Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

JSTOR an Entitlement For US DoJ's Ortiz & Holder

Posted by Soulskill on from the lots-of-work-to-be-done dept.

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.

10 of 287 comments (clear)

  1. The law is a ass. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:The law is a ass. by davydagger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "They're coming for your guns, what are you going to do when they label you "mentally ill"?"

      with no chance for a second opinion, no appeals, no lawyers, no burder of proof on anything.

    2. Re:The law is a ass. by jc42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... what are you going to do when they label you "mentally ill"?

      And we might note how easy it can be to get such a label. One of last year's minor science/medical news stories that was picked up by some reporters, and also by a number of comedians, was a change made by the American Psychological Association (APA) to their definition of "depression". The fun part of this story was the previous definition, which included the case of a loved one dying, and a survivor's mourning continuing for more than a month. This was all it took to get a diagnosis of depression, and a "mentally ill" label. The time period has now been extended somewhat, but that won't affect the medical records from previous years.

      So if someone close to you dies, you might want to be careful to hide signs of sadness when talking to medical people (or strangers ;-), lest you end up on the list of people determined to be mentally ill by a professional psychiatrist.

      It really is that easy to get "mentally ill" on your medical record, to be used against you in cases like this.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  2. In addition.... by RatPh!nk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:In addition.... by Sir+Homer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      I don't even see anything to discuss. Seriously, how the hell is this acceptable?

      And Swartz's super serious multi-felony crime was trying to fix this situation? Every time I look back at this case, it befuddles me. The only insane people here are the prosecution, and they need to be called out on it and punished along with everyone involved in this travesty of justice.

  3. Precedent by sesshomaru · · Score: 5, Funny

    "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."
  4. Oritz "terribly upset" (about her career) by boorack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Oritz "terribly upset" (about her career) by anagama · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's a great article. I was particularly surprised to learn about the civil forfeiture procedure:

      In 2009, the 69-year-old owner, Russ Caswell, received a letter from the DOJ indicating the government was pursuing a civil forfeiture case against him with the intention of seizing his family's motel - it was built in 1955 by Russ's father - and the surrounding property. Ms. Ortiz's office asserted that the motel had been the site of multiple crimes by its occupants over the years: 15 low-level drug offenses between 1994 and 2008 (out of an estimated 125,000 room rentals). Of those who stayed in the motel from 2001 to 2008, 0.05% were arrested for drug crimes on the property.
      ***
      Mr. Caswell's family-owned and -operated property was worth approximately $1.5 million with no mortgage - making it a perfect target. Without a bank involved, the likelihood of the Caswells' mounting a drawn-out legal defense was miniscule. Through a spokeswoman, Ms. Ortiz's office released a statement at the time of trial on why they were choosing to pursue Mr. Caswell:

      "The government believed that this was an important caseâ¦because of the deterrent message it sends to others who may turn a blind eye to crime occurring at their place of business."

      Mr. Salzman doesn't buy the message of deterrence. He asserts that just up the street, a Motel 6, Walmart and Home Depot all operate with similarâ"in many cases higherâ"rates of drug crimes on their properties, referencing numbers obtained from the Tewksbury Police Department.
      ***
      But those corporations have extensive financial and legal resources, and would put up much more of a fight than a small business owned and operated by a single family. Before a public interest law firm took on his case, Mr. Caswell had already spent over $100,000 and was near bankruptcy.

      http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/01/17/carmen-ortizs-sordid-rap-sheet/

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  5. JSTOR by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. Can't have it both ways. by Dereck1701 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    " 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.