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
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=6wXkI4t7nuc
Something I watched a couple years ago, and I think still holds true on the idea of never talking to the police.
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.
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
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.
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...
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 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 point is, if they want to get you then they'll find something on you. If you're a saint, a team of informants can change that.
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.
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.'
...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
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.