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.
What's that line that's been repeatedly drummed into our heads?
"Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law"
Don't Talk To Police
if a cop or DA wants to talk to you about something you did or if you don't know why understand that you are not talking your way out of something, they are collecting evidence against you or someone else. Most of the time is not in your interests to talk to the cops or prosecutors.
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.
Don't talk to he police I was shocked when I watched this.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
...watch a lawyer and sheriff explain why.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The job of police and prosecutors is to establish guilt. They are not there to help you. They are there to harm you in any way they can. Do not talk to them at all if you can avoid it.
Don't Talk To Cops is a video detailing exactly how someone who is PURELY INNOCENT can have their words twisted to prove their "guilt". If you have not watched this, watch it. Make your kids watch it too.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
If you need to be warned that a group of people who collaborate with violent thugs who will kidnap you and steal from you are not interested in your well being, I doubt a warning would actually be useful. Even the simplest thing like a subpoena is an utter transgression against innocent people. Imagine if we stripped away the pomp, the ceremony, the special euphemisms, and just saw these actors for what they are; a subpoena is a threat. A subpoena is a group of people declaring that they will attack you if you do not visit them. That they will steal from you, they will kidnap you if you fend off their theft, and should you somehow manage to resist all that, they will put a bullet in your fucking brain. THAT is the nature of this system we live in. We exist in a murder based society, a pre-philosophical contradictory quagmire where the simplest moral truths between individuals become completely negated when the magical word 'government' is attached to a deed. That is who prosecutors voluntarily associate with.
If you think a prosecutor sees you as anything other than the bait for his next paycheck, you are blind to the nature of our society.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Something I watched a couple years ago, and I think still holds true on the idea of never talking to the police.
On tv they have those cops shows where they play good cop / bad cop or lie to the suspect in order to get information or a confession. As valued spectators we only get to see the times these methods are used to catch a pedophile or stop a nuclear bomb, but in real life this is how it's done all the time. One should keep this in mind when dealing with po-po.
lucm, indeed.
Aaron was furious. He told me not to meet Steve. But no one, including Aaron, would tell me why. No one would tell me even how to get out of it. And still I had an unshakable belief that if I could just somehow explain all this it would go away. I delayed once, too sick to go. My lawyers told me Steve was furious at my medical delay. I might be arrested. I told Aaron, and others, that I wanted to talk to Steve human to human.
Never talking is not necessarily practical. But the problem is not recognizing that once something progresses to a certain point a "human to human" talk is never ever ever going to stop an investigation or prosecution. They were way past that point. That is where they get you: when you believe a human tale will persuade while they are looking for mis-steps that will hang you and all your friends.
The prosecution only hesitates when sources of evidence completely dry up. Talking encourages the prosecution.
These lawyers were giving ineffective counsel, even though they were probably thinking that they could get her immunity for her cooperation and testimony.
"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.'"
What's next? If they find that someone wrote somewhere that he didn't like the look of the WTC building, it will be used as evidence that he was involved in the 9/11 attack?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
When I fought off an attempted robbery at gun point, the police most certainly were my friends. It all depends on the circumstances. I was once pulled over for a speeding offence, and the way I was answering his questions prompted him to ask if I was a lawyer.
Some of us don't need to be taught that lesson: don't commit crimes.
If you think you've never committed a crime, you've never read the US Revised Statutes.
Here's a resource, Now please STFU and educate yourself.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Just because you love someone, doesn't mean you shouldn't turn them in if they do something wrong and criminal.
You do realize those two things are not mutually inclusive, right?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
You are lucky you were not charged with assault or anything else they could come up with. Far easier to go after you who are easy to reach than hunt down someone else. They might be temporary allies, but not friends.
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.
This is also not about being a criminal.
The person who is the subject of this article is not a criminal. She was not accused of anything. If anything, she's the next of kin.
Perhaps she should have married the guy and invoked spousal priveledge.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
"anything you say CAN AND WILL be used against you (and others)"
Obviously not.
Privacy is terrorism.
Actually it means exactly that.
Blood is thicker than water. The state is not your family. Your employer is not your family either.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
they are looking for criminal behaviors, so they talk to people about it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If I had the mod points.
this is an old video but very important
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
That's funny. I've had several pleasant conversations with cops.
It helps when you're not an adversarial dickbag to the cops.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Not your friend, your family, people you've known all your life. There will be no one you can trust because anyone can be pressured to turn against you with enough threats against them. To trust anyone would put them in greater risk of being pressured and being destroyed too.
"You are lucky you were not charged with assault or anything else they could come up with. "
you're an idiot.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
My dad used to be a public defender, we are all just people here.
Nice try, but we're not buying that a public defender is a person.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
She should have pled the Fifth.
Can't incriminate anyone if you refuse to speak at all...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Or maybe my life has shown me things yours has not.
When people are evaluated on a metric they will do what they can to inflate that metric. Cops do it just like salesmen. If it takes lying and cheating they will do that just as much as a used car salesman.
I too was subpoenaed (note I redacted two names) for evidence and to testify before the grand jury that indicted Aaron. They were certainly fishing for a lot of information relating to Guerrilla Open Access. I'm not sure there was much that either Quinn or I could do to prevent the indictment. Although, I can say that on an emotional level rationalizing about the situation doesn't make it suck any less knowing that the evidence and testimony I provided was probably bastardized and used against him. Maybe I'll write up more about the whole thing some time.
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.
Or, as Ken White of Popehat put it, SHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUP.
Be who you are...and be it in style!
Everyone who is a suspect is guilty until proven innocent. Anyone can be made into a suspect with enough time and effort.
That's because story conventions work much better that way. People want to see a guilty person punished. Very often, 'justice' is just a polite term for 'vengeance.'
Never talk to police:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Protect Yourself from FBI Manipulation (w/attorney Harvey Silverglate):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgDsbjAYXcQ
B-)
A friend will come and bail you out of jail, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "damn that was fun!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc&list=PLyG7wDhlOL-nZBTZ7oFGgrDNpEowoo4PO&index=36
That's all I have to say here.
...because now I'm the 109th guy posting this link, at least. Oh well.
To be an activist is to be a warrior. Nothing is gained by activism except for a lengthy FBI file and informants spreading lies about you, rumors, and trying to entrap you into crimes for their bosses.They do this because they committed a crime and agreed with police to become informants to help bring down the enemies of the police through entrapment.
That is the system and it's corrupt by design. If you support Wikileaks then don't be surprised if your friends from years stop talking to you. Look at what a government investigation can do here http://www.jbhfile.com/harm_examples.html and think twice about supporting Wikileaks.
No, that's what a paranoid person spouts on his blog
And jury, and prosecuter, and your friend, and your lover, and....actually you better shut up and hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst :D
Given the premise of "Nobody talks, everyone walks", and the anarchist view of justice, how would an anarchist community conceptualize, agree upon, and enforce "justice" within their own community? Say you have an anarchist community, and someone acts against the consensus, then says "I'm innocent". What happens at that point? I'm genuinely curious about this, and would like to know the answer.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
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.
So have I. I've also had several pleasant conversions with drug addicts and burgers. That doesn't mean they were not dirt bags and it doesn't mean that they wouldn't screw you over the second it benefited them.
Because she admitted he wrote a blog post? She didn't do anything. The fact that they could use that against him is a fault of the judicial system.
Nope, just an idiot.
Now please run for congress. Two things will happen:
1. Your opponent will skewer you as being 'soft on crime.'
2. You'll succeed a little, but then someone will avoid conviction due to lack of evidence and go on to rape and murder the three year old Sally McCuteyBabe. Next term, 'Sally's Law' will pass with overwhelming support overturning all you have achieved and going even further. For the children, of course.
^^^ what a person ignorant of history says on a blog. Red scare, McCarthyism, loyalty oaths, Hoover tapping your phones....
Spousal privilege (there's a real phrase for it, but I don't remember it now) has been eliminated in many states.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
I know it was long, but it also answered some of the questions you posed.
You asked if he wrote the manifesto or not. She explains that it had four authors - a group had written it during a conference in Italy, and Aaron brought it back to her, and yes, his name was on it. But she testified that there was no way to know whether he had authored a particular sentence.
The prosecutors were stretching to find some kind of motive in anything he had written. Ask yourself if this really makes sense. You've been on /. for some years now - I suppose it's fair game for prosecutors to go over every one of your comments with a fine-tooth comb, establishing a "motive" for something you've done?
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
"Oh, c'mon, don't give us that !!!"
MOST people don't know enough to keep their mouths shut. This is simply a fact. They also expect other people to be reasonable, and are amazed when other people aren't reasonable. Example from TFA:
"It was beyond my understanding that these people could pick through his life, threaten his friends, tear through our digital history together, raid his house, surveil him, and never actually read his blog."
I bet you 90% of the people out there would feel the same. And have no clue what damage opening their mouths, even a little bit, can cause.
I bet even you would learn a few things by watching this video: Don't Talk To Police which is a talk given by a defense attorney and a detective.
This is utterly stupid and I'm sick of it.
The facts are completely against this sort of idiocy.
Day after day, year after year, people all around the country are victims of crimes by thugs. People's shit gets stolen. People are mugged. People are robbed. People are raped. People are assaulted.
And the FACTS are that in the vast majority of those cases, the average person will call 911, and the cops will come, and people will describe what happened, and the cops will do their best to HELP THEM OUT. They will try to track down the accused. They will ask reasonable questions about which way the assailants went, or what items were stolen. They will NOT start suspecting the person who reports the crime and talks to them like a reasonable person, which is what you morons seem to think cops have an overwhelming tendency to do in this alternate warped reality world you live in.
Do some cops abuse the system? Yes. Are some cops bad apples to whom you should never talk to under any circumstances? There are some, sure...but every time I come on slashdot, I see morons yelling about how bad the police, as an institution, are. Never talk to cops my ASS. My stuff got stolen from a club recently, and the club has video of who did it. I know for a fact the cops are currently trying to track the person down. Should I be a dumbass and say, "Oh well, all cops are bad, might as well live with the fact that hundreds of dollars in property of mine was stolen. I shouldn't report it because NEVER TALK TO COPS."
Bullshit.
What you people MEAN to say is "Don't talk to cops if they suspect you of something." That is the real, underlying meaning behind most of what the posters on here say, although they won't admit it.
The reality is, in the real world, when a serious violent crime happens to you or someone you love, you have TWO choices.
A) Tell the cops
B) Try to take revenge yourself. And that is NOT the way to live in a civilized society.
Pretty much. That, and insisting on immunity before you open your mouth.
That poor woman. I hope she doesn't blame herself. These people are snakes.
I can not find it right now, but I remember an anecdote by a traveller - maybe Jacques-Yves Costeau? - returning to an island in the Pacific he had visited years before. He was surprised to find a police station, that was not there on his previous visit.
As he remembered the natives being the nicest and most peaceful fellows ever, he asked a police officer "Do you really mean, there is crime here now?" The candid answer was, "Of course sir, there is law enforcement now, there must be crime as well."
In the long run we are all dead. - John Maynard Keynes (1883 - 1946)
Was about to post this link myself. This is something that should be common knowledge.
I would have to add:
3. Don't be a friend, relative or neighbor of anyone who might commit a crime that the PTB might consider serious or at least embarrassing. They **WILL** pick you up and harass you to put pressure on their real target, and that can include charging you with the crime they want their suspect to plead to.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
I would like to believe that the police can always be trusted, but they are no more or less trustworthy than the general public.
I don't think that is true. Police are a self-selected group, it would be very unlikely that they would have the same distribution of trustworthiness as the general public, although I think reasonable arguments can be made for why police as a group would be biased in either direction.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Bullshit. The thrust of that video, and all the videos out there that say the same thing, is really
"Don't talk to cops if they suspect you of something, without counsel, ever" which is reasonable advice.
But in the real world, on planet earth, people all over the country call cops all the time to report things stolen, or assaults, or thefts, and the cops don't immediately go after the person who reports the crime. It's asinine to think that cops generally operate that way.
Come back to reality.
AH, you making wide assertions based on your anecdote. Yes, you're an idiot.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Sadly, immunity wouldn't of helped Quinn Norton in this case as her words weren't being used against herself, but another.
Now if only such a similar criminal investigation would be brought against the people (and by people, I mean the federal prosecutors who targeted Swartz) who subverted the justice system to push corporate special interest.
I guess she learned the hard way...
Dont talk to cops....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=i8z7NC5sgik
--
Time is on my side
The 'never talk to cops' concept already accepts the 'lesser of two dangers' concept. It refers to situations where you MIGHT think that co-operating puts you in a better position, or gets the cops to see reason.
It does NOT refer to those times when it is just you and a uniformed thug (or group of thugs) with nothing better to do than beat you and frame you. In these situations (like the one you describe for yourself), the principle is the same as an African villager 'meeting' a tiger on a path the elders are supposed to ensure is safe. Yes you are pissed at the tiger and the elders, but at that very moment, the only concern you can afford to have is your personal safety.
Members of all US enforcement departments are violent tribal scumbags who see citizens as garbage. When they behave 'polite', it is ONLY out of fear of retribution if you prove to be a citizen with influence. When meeting these goons in a metaphorical 'dark alley' you say whatever you must to safely escape the situation. Your 'Rights' only come first if by giving them up you have something worse to fear (like contraband in your vehicle).
Again, 'never talk to cops' is about when you are arrested (or similar) and they are interrogating you in some sense. Again, in the 'wild' cops should be treated as a rogue killer animal. No cop will lose even one second sleep over the idea of hurting or causing the imprisonment of an innocent person.
What kind of a journalist doesn't know that a prosecutor can make the grand jury indict a ham sandwich if he wants to? It doesn't require deep knowledge of the legal system; it only requires watching a few episodes of Law and Order.
The legal system may be crooked. It may be hard to not talk when the judge can put you in jail for remaining silent. The 5th protects only you, not someone else - you have no right to remain silent if you are not witnessing against yourself. Prosecution is always happy to give you a worthless immunity, since they never wanted you indicted in the first place. You cannot lie either, because you don't know if your answers are cross-checked with someone else's - and they usually are. The best way to deal with law is to avoid it altogether.
Did you mean to imply that the police only ever arrest guilty people? Because that is what it sounds like.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
And always worth reposting:
Don't Talk To The Police
Watch that. Then watch it again. Then watch it a million times and memorize it.
Also expand it to apply to prosecutors, potential witnesses and, frankly, *anyone* that might possibly have the slightest reason not to have your best interests in mind (ie.: anyone other than your retained counsel)
There is nothing you can say, do, express, explain or expound that can help you in any way. You have the right to remain silent and it is *ALWAYS* in your best interest to do so. It's not that anything you say may be used against you, it's that it absolutely, most definitely, most assuredly will be. And they will twist, manipulate and pervert anything and everything to fit the preconceived ends they already had in mind before they even met you.
As they say, you can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride. Give them nothing.
I think 2) implies that there are only guilty people. Some are just more guilty than others. If the police or the prosecutors want to charge someone, they have no need to file false charges: Everyone is guilty of something.
This is further proof that speaking - even for a second - to the cops is a big mistake. Keep quiet no matter what they say.
Generally speaking a police officer is indistinguishable from a criminal gang member. If you are going to do something you would not do in the presence of a gang member you might want to think twice about it. Again, ask yourself the question,"Is this something I would do if I were being detained by a violent street gang member with a gun?"
Any form of challenge, disagreement, lack of cooperation, hostility, anger, or anything that could be interpreted even as the most mild form of disrespect is highly dangerous. These are people who are often completely amoral sociopaths. They will not feel guilt or remorse about injuring or killing you or anyone else. They could frame you for even the most serious of crimes and not feel even a hint of guilt afterward. Whether a particular cop happens to interpret silence as disrespect depends on the individual in question. Some will and some won't. It's a roll of the dice. Same as with an armed street gang member.
If the cop dealing with you looks mean or violent or angry you may have no choice but to answer if you want to avoid a long hospital stay or getting zipped up in a body bag or just old fashioned brain damage. Keep in mind that some cops simply will not take no for an answer. They may keep repeating the question until they get worked up enough to throw you down or start choking you or beating you or using their tazer on you until you comply. You have to know when to change tactics by dropping the assumption that they will obey the law. In this case trying to answer their questions without incriminating yourself is the key. Keep in mind that the cops can claim that you said a particular thing and a jury is more likely to believe him than you. They don't really need you to confess to a crime. They can do that for you and will not mind it. They are used to lying in court all the time and their police reports are often more fiction than fact. This is the unfortunate reality. Most people don't realize it until they or someone they know are thrown into the system themselves. Even then few people truly want to believe it.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
When talking with a prosecutor, you should never say absolutely nothing. If you remain silent in the face of an accusation, your silence can be entered into evidence against you under the rules governing adoptive admission. If someone asks you, "So why did you kill him?" and you remain silent, your silence can be considered by a court to be an admission that you killed the person in question.
Not every instance of silence is admissible as an adoptive admission -- but the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are complicated and varied and unless you're a criminal defense lawyer you probably have no way of telling when silence is a good policy and when it will get you in trouble.
So, instead of being silent, you instead say, "If you give me your card, I'll have my lawyer get in touch with you to answer your questions." You take the card, you give it to your lawyer, and you follow his or her advice.
A good overview of the law regarding adoptive admissions and your potential risk when facing prosecutors: How To Avoid Going To Jail Under 18 USC 1001 For Lying To Investigators.
You make it sound very easy not to say anything to the police or the prosecutor. For most people, it's very stressful and just sitting there on the stand in a courtroom with every staring at you. It's extraordinarily coercive, and that's before they go and really fuck with you by threatening you with bullshit such as "obstructing justice".
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
After reading her story, all I can say is that she and Swartz made the same mistake: being stupid enough to believe that they were smart enough to outwit a determined adversary with almost unlimited resources.
Prisons are full of people with that attitude. It doesn't matter if you're smarter than the guy across the table from you. You won't be smarter than a roomful of people just like him who are working together to take you down.
Aaron Swartz is responsible for what happened to Aaron Swartz. Yes, the Feds played hard and dirty, but they didn't invent those tactics with Swartz. When you taunt a rattlesnake, you don't blame the rattlesnake for doing what a rattlesnake does when it bites you.
Aaron Swartz deliberately set out to commit an act of civil disobedience without thinking through the consequences. According to Norton, Swartz desired a career in politics (another indication of his naivete; I could hardly think of anyone less suited for it), and was deathly afraid of what a felony conviction would do to his prospects. Yet instead of keeping his nose squeaky clean (particularly given his interactions with the Feds after the PACER incident), he pulled a stunt that put him squarely in their sights once again. Did he even think to talk to a lawyer before he started downloading the JSTOR database? Apparently not. His ego and his hubris were his downfall.
Unfortunately, Swartz pulled her into his mess the moment he called her up for bail money. The fact that he failed to even anticipate the possibility of arrest, and make provisions beforehand, shows just how dumb a smart person can be.
I also had to laugh when I read Norton's account of how she "outwitted" and "infuriated" the prosecutors during her grand jury testimony. She should spend more time around lawyers, and watch how their courtroom "rage" gets turned on and off like a switch. They won the game just by making her life miserable, and making sure Swartz knew about it. Getting an indictment from the grand jury would have just been icing on the cake for them.
But frankly I think she should stop kicking herself for telling the Feds about the manifesto. It was a public document, for God's sake. Swartz was a jerk for blaming her for talking about something he was supposedly proud to put his name to. Everyone is looking for someone to blame, but she did the best she thought she could with a situation she had no control over.
This is a sad, sad case of two smart people who simply weren't nearly as smart as they thought they were. If nothing else, Swartz's death may at least cause some other starry-eyed idealist to think twice before he or she kicks the hornets' nest.
I get where you are coming from, but how do you know the cop doesn't think you did these things? Cops will also lie and say they are investigating someone else.
What can happen is you end up with a basic societal break down. When cops are allowed to lie or distort to get evidence, you lose the ability to talk to them.
To a large extent that has happened in some communities, these types of tactics destroy the police's relationship with the community. It is very serious and I would rather a few criminals escape then undermine basic social stability.
"You make it sound very easy not to say anything to the police or the prosecutor."
If so, that was not my intent. Rather, I would like to warn everybody about it precisely because it isn't easy.
And just about the ONLY time you can get in REAL legal trouble for keeping your mouth shut is in front of a Grand Jury. The Grand Jury "system" we currently have does not represent justice and should have been abolished long ago. This has been a popular issue since the Perry Mason days.
... bitch.
For crying out loud! Ifyou truly love somebody then you will think twice about selling him down the river. That potentially removes him from your life. Which is the exact opposite of what love is.
Laws are arbitrary. "Don't kill your neighbor" is in the same book that contains "don't poke a sheep with a stick".
I would report nobody that I love for sheep-pokery. And I would reevaluate my love first before I reported somebody for murder.
The phrase "law-abiding citizen" is overused. The world isn't black and white. "Law-abiding citizens" don't exist. There is a bit of a sheep-poker in each and every one of us.
The only reason you didn't get fined or arrested today is that you hadn't been caught or nobody bothered to do you in.
Let me confess to my crime-spree of today:
-I was jaywalking a couple of times due to stupid traffic lights and not a car within a mile's distance
-I forgot to get a new public transport ticket this month and have been dodging fares for a couple of days before realizing
-I clicked on a link that played an MP3(which was doubly bad since I had not planned to do so and my office PC's speakers therefore hadn't been turned off) without checking if it was illegal in some way
-and many more things I am not even aware of
Hopefully my girlfriend won't turn me in because clearly I'm a notorious criminal and deserve to have the book thrown at me.
That Norton woman pointed an inflammatory text to the police. Which was used against her boyfriend. Given your posting history you have quite a few of those with your nametag on it. Glass houses, stones and so forth.
20 minutes into the future
...for a supposed journalist. NOTHING you say to police can possibly help you, or anyone else, EVER. Period.
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
It appears to be still valid in federal law, though.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Aaron Swartz is responsible for what happened to Aaron Swartz. Yes, the Feds played hard and dirty, but they didn't invent those tactics with Swartz. When you taunt a rattlesnake, you don't blame the rattlesnake for doing what a rattlesnake does when it bites you.
But I can blame people for behaving like rattlesnakes, and a government for supporting that behavior..
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
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
FYI if you have your lawyer contact the police instead of calling them yourself you might have better luck.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Western society claims to be founded on two principles: democracy and "rule of law". I am disillusioned with both these claims. If there are so many laws that you are likely violating something at any point in time and not every violation is prosecuted, then the situation from enforcing laws is turned on its head to hunting people -- which is precisely what "rule of law" is claimed to not do. Having hierarchically structured political parties that the voter is restricted to chosing from extinguishes the benefits claimed of democracy.
This wasn't voluntary, she wasn't brought before a grand jury. She could have said "I don't know." or "I don't recall." and there's no way to compel her to respond to the prosecuting attorney, however this would have certainly put her in their sites as well. The bottom line here is that she made a human error. Not hubris, in no place did she thing she could outsmart the prosecutors, she simply didn't believe she had anything to share that would warrant prosecution (and as some above points out, if they want to they can and will prosecute you on a ham sandwich and they have the resources to make it stick.)
No, this is all about a witch hurt, a legal lynching, on behalf of wealthy and powerful people everywhere who want to make absolutely certain that peons for freedom, justice, and civil liberty get the smack down. An attitude adjustment that makes it absolutely certain and everyone knows, the powerful make the laws and the powerless get legislated against. The Weak are meat, and the Strong do eat. -OR- Why "Dog eat dog" is a shitty world to live in.
Aaron Swartz is responsible for what happened to Aaron Swartz. Yes, the Feds played hard and dirty, but they didn't invent those tactics with Swartz. When you taunt a rattlesnake, you don't blame the rattlesnake for doing what a rattlesnake does when it bites you.
You entire post sounds like what Aaron did (the JSTOR database publication, not the suicide) was wrong and no one should ever follow him. When we think some law is unjust, we should not challenge it, because the rattlesnake goverment could bite us, we should just stay quiet and swallow it up. Is it what you are trying to say?
I cannot agree with this. People need to challenge things they don't agree with. The evil in this case is the prosecutor and the law which enabled him to buly and threat Aaron with charges of up to 30 years in prison for act with no or minimal damages. Let's not forget this.
And Hiibel v. Nevada isn't applicable to every state, only those with Stop & Identify laws. IIRC Hiibel v. Nevada even mentions this in reference to Kolender v. Lawson.
There is quite a bit of difference between complying with legal requests by a law enforcement officer and answering vague open-ended questions that are superfluous to a LEO's execution of their job. Questions like "Do you know why I pulled you over?", "Why are you in such a hurry?" and my all time favorite: "Is there anything illegal in your possession that I should know about?"
But to be fair, you are absolutely right. When subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury and give testimony there isn't much you can do. And historically federal criminal prosecutors have used subpoena's to force individuals to divulge sensitive information against other members of their family, friends, cliques, groups or organizations. But some subpoena's can be squashed (not saying that is very likely or easy with a federal subpoena...) and most importantly, going in with the mindset and knowledge that you aren't going to some how miraculously say the magic words that make the situation all better is an important piece of information to understand and remember when answering questions. I'm sure a practiced attorney could help coach an individual on how to answer questions and the exact scope of the required complicity a subpoenaed individual most provide.
I.E. if a criminal investigator is asking you questions, they aren't asking you questions to get information to exonerate your friend/family member/self, that is not their job (that is your friend/family's defense attorney's job). They are asking you questions to give them evidence and help them build a case to so they can bring charges and/or convict someone of a crime.
On a side note, I present this quote from Supreme Court Justice of the United States Stephen Breyer, quoted in the oft famous (and I think cited several times on by other commentators on this topic...) "Don't talk to the Police" youtube video, as quoted from Rubin v. United States (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-93.ZD.html)
“...the complexity of modern federal criminal law, codified in several thousand sections of the United States Code and the virtually infinite variety of factual circumstances that might trigger an investigation into a possible violation of the law, make it difficult for anyone to know, in advance, just when a particular set of statements might later appear (to a prosecutor) to be relevant to some such investigation.”
Again, you are absolutely right. There wasn't much Quinn Norton could do when subpoenaed, but still I think this quote is particularly applicable given the context of the situation that Quinn Norton found herself in her unwitting contribution to the miscarriage and perversion of justice executed against Aaron Swartz.
I think subpoenas and discovery motions are two elements of our legal system that are oft abused to the detriment of this nation as a whole. The former by the zealous over-criminalization of America and the latter by copyright attorneys extorting money from individuals otherwise protected from identification by law. This case is just yet another incident of the rampant abuse of our legal system and what saddens and disgusts me is that there isn't much that can be done about it.
Every government official who behaves like a rattlesnake should be relieved of his duties on the spot. If this isn't the case, then Swartz did his part* and we need MUCH more of that. Your government is supposed to represent the people, and if it doesn't, why the hell don't you replace them? It's not like you don't have the power (as opposed to infringing on the rights of individuals or corporations, as they are private entities), that's the very purpose of a democracy!
And don't give me that lethargic-public crap, this case should serve to rally every starry-eyed idealist into kicking the hornets nest harder (it's not supposed to be there in the first place). This is the way res publica works, and many a disobedient citizen has paid dearly for his ideals, but it's the most direct way to make a difference.
* arguably paying with your life can be considered too costly, so he may not have done it "well", but he did more than most in our time.
Which is why you do need a lawyer sitting on your shoulder like Jabba's little freak-monkey, cackling "My client has no recollection of those events. My client cannot speak to another's state of mind."
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
The victim is responsible for what happened to him. Yes, the criminals played hard and dirty, but they didn't invent those tactics with the victim. When you taunt a rattlesnake, you don't blame the rattlesnake for doing what a rattlesnake does when it bites you.
Mundus Vult Decipi
In my youth, I was curious about pretty much every non-mainstream opinion, so I checked them out, either by reading or by meeting with people from the far-left to the far-right of the political spectrum, as well as conspiracy theories, esoteric stuff - well, and of course lots of science and techie things.
In the political area, one thing stuck out so much that I remember it still. No matter if they were left, right, center or just strange, every movement that had some experience in dealing with the police had the same advice: When dealing with the police, here are the two things that you need to do:
1. ask for a lawyer
2. shut up
They aren't kidding when they say that anything you say can and will be used against you. Get a lawyer and talk to him, and him alone. And that is whenever you are dealing with the police, no matter if you are the suspect or not.
Now over the years, I've had quite a bit of friendly contact with the local police force, both privately and professionally (I work in IT security. Sooner or later, you get to deal with the police.)
Still, as a guideline to remember, I think it's pretty good.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Which is why the traditional approach to dealing with reattlesnakes has been to simply shoot them.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
No, that is not what I'm trying to say, or what I said in my post.
I strongly support efforts to roll back increasingly onerous changes in copyright law. (FYI, I want U.S. copyright to go back to the original 28 year limits, and I want to see software patents eliminated.) I can also admire people who commit acts of civil disobedience, even if I don't necessarily agree with their points of view.
The problem is that what Swartz did was not an act of civil disobedience. It was a self-aggrandizing publicity stunt. The entire point of civil disobedience is to admit to what you did and be punished by the authorities in order to publicize what you believe is an unjust law. Had Swartz accepted that initial plea bargain for the single felony conviction, and then read his manifesto to the court during his sentencing, then people would have at least admired his courage and idealism, even if they didn't agree with what he advocated.
Instead, Swartz blamed other people for the mess he got himself into, including his own girlfriend, whom he should have known better than to involve in the first place. The JSTOR publication was a poorly planned ego trip that blew up in Swartz's face, and that is what I disapprove of. It accomplished nothing except to ruin peoples' lives, particularly that of Aaron Swartz.
You might want to check out the recent TV show "The Firm". MC is a defense lawyer (albeit a private defender). IANAL, and I'm not a fan of lawyer shows-- but even I found myself saying "wow, that's some good lawyering". Unfortunately cancelled after its first season, but there is at least one complete and satisfying story arc for the season.
UTF-8: There and Back Again
No, really. This is a law professor explaining why you should never, EVER talk to the police. Watch this. It's almost an hour long, but worth every single second.
Don't Talk to Police
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I think I would still say something if I was in a crowd of witnesses being generally asked questions.
But if they take me in for an interview, I would no longer cooperate. The fact you have been brought in means they have selection bias against you at this point. Best to get a lawyer.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
So your proposal is to have prosecutors who are bad at prosecuting people?
Prosecutors prosecute; that is what they are there for. It's not their job to make the defendant's case for him; that job is defense counsel's. Then a jury weighs the two presentations and decides which one they believe is closer to the facts. It's not a perfect system, but it generally works better than the others.
Read my blog.
It's interesting how the Bill of Rights prevents Congress from passing any law infringing freedom of speech, but yet one can be coerced into testifying before a court or before Congress.
Contradictions in the legal system inherently make it more complex and confusing to ordinary, which tends to create an artificial long term demand for the services of legal professionals. We can presume that the acceptance of the current federal rules on coerced testimony, rules that contradict the written text of the 1st Amendment, reflects unethical conduct on the part of the legal profession.
As the 1st Amendment can reasonably be regarded as being extended with respect to state and local governments by the 14th Amendment, we can also presume unethical conduct on the part of legal professionals who accept rules regarding coerced testimony at these levels.
It would be better to amend the Constitution to have explicit rules governing when the government can coerce testimony. This would both remove the contradiction, and make explicit what the rules actually are.
For example, if a person chooses to testify in a case, it should be possible to engage in a reasonable cross-examination: the Constitutional amendment could permit this.
It is not clear that there is any justification to force a person to testify, except under a limited set of circumstances. We might have a rule where persons can be coerced to testify regarding government service, while in government service or for five years afterwards, subject to reasonable compensation for their time, and also subject to reasonable limitation on scope (merely because a person works for the government does not necessarily authorize the government to engage in a massive violation of their privacy or other fundamental rights: a balance between individual rights and the needs of the public must always be struck).
Similarly, we might have a rule where we can require a person to testify when somebody else's life can reasonably be supposed to be in immediate danger, subject to the limitation that such testimony can not be held against them.
No legitimate government should be able to force a person to reveal a password for personal files.
A hypothesis: "No fair human government may be ever maintained by humans themselves."
If you go ahead with changes to the Constitution, the final and accepted changes will outdo the worst dictatorships that ever existed on the planet.
It's redditors fault. They're such dickhead hipster fucks that he killed himself out of grief at what they turned his beloved site into
http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/19pwgc/i_dont_tip/c8qbpec
Then upvote it. then shut the fuck up, cunt.
I'm getting damn sick of people saying "this comment is best" or "I came here to say this" to try to karma whore. get fucked. No one gives a shit who said it, stop trying to jump on the upvotes train by pretending you came up with the exact same clever thing. Upvote what the other person said and get over it.
This entire website and it's stupid memetic "[FIXED]" posts and the "I see your X and raise you Y," are fucking retarded. Not to mention the whole fuckload of stupid shit where people post this "faith in humanity restored" hippie-dip-bleeding-heart bull shit. This isn't Facebook, I come here to read interesting content, not sit through endless fuckhead attention whores posting "LIKE IF YOU CARE ABOUT CANCER, IF YOU DON'T LIKE I'LL COMMIT SUICIDE" go fucking commit suicide then. Stupid bunch of whiny teenage girls cutting themselves on tumblr, hit an artery and bleed to death. No one will give a shit.
Goddamn it fat people and whiny teenage girls and stupid "feels" people are ruining this goddamn website. People upvote total cunt shit, inane bullshit inspirational posts and whatever other bullshit they can find, including ass-tarded memes. AskReddit has begun to circle, Funny has turned into "cute pictures of mushrooms that look like smiley faces that no one gives a dead horse's last shit about", and politics is 1,000,000 users sucking Barack Obama's dick and making fun of Repubicans. Yeah we get the point. What a bunch of dumbass cunts. or dumb ass-cunts. I really don't care. Romney and Obama were both shit.
No wonder the guy who invented this website shot himself, he had to watch his dream overrun and destroyed by 5 million whiny left-wing-eurofags (oh dont even get me started on the "merica" bullshit. you cunts think we're all fat? cool story, have fun sucking your uppity pussies and running out of money because you can't compete in the global economy anymore). I don't blame him in the least; spending time on this website makes me want to commit suicide too. The stupid upvotes-suck-my-circlejerk-ass-liberal-cunt-woman-feminazi-friendzone-cute-bullshit-sympathy-emo-vagina-dickass-gore posts need to fucking STOP. I believe in free speech but honestly I wish this website would be taken down by the government. You're all fucking abominations to society.
It's all true too. It reminds me of Weev's quote on bloggers
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I first met Weev in an online chat room that I visited while staying at Fortuny's house. "I hack, I ruin, I make piles of money," he boasted. "I make people afraid for their lives." On the phone that night, Weev displayed a misanthropy far harsher than Fortuny's. "Trolling is basically Internet eugenics," he said, his voice pitching up like a jet engine on the runway. "I want everyone off the Internet. Bloggers are filth. They need to be destroyed. Blogging gives the illusion of participation to a bunch of retards. . . . We need to put these people in the oven!"
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
FYI, you are not allowed to have an attorney present while testifying before a grand jury.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
If you study constitutional law, you'll find that changes to the Constitution have been happening almost since the beginning of the country (and that's NOT counting the official amendments).
Unfortunately, many of these changes are "under the radar" of the average person, who is likely to believe (as I have had people tell me) that Constitutional Law has no relevance to them.
I share your skepticism about the likelihood that changes implemented by the current political system would be good. Neither of the two dominant political parties has much interest in reform, and neither does the legal profession.
mod up.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.