort.

------
jacquesm
It's weird. I truly believe that if this had happened to someone other than
Aaron that he'd have found a way to marshall at least an order of magnitude
more petitioners. He really had a knack for this kind of thing. Sad to see
this blown off like that, adding insult to injury.

------
desireco42
It seems that they think this moment is convenient with all of us being
distracted, to push this through without too much of fuss.

I am not a president, so I can't publicly disgrace prosecutor, but if I was, I
totally would, as her office bullied Aaron Swartz and pushed him over the
edge.

That is all.

------
chasing
Expecting anything more than this kind of response from an online petition is
naive.

------
crucini
78 comments here, 61k signatures, and nobody has pointed out the glaring
grammatical error in the first sentence of the petition.

I reckon that the intern who read the thing got a laugh from it.

~~~
maxerickson
Posted 10 hours before your comment:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8855367](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8855367)

------
havery
what third party org is used to validate the petition count number?

~~~
Jgrubb
Being as it's a Drupal site, it's most likely a SQL query.

------
monsterix
The question here is: what do we want as a nation?

When they decide(d) not to take any action, not even remove those one or two
unnamed persons from their positions at the CIA (for all that rectal feeding,
waterboarding stuff) why do you think any of this story would matter to them
at all? It couldn't count any higher in their value system, could it?

Zilch.

This may be just my anguish but from where I stand and see things these
tyrannical problems of our Government will only exacerbate, not subside. There
is no reason for them to stop. Not until our citizenry becomes as powerful,
empowered and weaponized as is the Government today.

~~~
throwaway00011
Honestly, I felt that there would be a difference because Aaron is Jewish and
attended a good University - while the waterboarded and tortured CIA prisoners
were of "lessor" ethnic and educational pedigrees.

------
cyphunk
WOW. Depending on what side of the firewall you sit this act can be
interpreted as either "out of the box thinking" OR subtle arrogance and
desperation.

For those sitting on 192.168.* that thought this strategy up take note:
Speaking of Aaron Swartz is about much more than internet freedom. His actions
may relate to this topic closely but his death touches something much deeper.
For anyone that cares about this person or his death it is about moral
corruption and the hollow platitudes of accountability. You cannot just deal
with his life without dealing with his death and attempting to separate them
will be seen as arrogance to almost anyone aware of this persons name. In the
future, when you're interns are throwing around ideas, take a moment to
examine and better understanding of the market you peddle your next strategy
to.

FAIL

~~~
cyphunk
impressed. are votes due to
[https://twitter.com/cyphunk/status/553116587071635457](https://twitter.com/cyphunk/status/553116587071635457)
? whitehouse lurking around HN?

