Swartz didn't face prison until feds took over case, report says

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57565927-38/swartz-didnt-face-prison-until-feds-took-over-case-report-says/

by danilocampos • 13 years ago

224 77 13 years ago

news.cnet.com

berlinbrown3• 13 years ago

How did it go from state/civil to a federal case?

Steko• 13 years ago

But the sweeping nature of federal computer crime laws allowed Ortiz and Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Heymann, who wanted a high-profile computer crime conviction, to pursue felony charges. Heymann threatened the free-culture activist with over 30 years in prison as recently as the week before he killed himself...

The Boston U.S. Attorney's office was looking for "some juicy looking computer crime cases and Aaron's case, sadly for Aaron, fit the bill," Elliot Peters, Swartz's attorney at the Keker & Van Nest law firm, told the Huffington Post. Heymann, Peters says, thought the Swartz case "was going to receive press and he was going to be a tough guy and read his name in the newspaper."

rosser2• 13 years ago

Heymann, Peters says, thought the Swartz case "was going to receive press and he was going to be a tough guy and read his name in the newspaper."

The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again...

EDIT: The notion I was trying to capture is perhaps better expressed by saying, "Be careful what you wish for." Heymann got all the things Peters accuses him of wanting, just not exactly in the form he was presumably hoping to receive them.

tedunangst• 13 years ago

The US attorneys office has a dude just sitting around in Boston PD waiting for fun cases to show up?

_delirium• 13 years ago

That seems correct, but points to two fairy different issues: the breadth of the CFAA in (likely) making this incident into a federal crime, and the prosecutors' choice to pursue it. The former is what I'd really like fixed. I don't at all disagree with putting pressure on Ortiz and Heymann for choosing to pursue the charges, especially with the apparent vigor with which they did so. But the fundamental problem is the law. Ortiz and Heymann, I think, exercised their judgment poorly, but by the letter of the law they were in the right, because the person they were pursuing probably was guilty of a federal felony, as Congress defined it. So that's the more fundamental problem.

Put differently: if a prosecutor chooses not to pursue particularly stupid applications of a law, that's better than the opposite, so we should work to make sure our public prosecutors are as reasonable as possible. But that's a very weak kind of protection. Having very broad criminal laws where we rely on the wisdom of prosecutors not to charge the "bad" applications leaves defendants with basically no procedural protections, since not being charged when you violated the law as written isn't any kind of legal right.

betterunix• 13 years ago

The CFAA covers cases where the alleged computer crime involves a computer system that is involved in interstate commerce or communication. So basically, any alleged computer crime involving a computer connected to the Internet could be prosecuted by the federal government.

josephlord• 13 years ago

This article linked from the parent actually seems a better explanation.

http://dankennedy.net/2013/01/24/the-swartz-suicide-and-the-...

mikec3k• 13 years ago

Carmen Ortiz needs to go. She's a publicity hound just trying to make a name for herself rather than someone who actually respects the law.

saraid216• 13 years ago

You've described maybe 80% of the people who have commented on this case.

malkia• 13 years ago

And you are repeating what the rest of the 20% have said.

lancewiggs• 13 years ago

I wonder about the reverse problem. Are there any worthy yet unpopular cases that Ortiz not take up while she was pursuing these ones?

arbuge• 13 years ago

One only hopes that this will lead to wholesale reform of the US attorney office in Boston in particular, and the plea bargaining process in general. It is unfortunate that it took Aaron's sacrifice to make this happen if it does, but it would at least be something positive coming out of his tragedy.

erichocean• 13 years ago

    If Swartz had stolen a $100 hard drive with the JSTOR articles,
    it would have been a misdemeanor offense that would have
    yielded probation or community service.

If this doesn't illustrate how messed up the system is, I don't know what will.

visarga• 13 years ago

I'm wondering why no brave hacker finished Aaron's protest. Are those PDFs so well guarded?

benesch• 13 years ago

Guarded by the threat of 35 years in prison, perhaps.

twoodfin2• 13 years ago

I don't think that's accurate. The contents of the drive and what he intended to do with them could have easily led to stiffer penalties.

Imagine it was a $100 hard drive with a few dozen copies of newly released films. Or medical records from a hospital. Or credit card numbers.

This is a red herring.

count• 13 years ago

...But it wasn't those things. That's the whole point, isn't it?

mpyne8• 13 years ago

If we're going to use IRL analogies then what's the legal penalty for repeatedly breaking&entering 3-4 different times, and then for each time he broke the lock, { trespassing more a 100,000+ times, and stealing an item of little to no cash value 100,000+ times }?

People keep acting like this was simply and only about some JSTOR articles, but this was about more than that, he was on a network that he didn't have permission to be on, and used the cloak of that network access to grab things of little to no value without permission, and he did this over a long period of time.

Snoptic• 13 years ago

Incorrect. He was welcome on the network, as is everyone on MIT's public network. His specific downloading activity was unwelcome.

RockyMcNuts• 13 years ago

can't help wondering to what extent the government's war on Manning, Wikileaks, Anonymous was related to Swartz's harsh treatment, whether he was perceived as working with groups actively opposing government policies, and therefore as a hacktivist in the same category as enemies of the state.

roc2• 13 years ago

All the available evidence says "no". This is just how our our system treats absolutely anyone who presents a prosecutor with a chance to shine up their resume.

The only reason we seem to be hearing about Swartz, Manning, the Duke Lacross Team, et al. is that they have a socio-economic standing that most of the victims of this particular brand of "justice" do not.

mpyne8• 13 years ago

Manning is a Private First Class (E-3) in the U.S. Army, he's better off than someone in a ghetto I guess but he had no better socioeconomic standing than many other individuals who can commit computer crime.

His infamy is due to the particulars of his case and because the hacktivists have latched onto him as a rallying point because of the association with WikiLeaks.

ytadesse9• 13 years ago

Unfortunately, this comment will probably get filtered to the bottom but this has to be said:

Since the story of Aaron's passing, this site has been home to a lynch-mob asking for Ortiz's head on a plate. I wish I knew enough about federal prosecutions to say whether or not this one was far different from the norm - hell, I wish I knew enough about depression and suicide to say whether or not the prosecution was the primary reason for this sad turn of events - but, regardless, the users HN have been relentless ... almost as if they wished harm on Carmen Ortiz.

I'm pointing that out for a reason. Bullying and outright harassment come in many forms. The end result of these actions are at times not the result that anyone truly intended even if they imply it with their words/actions. You can't on one hand accuse the feds of being overly aggressive while simultaneously doing the same to Ortiz and her family.

Let the law and the current investigations run their course before there are more unwanted consequences of this tragedy.

ytadesse9• 13 years ago

Someone just down-voted this?! Really? I mean, really!? I post a polite, well-constructed, and well-reasoned opinion that's different from 99% of the opinions out there and instead of responding in a similar fashion, the best you could do is flag my comment? Very cowardly.

YuriNiyazov2• 13 years ago

You said "Unfortunately, this comment will probably get filtered to the bottom but this has to be said:" and then when it actually happened you flip out? I wasn't one of the ones to downvote you, but after seeing your reaction, I would have to say you most definitely deserved it. Also, allow me to point you to the HN guidelines that specifically frown on these particular behaviors:

Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downmod you.

http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

declan2• 13 years ago

I suspect that nearly all of the people on HN would be happy if Ms. Ortiz simply resigned.

The worst-case for Ms. Ortiz, post-resignation, is that she gives up short-term gubernatorial aspirations and quits to take a $1,500,000-$2,000,000 a year gig as a partner at a large Boston law firm advising on white collar criminal defense.

This is not exactly a horrible fate. In fact, most people would consider trying to bring that about the opposite of "wish[ing] harm on Carmen Ortiz."

ytadesse9• 13 years ago

The problem is, some people here on HN have been very aggressive in their attacks over the past few weeks - far worse than simply saying "she should resign".

In addition to that, I've seen people sulk and get visibly agitated for long periods of time after poor performance reviews at work. Now, compound that by thousands in the public doing that - and then some. Think about the effect that has on someone's mental well-being.

dave_sullivan• 13 years ago

I upvoted you. I agree that a lynch-mob has formed around calling for Ortiz's blood. I'm not sure if this is good or bad.

It's bad for exactly the reasons you say.

It's good for the same reasons that they came down so harshly on Aaron--to make an example. The thing is, she represents the old guard--the old "I'm not good with computers but boy am I afraid of them" lobby. There is real money behind the internet now, and one of the perks of that is you get to demand representation and power. Just as Aaron made the mistake of getting into politics, so has Ortiz. Some examples need to be set that if the government expects us to bail them out in the future, they need to stop trying to put the best of us in jail.

ytadesse9• 13 years ago

Fair point but although it's tempting to go an eye-for-an-eye with Ortiz (and the federal government) after learning of Aaron's fate, I'm just not in a position to judge her actions. This is not my "holier than thou" moment, it's just that these situations are often far more complicated than a 500 word opinion piece on a blog.

jlgreco5• 13 years ago

> Since the story of Aaron's passing, this site has been home to a lynch-mob asking for Ortiz's head on a plate.

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

Generally when people draw comparisons to a certain European government in the early 20th century, others freak out, trotting out old usenet quotes and declaring that the person has "lost" the argument for making such offensively hyperbolic comparisons.

Why then does this same community seem so accepting of comparisons between calls for resignation of a government official, and the practice of barbaric humiliating murder without trial of underprivileged minorities?

This is hyperbolic bullshit.

ytadesse9• 13 years ago

So, clearly you're someone who doesn't use any hyperboles in his day-to-day life ... Anyway, here's just a sample of the comments about Ortiz here on HN:

"Great to see Ortiz's office crash and burn"

"Carmen Ortiz needs to go. She's a publicity hound"

"Do not google "site:nl 2 girls 1 cup". Should you so google, do not click. You have been warned. But I should add, even if you so click, the result is less obscene than Carmen Ortiz!"

"This woman has ZERO principle or sense of morality"

"Someone needs to be held accountable. Ortiz is someone."

"Ortiz is obviously disgusting"

"It's unfortunate that by demonizing Ortiz, we play right into the hands of those who appointed her"

"I support the demonization of Ortiz purely on the level of revenge."

alan_cx• 13 years ago

If calling for resignation or a firing is bullying, then democracy is dead.

Next, the power she wields is magnitudes greater than an on line "lynch mob". There for the words like bullying cant apply. She is not a lonesome hacker. She is a very powerful person who can destroy lives.

My problem is that focusing on this person misses the entire point, which is that the system allows, no, encourages this sort of thing.

In short, even if she is fired and marched out at gun point, others will just do the exact same thing, over and over again.

baritalia• 13 years ago

Swartz was a crackhead and a criminal. It's a good thing he's no longer with us.

jacquesm• 13 years ago

What I wouldn't give to see Aaron posting here instead of you.

mpyne8• 13 years ago

Agreed!

Swartz didn't face prison until feds took over case, report says

Related Stories