Slashdot Mirror

I don't know about New York, but Massachusetts actually does. There is a bill currently somewhere in the legislative process to end the practice, but as it stands now there is actually no lower limit on when a minor can marry in Massachusetts with parental consent. https://malegislature.gov/Bill...

Here's my cite, listing salaried employees exempt from MA overtime requirements. Exempt employees include a "professional person... earning more than eighty dollars per week," which seems to cover the position in the summary. And, no mention whatever of the 48 hour figure you give in the MA Official Website of the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development Overtime FAQ.

Where's your support for your claim?

Apparently THEY ARE ILLEGAL at a Massachusetts school!! Source >> https://malegislature.gov/laws...

At a school perhaps, but he wasn't AT a school so your argument is meaningless.

Apparently THEY ARE ILLEGAL at a Massachusetts school!! Source >> https://malegislature.gov/laws...

Except the guy wasn't on school grounds, making the law you cited irrelevant in this case.

Would you be able to be sure the black gun shaped thing was a toy from that distance?

Guns. Aren't. Fucking. Illegal.

So tired of light-loafered nanny-statists piddling themselves at the mere sight of a firearm. Go live in North Korea.

Apparently THEY ARE ILLEGAL at a Massachusetts school!! Source >> https://malegislature.gov/laws...

(j) Whoever, not being a law enforcement officer, and notwithstanding any license obtained by him under the provisions of chapter one hundred and forty, carries on his person a firearm as hereinafter defined, loaded or unloaded or other dangerous weapon in any building or on the grounds of any elementary or secondary school, college or university without the written authorization of the board or officer in charge of such elementary or secondary school, college or university shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. For the purpose of this paragraph, “firearm” shall mean any pistol, revolver, rifle or smoothbore arm from which a shot, bullet or pellet can be discharged by whatever means.

Any officer in charge of an elementary or secondary school, college or university or any faculty member or administrative officer of an elementary or secondary school, college or university failing to report violations of this paragraph shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars.

So, if you DON'T report it you can be fined and prosecuted at least for a misdemeanor according to the last paragraph. So the principal is screwed both ways and cannot use common sense like the rest of us would...

Sounds like charges that they can bring anyone in on. And that's probably the point.

They can bring anyone in on anything they want. The question is whether the prosecutor has enough to believe that they can bring a successful case.

Disturbing a school:
You need to prove that he intentionally sought to disturb the school. Maybe he did... maybe he didn't. It sounds weird that he was there, but then again "bad judgment" is not the same thing as having an intent to disturb the school.

Loitering:
You need to prove that someone in authority asked him to leave. In most of the US it's not loitering simply because you don't have a good reason to be there. The story doesn't say that he refused any instruction to go, so this is actually the more curious charge of the two to me.

Additionally, verbal assault is not recognized in MA.

You're right, in Massachusetts it's called "Criminal Harassment."

https://malegislature.gov/Laws...

First offense gets you up to 2.5 years, and / or a $1000 fine.

Subsequent offenses get you 2.5 to 10 years.

Smoke on that, cock jockey.

A democracy doesn't work in secret.

I don't see how a public vote is considered secret. I vote in people to make day to day decisions that I would make. Voting for a bill that clarifies this kind of privacy violation is exactly why I vote for my representative. I do not need to have input on every law made. I vote for people who think like me. If they deviate too far I vote for someone else next time.

And in this law there are many.

Have you actually read the law or just the summary? Do you have improvements? If so, what are they? I have read the law and it actually looks pretty good to me.

Here's what appears to be the relevant language from the statute (emphasis mine):

Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, the sexual or other intimate parts of a person under or around the person’s clothing to view or attempt to view the person’s sexual or other intimate parts when a reasonable person would believe that the person’s sexual or other intimate parts would not be visible to the public and without the person’s knowledge and consent, shall be punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 2 ½ years or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.

So no, this doesn't appear to come even close to covering a hypothetical situation like the one you mentioned, where a topless 5-year-old just happens to be visible in a picture you're taking. You would have to have intended to do it on the sly, and what appears in the photograph would have to be something that a reasonable person thinks would not be visible.

That's a term that they define earlier in the law, and they're quite clear:

"Sexual or other intimate parts", human genitals, buttocks, pubic area or female breast below a point immediately above the tip of the areola, whether naked or covered by clothing or undergarments.

Well, maybe not "quite clear" but it's not like "sexual or other intimate parts" is the phrase that determines the meaning of the law.

Read the whole law before drawing conclusions.

Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, the sexual or other intimate parts of a person under or around the person’s clothing to view or attempt to view the person’s sexual or other intimate parts when a reasonable person would believe that the person’s sexual or other intimate parts would not be visible to the public and without the person’s knowledge and consent,

Most people take innocent photographs while holding their cameras near eye level where the camera is visible to everyone around. Your scenario fails the " with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity" clause. You would also have to get photos of her "sexual or other intimate parts [not]visible to the public". Then there is the most important point;

Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils,

If the photograph is from a distance and/or not centered on the subject it would be simple to show that the act was not willful.

How about you look at the actual law;

Whoever willfully photographs, videotapes or electronically surveils, with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity, the sexual or other intimate parts of a person under or around the person’s clothing to view or attempt to view the person’s sexual or other intimate parts when a reasonable person would believe that the person’s sexual or other intimate parts would not be visible to the public and without the person’s knowledge and consent,

Your scenario does not fit on 3 points:

with the intent to secretly conduct or hide such activity

Unless you hide your camera, you are in the clear.

under or around the person’s clothing

A bare chest has no clothing for the photograph to be under or around.

a reasonable person would believe that the person’s sexual or other intimate parts would not be visible to the public

A bare chest is obviously visible to the public

Welcome to modern politics. Politicians do whatever they want and don;t need to consult the public at all.

Meh, I'm not sure that really applies in this case. The law that was passed is basically a patch. And, like so many laws, I mean that quite literally: it's a list of insertions and deletions into the existing legal code.

Basically the Supreme Judicial Court said that a certain activity that was clearly intended to fall under the law didn't, because of the way the law was written. So the legislature fixed the wording of the law.

All the public debate had already happened, this was just a "bug fix," so to speak.

So while I'm not going to claim that there are definite issues of legislatures ignoring their constituents and sneaking laws through as rapidly as possible to avoid public debate on them (hi, Obamacare!), this really isn't a case of that.

How about charging him with trespass, which under Massachusetts law is punishable by "one hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days or both such fine and and imprisonment?"

There's no evidence that Ortiz' actions pushed him to suicide

There's corpus delicti, the fact is that he did commit suicide while being harassed by Ortiz. She had the motive, the means, and the opportunity,

The motive? I assume you have some proof, since you're accusing her of wanting to kill him.
As for means and opportunity, since he committed suicide, by definition, he had the means and opportunity.

If she were anyone else but a federal prosecutor, she would be in custody right now, she would have been indicted, with a mugshot and fingerprints filed at the county jail.

Under what statute? Contrary to Slashdot belief, "I don't like you" isn't actually a valid criminal statute. This happened in Massachusetts, so the relevant code is the Massachusetts penal code, MGL Part IV. I'd start looking in the "crimes against the person" part, but good luck finding one that applies.

Ortiz certainly scared Swartz, but that's her job

It's not her job to scare someone to death.

Her job is to promote justice, not to cater to the media industry by being their scarecrow.

She had no way of knowing that he'd commit suicide, unless you're saying that it was foreseeable... and if you are, then you're also alleging that many other people knew about his imminent suicide, and so many other people failed in their duty, most importantly, his lawyers and doctors. But you aren't calling for their blood, I notice...

And where's your evidence for this foreseeability and intentional harassment to cause him to commit suicide? Do you have a post three weeks ago from someone saying "gosh, Ortiz is going to drive him to commit suicide," or a post from Ortiz saying "I just can't wait until you commit suicide" or even a post from Swartz saying "if this keeps up, I'll commit suicide"? No, of course not. No one saw this coming, so it's unreasonable to accuse Ortiz of some psychic-level magic powers based purely on your own hindsight.

You'd have a great point, if anything you said were even remotely true under the law.

Breaking & entering to access someone else's property with the intent of committing another crime inside is most certainly not trespass. Given the steps he took to cover his tracks and disguise his access, it's clear that he knew he was not "authorized" to access the server closet, network, and JSTOR servers in the way he did. He went in there with a specific intent, and that specific intent was to commit a crime. In this case, the crime was a felony, even if he really wished it wasn't a felony. Ignorantia juris non excusat, and deliberately ignoring the law that you know exists is even less of an alibi.

Mass General Laws, Part IV, Title I, Chapter 266, Section 16 has this to say about it, and it very specifically does NOT limit itself to residences, while outlining a maximum penalty of 20 years:

Section 16. Whoever, in the night time, breaks and enters a building, ship, vessel or vehicle, with intent to commit a felony, or who attempts to or does break, burn, blow up or otherwise injures or destroys a safe, vault or other depository of money, bonds or other valuables in any building, vehicle or place, with intent to commit a larceny or felony, whether he succeeds or fails in the perpetration of such larceny or felony, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years or in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one-half years.

Doing so with the intent of only committing a misdemeanor carries with it a 6 month maximum:

Section 16A. Whoever in the nighttime or daytime breaks and enters a building, ship, vessel or vehicle with intent to commit a misdemeanor shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or both.

And daytime B&E with intent to commit felony will get you up to 10 years per offense:

Section 17. Whoever, in the night time, enters without breaking, or breaks and enters in the day time, a building, ship, vessel, or vehicle, with intent to commit a felony, the owner or any other person lawfully therein being put in fear, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than ten years. Whoever commits any offense described in this section while armed with a firearm, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or assault weapon shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than five years or in the house of correction for not more than two and one-half years.

Even under the most liberal reading, Massachusetts state law does not suggest he would "only" face 30 days. Given the nature of what he did (that is, commit a felony once he broke & entered a non-residential building), Mass laws would suggest he'd be on the hook for a maximum of 10-20 years per offense.

You'd have a great point, if anything you said were even remotely true under the law.

Breaking & entering to access someone else's property with the intent of committing another crime inside is most certainly not trespass. Given the steps he took to cover his tracks and disguise his access, it's clear that he knew he was not "authorized" to access the server closet, network, and JSTOR servers in the way he did. He went in there with a specific intent, and that specific intent was to commit a crime. In this case, the crime was a felony, even if he really wished it wasn't a felony. Ignorantia juris non excusat, and deliberately ignoring the law that you know exists is even less of an alibi.

Mass General Laws, Part IV, Title I, Chapter 266, Section 16 has this to say about it, and it very specifically does NOT limit itself to residences, while outlining a maximum penalty of 20 years:

Section 16. Whoever, in the night time, breaks and enters a building, ship, vessel or vehicle, with intent to commit a felony, or who attempts to or does break, burn, blow up or otherwise injures or destroys a safe, vault or other depository of money, bonds or other valuables in any building, vehicle or place, with intent to commit a larceny or felony, whether he succeeds or fails in the perpetration of such larceny or felony, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years or in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one-half years.

Doing so with the intent of only committing a misdemeanor carries with it a 6 month maximum:

Section 16A. Whoever in the nighttime or daytime breaks and enters a building, ship, vessel or vehicle with intent to commit a misdemeanor shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or both.

And daytime B&E with intent to commit felony will get you up to 10 years per offense:

Section 17. Whoever, in the night time, enters without breaking, or breaks and enters in the day time, a building, ship, vessel, or vehicle, with intent to commit a felony, the owner or any other person lawfully therein being put in fear, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than ten years. Whoever commits any offense described in this section while armed with a firearm, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or assault weapon shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than five years or in the house of correction for not more than two and one-half years.

Even under the most liberal reading, Massachusetts state law does not suggest he would "only" face 30 days. Given the nature of what he did (that is, commit a felony once he broke & entered a non-residential building), Mass laws would suggest he'd be on the hook for a maximum of 10-20 years per offense.

You'd have a great point, if anything you said were even remotely true under the law.

Breaking & entering to access someone else's property with the intent of committing another crime inside is most certainly not trespass. Given the steps he took to cover his tracks and disguise his access, it's clear that he knew he was not "authorized" to access the server closet, network, and JSTOR servers in the way he did. He went in there with a specific intent, and that specific intent was to commit a crime. In this case, the crime was a felony, even if he really wished it wasn't a felony. Ignorantia juris non excusat, and deliberately ignoring the law that you know exists is even less of an alibi.

Mass General Laws, Part IV, Title I, Chapter 266, Section 16 has this to say about it, and it very specifically does NOT limit itself to residences, while outlining a maximum penalty of 20 years:

Section 16. Whoever, in the night time, breaks and enters a building, ship, vessel or vehicle, with intent to commit a felony, or who attempts to or does break, burn, blow up or otherwise injures or destroys a safe, vault or other depository of money, bonds or other valuables in any building, vehicle or place, with intent to commit a larceny or felony, whether he succeeds or fails in the perpetration of such larceny or felony, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years or in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one-half years.

Doing so with the intent of only committing a misdemeanor carries with it a 6 month maximum:

Section 16A. Whoever in the nighttime or daytime breaks and enters a building, ship, vessel or vehicle with intent to commit a misdemeanor shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or both.

And daytime B&E with intent to commit felony will get you up to 10 years per offense:

Section 17. Whoever, in the night time, enters without breaking, or breaks and enters in the day time, a building, ship, vessel, or vehicle, with intent to commit a felony, the owner or any other person lawfully therein being put in fear, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than ten years. Whoever commits any offense described in this section while armed with a firearm, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or assault weapon shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than five years or in the house of correction for not more than two and one-half years.

Even under the most liberal reading, Massachusetts state law does not suggest he would "only" face 30 days. Given the nature of what he did (that is, commit a felony once he broke & entered a non-residential building), Mass laws would suggest he'd be on the hook for a maximum of 10-20 years per offense.

In the state of Massachusetts, if you use a crowbar to gain entry to someone else's property, it is known as burglary (or breaking & entering), and carries a 2 - 10 year sentence (per offense), in the best case of B&E during the day, without a weapon, and not "putting anybody lawfully therein in fear." (Source: Mass. General Laws.)

Depending on the circumstances - i.e., you do it armed, at night, and/or threaten occupants of the building - it can easily carry up to a 20 year sentence.

Where you're getting this "30 day" number from, I don't know, but simple breaking & entering in Massachusetts will get you a lot more than that.

If you're going to try and draw parallels, at least draw realistic ones.

In Massachusetts, as an example, A single offense of breaking and entering could easily get you 5-20 years in prison, depending on the time and circumstances. Even if you serve them concurrently, you're still serving 9 x 5-20 years.

And prior convictions will make for a mandatory 5 year minimum; "doing something ten times or one hundred times" will absolutely increase any penalty you can expect to receive, as well.

but would he ever face nearly the jail time for that as he did for this? I doubt it strongly.

You can doubt it all you want, but the laws say otherwise. If he broke into her house, stole the photos, and did this, here's the type of laws (and punishments) he'd be facing:

Mass General Laws, Chapter 266, Section 15:

Whoever breaks and enters a dwelling house in the night time, with the intent mentioned in the preceding section, or, having entered with such intent, breaks such dwelling house in the night time, the offender not being armed, nor arming himself in such house, with a dangerous weapon, nor making an assault upon a person lawfully therein, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years and, if he shall have been previously convicted of any crime named in this or the preceding section, for not less than five years.

That's ONE COUNT of *unarmed* breaking and entering, with *no assault on the occupants,* nor arming himself inside (e.g., picking up a baseball bat to beat the shit out of the occupants. That'll get you up to 20 years. Previous convictions will guarantee you at least 5 years.

Mass General Laws, Chapter 266, Section 18:

Whoever, in the night time, enters a dwelling house without breaking, or breaks and enters in the day time a building, ship or motor vehicle or vessel, with intent to commit a felony, no person lawfully therein being put in fear, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than ten years or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars and imprisonment in jail for not more than two years. Whoever commits any offense described in this section while armed with a firearm, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or assault weapon shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than five years or by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than two and one-half years.

Do it *just once* during the daytime, while unarmed, and you'll get "up to 10 years", or a $500 fine + up to 2 years. Do it with a weapon, and you'll get at least 5. Now consider that he attempted, or succeeded at, "breaking and entering" multiple times, and also took (and distributed) stuff which was not his to take (and distribute). This puts his punishment VERY MUCH in line with somebody doing "a nearly identical crime by different means." Most property crimes will get you 2-20 based on the severity, with a past conviction getting you a mandatory minimum of 5 in a lot of cases.

but would he ever face nearly the jail time for that as he did for this? I doubt it strongly.

You can doubt it all you want, but the laws say otherwise. If he broke into her house, stole the photos, and did this, here's the type of laws (and punishments) he'd be facing:

Mass General Laws, Chapter 266, Section 15:

Whoever breaks and enters a dwelling house in the night time, with the intent mentioned in the preceding section, or, having entered with such intent, breaks such dwelling house in the night time, the offender not being armed, nor arming himself in such house, with a dangerous weapon, nor making an assault upon a person lawfully therein, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years and, if he shall have been previously convicted of any crime named in this or the preceding section, for not less than five years.

That's ONE COUNT of *unarmed* breaking and entering, with *no assault on the occupants,* nor arming himself inside (e.g., picking up a baseball bat to beat the shit out of the occupants. That'll get you up to 20 years. Previous convictions will guarantee you at least 5 years.

Mass General Laws, Chapter 266, Section 18:

Whoever, in the night time, enters a dwelling house without breaking, or breaks and enters in the day time a building, ship or motor vehicle or vessel, with intent to commit a felony, no person lawfully therein being put in fear, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than ten years or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars and imprisonment in jail for not more than two years. Whoever commits any offense described in this section while armed with a firearm, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or assault weapon shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than five years or by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than two and one-half years.

Do it *just once* during the daytime, while unarmed, and you'll get "up to 10 years", or a $500 fine + up to 2 years. Do it with a weapon, and you'll get at least 5. Now consider that he attempted, or succeeded at, "breaking and entering" multiple times, and also took (and distributed) stuff which was not his to take (and distribute). This puts his punishment VERY MUCH in line with somebody doing "a nearly identical crime by different means." Most property crimes will get you 2-20 based on the severity, with a past conviction getting you a mandatory minimum of 5 in a lot of cases.

At least in Massachusetts, the wiretapping laws cover both in-person and telephone conversations being recorded. The key bit is that unlike the majority of states, both parties need to consent to recording in MA. http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section99

The cops are not always investigating organized crime ("designated offenses"), so are not always exempt.

Yes, they try. But they also have to sell it.

How can anybody even think it might be illegal...? I don't get it.

You mean other than there is a law in MASS that says that both parties involved in a recording must give consent for it to be legal?

I'm pretty sure that if a cop's supervisor tells a cop that there is a law that makes something illegal, and he goes to the books and looks it up to verify, he's probably going to think that it is illegal. I know that if a cop tells me something is illegal, and I can go to the statutes and find that yes, there is a statute saying it is illegal, I am going to think it is illegal, too.

I read the law, and I don't think it is a twisted interpretation of what it actually says to believe that secretly recording a police officer is illegal under the provisions as listed. It simply is too broad in defining terms, and you don't get to apply a knowledgable /. kind of definition of things when the law itself contains the definitions.

SHOULD the district court "throw the case out"? Of course not. That's exactly the wrong thing to do. You want a ruling that says "this is nonsense, the law is unconstitutional" or whatever will make the law invalid. Simply throwing the case out will let the lower court decision stand.

Yes, I think it should be legal, too. An obvious exception to the MASS law should be "recording of government employee identified as such while acting under color of authority". The law (http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section99) does not contain such an exemption, although it does contain many others.

I'm pretty sure that if I were to follow you around with a camera every minute of the day that you were in public spaces, you'd be able to get a restraining order against me.

You are incorrect, at least as far as my State (MA) goes. As always, State laws vary. Here, stalking requires "a threat with the intent to place the person in imminent fear of death or bodily injury". Stalking requires that the crime would cause"a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress". In both cases, merely passively following someone around a safe distance and not disturbing their activities is perfectly legal. http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter265/Section43

In fact, I do some tech work for a divorce litigation firm, they have investigators that do precisely this to collect evidence to counter claims of insolvency. Protip: if you are at an expensive club 5 nights a week, the court will not take well your claim that you cannot pay child support.

Moreover, as interpreted by some courts here, photographers have an affirmative right to take a photo from anywhere they can legally stand and provided they do not intrude upon a private space. Anyone standing in public anywhere in the State of MA is fair game for any photographer that wants to shoot you.

125,000 accounts (account number, cardholder name, expiration date and secure code) were exposed.

Here are alot more details and the complaint

Briar Group was ordered to comply with the Data Law, but they were NOT fined under that law which went into effect after the data breach was eliminated. They were fined for violation of Title XV,Chapter93A