Slashdot Mirror
JSTOR an Entitlement For US DoJ's Ortiz & Holder
theodp writes "If Aaron Swartz downloaded JSTOR documents without paying for them, it would presumably be considered a crime by the USDOJ. But if U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz or U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder did the same? Rather than a crime, it would be considered their entitlement, a perk of an elite education that's paid for by their alma maters. Ironically and sadly, that's the kind of inequity Aaron railed against with the Guerilla Open Access Manifesto, a document the DOJ cited as evidence (pdf) that Swartz was a menace to society. On Thursday, Ortiz insisted Swartz — who she now characterizes as 'mentally ill' — received fair and reasonable treatment from the DOJ. But that wasn't good enough for Senator John Cornyn, who on Friday asked Eric Holder to explain the DOJ prosecution of Aaron Swartz."
Federal prosecutors have come under heavy criticism for their handling of the Swartz case. Legal scholar Orin Kerr provides counterpoint with two detailed, well-reasoned posts about the case. Kerr says that, as the law stands, the charges against Swartz were "pretty much legit," and that the law itself should be the target of the internet community's angst, rather than the prosecutors. "...blame the system and aim to reform the system; don’t think that this was just two or three prosecutors that were doing something unusual. It wasn’t." James Boyle, co-founder of the Center for the Study of the Public Domain, disagrees with Kerr (partly), arguing that Swartz's renown is simply drawing people together to collectively shine a light on poor legislation and poor prosecutorial practices.
While he may have had issues, it's dangerous to characterize different opinions as mentally ill.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
First let me say that my area of research is medicine. There is a lot of tax payer funded research that is inaccessible to the public despite their hand in its creation. I think that this aspect needs to be discussed, as well.
Argh. The laws of science be a harsh mistress.
"On Thursday, Ortiz insisted Swartz â" who she now characterizes as 'mentally ill' â" "
Yeah, they used to say that about dissidents in the Soviet Union, too.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
While true that, in theory, prosecutors are just enforcing the law, they have significant discretion when it comes to things like even bringing any charges in the first place. As any victim of petty crime and they will usually have a tale of how the police or prosecutor just didn't bother doing anything even though the law said crime was committed.
Rather than a crime, it would be considered their entitlement, a perk of an elite education that's paid for by their alma maters.
The list that is linked to does not include Stanford...but that is where Swartz started college. The suggestion that he did not have access to an elite education is rediculous under the circumstances. So not only is the premise of the idea that people as alums of certain schools would not be prosecuted for pulling every journal off JSTOR and putting it out on the web laughable but the particulars not really compelling. Stanford is a pretty good school.
I don't understand the point of this article. Holder and Ortiz (or somebody, if they were on scholarship) paid for those college educations. If one of the perks of that payment is lifetime journal access, what on earth does it have to do with this case?
If this was an overzealous prosecution, then it should be investigated, and possibly procedures changed to prevent it in the future. And I certainly agree that journal access has become utterly disproportionate.
But most of what I read about this case is a rush to judgment that makes no more sense than the prosecution is being accused of. And articles like this bolster that impression, jumping to conclusions and engaging in character assassination because we liked one guy and therefore hate the other guys.
Things need to be fixed, but that's best achieved with clarity, not more obfuscation.
Volokh analysis of what Swatz actually did, with detailed history:
http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/
I assure you, an MIT enrollee or grad would have gotten the same treatment.
Prosecutors have been running rampant all over the country for years now for their personal aggrandizement. This time they just chose a very public and sympathetic target.
Hang 'em all.
expandfairuse.org
From the second Kerr link:
Why are you hearing that Swartz faced 35 or 50 years if it was not true? First, government press releases like to trumpet the maximum theoretical numbers. Authors of the press releases will just count up the crimes and the add up the theoretical maximum punishments while largely or completely ignoring the reality of the likely much lower sentence. The practice is generally justified by its possible general deterrent value: perhaps word of the high punishment faced in theory will get to others who might commit the crime and will scare them away. And unfortunately, uninformed reporters who are new to the crime beat sometimes pick up that number and report it as truth. A lot of people repeat it, as they figure it must be right if it was in the news. And some people who know better but want you to have a particular view of the case repeat it, too. But don’t be fooled. Actual sentences are usually way way off of the cumulative maximum punishments.
So if it serves as a deterrent we should be fooled, but if it applies to ourselves we shouldn't be? Personally I would be scared shitless if I saw the DOJ itself make statements like that about me. Just be truthful. The US already is highly punitive [pdf, see page 11-12] compared to other western countries (27 times as high as where I live). If that by itself doesn't work as a deterrent then exaggerations probably won't do much either, apart from increasing the likelihood of people killing themselves.
If bullying is part of the system, then yes, the system should be targeted. But not just by outsiders, the prosecuters themselves should have opposed the system instead of participating in the bullying. And as they did participate they should be targeted as part of the system.
I guess she should know a thing or two about mental illness since she is, herself, a sociopath.
It's a bit disingenuous to drive someone to suicide and then claim that the fact that they did so means they were mentally ill. It's kind of like throwing someone in the East River wearing concrete shoes and blaming them for being unable to swim.
Carmen Oritz routinely destroys other people lives in order to advance her career without any signs of conscience. For me this is psychopatic behavior. And if her career is the only thing she actually cares of, I'd even call her narcissistic psychopath. Unfortunately, the economic and political system in US promotes psychopaths at the cost of basically everyone else.
I wouldn't pay much attention to what she has to say, she just covers her ass. Psychopaths typically don't show any remorse for their actions - when caught on misbehaviors and lies, they tend to cover it with even bigger bunch of lies.
What baloney. Prosecutors make decisions about whom to go after and for what all the time. The law is the law is just total BS.
I will repeat, so I can be labeled as flamebait again, that the real culprit here is Mr. Unequal Justice himself, the POTUS and his slimy DoJ, of which the Boston prosecutors are just cogs in a smoke manufacturing machine.
I am an alumnus of one to the members of the JSTOR alumni program (Yale).
This article is VERY misleading.
JSTOR is a non-profit company founded by an ex-president of Princeton University aimed at reducing costs associated with maintaining large archives of journals at universities.
The alumni access to JSTOR described was part of a PILOT PROGRAM. This has been extended to all institutions that participate in JSTOR.
In addition JSTOR had nothing to do with the criminal charges brought against Aaron Shwartz. JSTOR asked that no charges be brought.
This was solely the result of actions taken by MIT and the DOJ.
JSTOR in fact is very inclusive. They have programs that provide access to secondary schools, public libraries and so forth.
http://about.jstor.org/fees/13006#tab-fees
Also JSTOR hosts significant public domain content that is available free to anyone.
What a bunch of crap. The system allowed for Mrs. Ortiz to not Charge Aaron at all if she so chose. Certainly, she didn't have to charge him with a dozen of felonies. http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/aaron-swartz-and-prosecutorial-discretion/
"It's not my fault, I was just following orders."
I thought as a society we had long ago decided that was not an excuse. I thought all lawyers on whatever side were agents of the judicial system and were looking for justice.
It seems our society has forgotten something. If you are doing wrong you are responsible, no matter the chain of command, it is an individuals responsibility to not do wrong and to reject a bad system. This should go doubly so for any agents of the justice system.
Shame on the system. Shame on the individual.
What should happen next?
If any of this seems over the top, consider how over the top the accusations and threats against Swartz were.
I'm wondering about Senator Cornyn. Could he actually be in support greater intellectual freedom? It seems 99% of politicians and judges are crusty old fools who blindly swallow publisher propaganda, and their knee jerk reaction to any alleged copyright violation is to believe the accusers and join the pack screaming that it's "theft" and howling for the blood of the accused. A demonstration of this is Ortiz's profound words of wisdom: "Stealing is stealing". But perhaps Cornyn, who sponsored PIPA, is having a change of heart?
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
" Kerr says that, as the law stands, the charges against Swartz were "pretty much legit," and that the law itself should be the target of the internet community's angst,"
No, BOTH should be the target of the "internet community's angst" and societies in general. One can't happen without the other, prosecutors continually demand more harsh and less restrictive laws "to catch the bad people". And when it is proven beyond all doubt that they targeted the wrong people with their near unlimited "proprietorial discretion" they demand complete indemnification from criminal/civil responsibility because prosecution of the "bad guys" would be imperiled if they had to worry about their freedom & livelihood. They can't have it both ways, at least not in a free & just society. They can either have extensive powers with severe penalties if they mess up, or they can have very limited powers with limited liability. To do otherwise breeds nothing but corruption & imprisonment of the innocent.
If Google put into their website terms that anyone in law enforcement or a member of congress was not allowed to use Google's services, how long would it be before breaking a site's terms was no longer a criminal act?
Actually, even if Google does not do this, how about a grassroots campaign to do it?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Here is the petition to fire Ortiz:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-district-attorney-carmen-ortiz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck
Cornyn should shut his fat hypocritic yap. It's his kind that wants to make IP abuse a criminal matter where it should be civil. He's in the crowd who would make violation of TOSs a federal crime. Now he is crying crocodile tears that the Justice Department applied laws he rabidly supported?
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
..and theodp remarks are brilliant and spot on!
Naturally, one would expect AG Holder, who made his big bucks at Covington & Burling, defending Chiquita (formerly United Fruit) and Coca Cola and the oil companies, for their hiring of assassins to murder labor organizers, protesters and pro-democracy activists in South America and West Africa. And please don't neglect the record of Ortiz:
http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/01/17/carmen-ortizs-sordid-rap-sheet/
And please let us never forget the ultimate entitlement:
The "right" of the banksters to "create money" and make the rest of us pay them for it! (Unconstitutional, as the US Constitution only gives the right to coin the currency to the gov't, not to any private concern --- Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy exercised that constitutional right, and history shows us their horrendous outcomes.)
Here is the equivalent petition for Steve Heymann:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fire-assistant-us-attorney-steve-heymann/RJKSY2nb
Heymann's still needs more signatures to get over the minimum required for a mandatory response.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
No, you're deliberately misinterpreting it in order to make a pass at scoring some Godwin points.
The point is that the prosecutor's behavior is not "as ordered", but rather is simply the norm for how prosecution is done. If you find that unacceptable, the appropriate path is to try to fix the use of these tactics in general, rather than singling this out as a specific case with a particular problem.
Sue them for theft, and perhaps racketeering. Also sue them under the anti trust laws for price fixing.
I get the suspicion you have no idea what JSTOR is or what it does.
I believe, I have to bring to everyone's attention one uncomfortable fact -- a suicide of a person was sufficient to bring important issues to the attention of public and institutions when everything else utterly and completely failed.
Now, everyone who ever repeated anti-suicide formulas about suiide being inherently cowardly, selfish, pointless, etc. act, is welcome to kiss his dead ass. While it's true that most suicides result in nothing remarkable, so do most lives.
On a lighter note, Aaron Swartz is now both a hero and an hero.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
"Nice to read Kerr's nuanced read of the situation, good antidote to the shrill, half-witted shrieking of the chronically ignorant slashdotters."
Doesn't matter what is right under the law, what matters is what is right period. Bad law is meant to be broken and bad prosecutors enforcing said laws broken harder. Prosecutors are in a position to decide right from wrong, but do they if they remember how? Laws are guidelines, at least if you believe the Supreme Court that has been bouncing all over the place in this issue for the last hundred years, lately its been guidelines. If that's true the prosecutors are the primarily responsible party when pressing charges and making mistakes. Because it's standard procedure is a poor excuse for a bad decision because you didn't bother to think about the life you were ruining.
If you find that unacceptable, the appropriate path is to try to fix the use of these tactics in general, rather than singling this out as a specific case with a particular problem.
Why not single out the evil doers like Oritz? Why should they get a free pass just because some other people are evil as well. If scum like these prosecutors had to actually face consequences for their actions, you can be sure that the "system" would change pretty quickly.
SJW n. One who posts facts.