

Carmen Ortiz: A Case Of Prosecutorial Diligence Or Legal Overreach? - rosenjon
http://radioboston.wbur.org/2013/02/20/carmen-ortiz

======
danso
FYI, the actual story (kind of hidden because it's linked to the single word
"investigate"), is here:

<http://www.wbur.org/2013/02/20/carmen-ortiz-investigation>

Not a full transcript, but a long form article on Ortiz's history.

edit: A key passage that will interest some here, particularly the ones who
believe that assistant DA Stephen Heynmann is the one to blame:

> _A former federal prosecutor who worked alongside Ortiz for several years
> and did not want to be identified for fear of reprisal said Miner’s
> assessment is spot on.

“She is totally hands off and defers to her staffers more than any other U.S.
attorney I have seen,” the lawyer said of Ortiz. “There are some [AUSAs] who
have been in the office for a long time who have developed these little
fiefdoms and are basically able to push her around. That’s just wrong for a
whole host of reasons.”

One of those reasons, according to Miner, is that line prosecutors have an
incentive to return indictments to keep their numbers up and often lack
perspective when assessing the strengths and weaknesses of their own cases. It
is the job of the U.S. attorney and her hand-picked supervisors to question
the decisions of the AUSAs and to set the tone for the office._

------
dmschulman
This story and the interview had so much potential but Ortiz just hides behind
legal sequester and refuses to answer the majority of the host's soft
questioning.

~~~
rhizome
She has prosecutorial immunity, she's not going to stick her neck out.

------
wisty
The most hilarious bit is towards the end. Ortiz wanted a drug company lawyer
taken to court. She's got some odd logic - when she screws up, it's an
adversarial process (and it's her job to gun down anyone she can indite); but
a lawyer on the other side is somehow fair game if they get in her way.

------
tapan_pandita
The Carmen Ortiz interview begins at around 20 mins in. Nothing much to hear
though, she refuses to talk about anything of importance other than claiming
"mental illness" in the Aaron Swartz case.

~~~
mpyne
Given that the vast majority of people on Federal charges _don't_ commit
suicide, including persons facing much stricter punishments than Aaron Swartz,
I'd be interested in hearing why a mental illness of some sort would _not_ be
the primary suspect.

The motel owner fighting against Ortiz to keep his property out of the hands
of the Feds didn't kill himself. Did Ortiz just screw up her methods when she
failed to drive _him_ to suicide?

~~~
homosaur
In regards to the US Attorney's behavior, Swartz's mental state and actually
his suicide in general is irrelevant. He could be alive today and Ortiz's
actions would be just as wrong.

~~~
bostonpete
That may be, but I don't recall seeing any outrage to speak of when he was
still alive.

~~~
Kylekramer
In fact, it was quite the opposite around here. A submission asking to
contribute to his defense fund had a top post saying essentially "Man up and
deal with the consequence of your actions". The community is general has been
very inconsistent and reactionary around this issue.

~~~
analog
I believe no-one here at the time knew how aggressively he was being treated.
If we had known I'd like to think people would have been more supportive.

~~~
mpyne
Well, "how aggressively he was treated" was within 1 delta or so of how the
average CFAA case is handled, so I don't think that's the reason either,
unless this is the first CFAA case that has ever become known to the majority
of the hackers on HN.

In fact I think the notable thing was how very quiet the reaction had been. A
lot of CFAA cases that did acquire wide acclaim (including places like HN)
were for things like accessing the "wrong" publicly-accessible URL, or finding
security vulns and getting in trouble for just trying to let the organization
know that they were vulnerable.

In this case it seemed to me there was a strong sense of "huh, this guy
[Swartz] actually _did_ break into a network, and server closet too" and
therefore there was not nearly the outcry as we'd seen for most.

~~~
analog
You may well be right. I missed the first discussion when the appeal for legal
funds was made.

It is disturbing that some are still claiming he broke into the closet when it
was unlocked [1], and others here apparently believe that changing your MAC
address should be enough to trigger federal charges.

[1] _Swartz broke into a closet in the basement of a building at MIT_
<http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/>

~~~
mpyne
Well Federal charges indicate not the severity, but the medium of the act in
question.

As soon as the information was transferred over interstate communications
channels to Boston the jurisdiction would have been properly Federal in
nature.

If it is also a state crime than the attorney's offices can negotiate as to
which (if any) will prosecute but the Constitution makes it very clear that
the Federal government has primary jurisdiction in this situation.

It is true that most Federal crimes are more severe than state (since they
necessarily tend to involve more serious offenses by their scope alone). But
had a "misdemeanor-level" CFAA-like Federal law been available it is possible
that it could have been used instead of the actual felony-level CFAA. I'm not
aware of any though, as far as I can tell it's either CFAA, nothing, or the
prosecutor can perhaps try to get extra-inventive with other law on the books.

Either way though, changing a MAC address was not the _only_ thing Aaron did.
Your point about the server closet not actually being locked is well-taken,
but you bring discredit to your own plea for accuracy by implying that the MAC
address is the only reason any sort of charges were levied on Aaron.

~~~
analog
Sorry, you misunderstood me on the MAC address point. I was saying only that
some here have stated that this should be illegal, which I found a surprising
attitude for a technical community.

Thank you for the explanation of the difference between Federal and State
offences though.

------
Indyan
Is there any transcript available?

~~~
theg2
Just looked into it, sorry we don't have one available at the moment.

