Slashdot Mirror
The Accidental Betrayal of Aaron Swartz
theodp writes "The anarchist dictum when it comes to grand juries, explains Salon's Natasha Lennard, is a simple one: 'No one talks, everyone walks.' It's a lesson journalist Quinn Norton tragically learned only after federal prosecutors got her to inadvertently help incriminate Aaron Swartz, her dearest friend and then-lover. Convinced she knew nothing that could be used against Swartz, Norton at first cooperated with the prosecutors. But prosecutors are pro fishermen — they cast wide nets. And in a moment Norton describes as 'profoundly foolish,' she told the grand jury that Swartz had co-authored a blog post advocating for open data (the Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto), which prosecutors latched onto and spun into evidence that the technologist had 'malicious intent in downloading documents on a massive scale.' Norton sadly writes, 'It is important the people know that the prosecutors manipulated me and used my love against Aaron without me understanding what they were doing. This is their normal. They would do this to anyone. We should understand that any alleged crime can become life-ruining if it catches their eyes.' Consider yourself forewarned."
Say absolutely nothing. Every single work spoken to them will come from your lawyers mouth.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Police: So, which way did the mugger run? ... ... ...
You:
Police: Hello? Can you talk?
You:
Police: Don't you want to get your wallet back?
You:
Police: Eh, fuck it. I'll be at the donut shop.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
I didn’t know anything the prosecution cared about, and I thought that maybe I could talk Steve [Heymann, the lead prosecutor] out of the prosecution, or at least into not being so harsh. This was so obviously a ridiculous application of justice, I thought. If I just had the chance to explain, maybe this would all go away. My lawyers told me this was possible. They nursed this idea. They told me Steve wanted to meet me, and they wanted me to meet him. They wanted to set up something called a proffer — a kind of chat with the prosecution.
Perhaps you should have spoken with Aaron's lawyers?
The anarchist dictum when it comes to grand juries, explains Salon's Natasha Lennard, is a simple one: 'No one talks, everyone walks.'
Isn't this just called "The Prisoner's Dilemma"? Or will I be downmodded for using the word "prisoner" -- too harsh for the Aaron Swartz case?
In a moment Norton describes as “profoundly foolish” she told the grand jury that Swartz had co-authored a blog post advocating for open data. As we now know, his Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto was used by prosecutors as evidence that the technologist had “malicious intent in downloading documents on a massive scale.”
So did he write it or not? I mean, he was twenty six years old and at some point you have to start being responsible for your actions. Norton is blaming herself for telling someone about something that Swartz wrote? I mean, at what point was he going to stand up and say proudly "This is my cause and I'm not afraid to stand up for it"? Yeah, if you write stuff that talks about breaking the law and then you are investigated for breaking such laws -- that of course is going to be used as motive!
Political activism is apparently not for people who are clinically depressed. What is supposed to change here? Are prosecutors not supposed to seek a motive when they have a suspect? When someone we do want to go to jail like an embezzler writes an e-mail to his wife about his embezzlement, are prosecutors not supposed to turn the screws on her to get that information? I don't get it! What is Norton blaming herself for? Why write it if you don't believe it and why break the laws that you think are unjust if you're not prepared to challenge them in court?
Did he write it? Was it pertinent to the case? Then what's the problem here? Who betrayed who? Would you rather have prosecutors with hands tied when they need to prove that someone planned to break a law by discovering what they were writing prior to their alleged crimes? Is that not his name at the bottom of the manifesto?
I'm sorry he decided to take his own life and it sickens me that the Slashdot group think is that doing so was his only logical choice. But at some point you have to take the mittens off and stop beating up other people for Aaron Swartz's own words and actions. Political activism is not a place for fragile people who can't handle a book being thrown at them. We celebrate those who stood up to and challenged the governments and did so without resorting to taking their own lives or others'.
My work here is dung.
by every lawyer she encountered. Swartz's family pleaded with her not to talk to them. She was an arrogant fool.
Sent from the iPad I found in your car.
MOD PARENT UP.
Don't Talk To Cops is the most informative video to grace the pages of Youtube.
It's supposed to be an adversarial system: The prosecution tries to prove guilt, the defense tries, if not to prove innocence, then at least to show that guilt cannot be proven. A neutral party then listens to the arguments from both sides and decides who has the stronger argument.
The problem is that the prosecution has a very strong incentive to get a conviction, even if that means not playing fair: They have every reason to manipulate, intimidate, hide evidence, outright lie to the defendant, seize everything they possibly can on any grounds and seal bank accounts so the defendant cannot afford a competent defense, and in general do anything and everything they can in order to secure a conviction: Because their job is no longer to search for the truth: Their job is to get that conviction. Their careers depend upon it.
They might be temporary allies, but not friends.
Understood.
My dad used to be a public defender, and It's interesting to me how nearly every tv show demonizes public defenders, and gives halos to the police. Granted you can't really trust a lawyer any more than anyone else (including police), but we are all just people here.
Thank you, I came in here to post these videos.
The only information to give to the police is your lawyer's name. Ideally, let your lawyer tell them that too.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
~Attributed to Cardinal Richelieu.
When it comes to criminal investigations in America, there is nothing you can ever say that will help your case. The only thing you can do is make it worse. The best bit of advice is to shut the fuck up and lawyer up.
Convinced she knew nothing that could be used against Swartz, Norton at first cooperated with the prosecutors.
When I read the line above I already knew the story
This "Quinn Norton" calls herself a "journalist", a person whose job supposedly provide her the insight that people can pick up clues from what you said, no matter how you say it, or how much you have disclosed, and also from what you didn't say
Equipped with that knowledge, she was still convinced that she knew nothing that could be used against her lover, Mr. Swartz?
Oh, c'mon, don't give us that !!!
She has screwed up, she knew it. Now what "Quinn Norton" is trying desperately to do is to "clear her name", and she is trying to push all the blames on to the prosecutors.
I am not saying that the prosecutors are not responsible for what happened to Mr. Swartz, they do. But Ms. Norton herself ought to be brave enough to admit that because of her own fucked up cocky attitude that led her to think that she could outsmart the prosecutors (and that she talked)
Ms. Quinn Norton is a contributor, whether she likes it or not, to Mr. Swartz's ultimate tragic demise
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Or more accurately:
1. Don't ever commit a crime serious enough to be worth the time it'd take the police to arrest and charge you.
and
2. Don't ever annoy any person who has enough money and/or influence to make the million and one minor crimes you can't help suddenly become worth the time.
Swartz did both of these: He commited a crime, but the crime in itsself would likely have resulted in only a slap-on-the-wrist punishment, unless the offended party really pressed - the downloading was a civil matter, copyright infringement, and he did actually have authorised access. His 'hacking' was just finding a way to shift more data. But he'd also established himself as a troublemaker, an anti-government activist with a history of making trouble for the state, and so someone decided to throw the book at him.
You can also look at, say, David Kernell - he who hacked Sarah Palin's email, revealing to the world a couple of minor scandals, though nothing huge. If he had hacked my email, or yours (Assuming you are, like me, a no-one) than asking the police to bother tracking him down would just get you laughed out of the station. But Palin was a person of influence, and even though the attacked account was personal and should have held nothing of any role in government whatsoever*, her role as a person of influence was enough to get the police to launch a full investigation, track him down, and sentence him to a year and a day in jail. The extra day, I gather, is something to do with a condition relating to rehabilitation that only applies to sentences of one year or less. But IANAL, so I'm not really sure how that bit works.
*Using the account for government business would actually have been a criminal offense on Palin's part, Kernell hacked in to see if she was. Turned out he was half-right: She had indeed been using the account for official business, but only the most minor and inane of matters.
>>The problem is that the prosecution has a very strong incentive to get a conviction, even if that means not playing fair: They have every reason to manipulate, intimidate, hide evidence, outright lie to the defendant, seize everything they possibly can on any grounds and seal bank accounts so the defendant cannot afford a competent defense, and in general do anything and everything they can in order to secure a conviction: Because their job is no longer to search for the truth: Their job is to get that conviction. Their careers depend upon it.
Right. And it's asymmetrical. If the defense offered some schlub in their corporation a million dollars to testify that they never saw any criminal wrongdoing inside of Enron, or whatever, this would be illegal.
But when a US Attorney does bribery, it's called a "plea bargain". They can come into a corporation, threaten some random joe with life in prison unless they testify against their boss, and then surprise, surprise! All this damning evidence magically appears against the boss, much of which is probably made-up, but impossible to prove. "Oh, yes, Mr. Jones once told me he'd go to jail if this scheme was found out!"
Unfortunately, there was a lawsuit on this very issue, and the justices ruled that this wasn't bribery, because if it was bribery, the legal system would fall apart.
It's a stupid video. The gist of the video is "Don't talk to cops if they suspect you of something."
If you have been assaulted, the cops will generally try to help you if they can. If your response when your car is stolen is to not talk to the cops to report your car stolen, then you are a complete fool.
Oh, it's you. Yes, you.
You're that guy who interprets things in the most retarded way possible. Then you call somebody else a fool because you think they will interpret it in the most retarded way possible like you did.
Seems there's at least one of you in every conversation. Tell me, does this make your empty, meaningless life feel any better? When you posted that, did you feel just a fleeting split-second of self-worth, like maybe you were actually smarter or better than somebody else? You know that's why you are doing this, right?
Because let me tell you, nobody else interpreted "don't talk to cops" as "don't talk to cops when you want their help". The context of "when they are trying to incriminate you" was obvious -- it was obvious because that's the only way the statement makes sense. But you're That Guy. That Guy never figures this out. No, instead, That Guy assumes "hey the statement only makes sense this one way -- I bet they're all so stupid that they interpreted it some other way!" Yes, if only we were all as smart as you.
You are like a termite that eats away at the rafters of adult conversation everywhere.