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."

22 of 409 comments (clear)

  1. When talking to a prosecutor in the US. by gatkinso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Say absolutely nothing. Every single work spoken to them will come from your lawyers mouth.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    1. Re:When talking to a prosecutor in the US. by dyingtolive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of dude's girlfriends, I will find something in them which will get him to hang himself.

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    2. Re:When talking to a prosecutor in the US. by fermion · · Score: 5, Insightful
      There is a good video about why you should never talk to the police. Look it up on youtube.

      Basically the police are, as the kids say, 'incentivized' to closed cases and get the collar. There is not enough incentive to insure the criminal is caught, especially for cases where the jury is not going to understand the case and convict on the basis that the police said the suspect did it.

      Police are much better at this than any civilian. There is a reason why we have a right to legal representation, and why we should always get it. There is a reason why on TV procedurals the cops are always trying to keep the lawyers away. Remember, anything you say can be used against you in a court of law.

      Just look at the so-called cannibal cop. No evidence that he it is anything other than fantasy, yet he is on trial for conspiracy. Or the kid who was conned into plotting to detonate a bomb by the FBI. He was an impressionable kid, with the same delusions of grandeur of any other kid. (And for those who say he was not a kid, then why can't an adult drink until 21?). He was manipulated by expert government personell into doing something illegal in the same way that many other kids are manipulated into doing illegal things by the religious fanatics. There was no cry for justice here, just some people trying to get a reputation for conviction.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    3. Re:When talking to a prosecutor in the US. by Hatta · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can't actually do this. Grand juries can compel testimony. There are people in prison right now for refusing to testify in front of grand juries. And because it's considered civil contempt, you get no trial, no appeal.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:When talking to a prosecutor in the US. by xappax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When you're called before a Grand Jury in the US, you don't have the right to remain silent. The prosecution can effectively force you to answer questions, and if you refuse, you can be jailed for years.

      It's still good advice to say absolutely nothing, but it's not as simple as most of you seem to believe. By saying nothing, you are condemning yourself to jail.

      This is why pretty much only anarchists refuse to cooperate with Grand Juries, because they have a fundamental ideological opposition to the legal system and will never cooperate with the prosecution, even when their right not to cooperate is suspended. It's one thing to legally exercise your rights, it's another to be willing to go to jail for them.

    5. Re:When talking to a prosecutor in the US. by Looker_Device · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My father, who was the most straight-laced, church-going guy you would ever meet, once told me that if I ever got into trouble and got arrested that the one and *only* thing I was to say to police was "I won't speak to you without my lawyer present." It was pretty shocking to me that my Ned Flanders-esque dad would give me that kind of advice. But the older and more experienced I get, the more I realize that this is exactly the same advice I'm going to give to my son (after telling him to try to avoid getting into trouble to begin with, of course).

      --
      Your political party doesn't care about your rights and only represents corporate interests.
  2. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
  3. Your plan in action by MrEricSir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
    1. Re:Your plan in action by UsuallyReasonable · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't believe that story for a second.

    2. Re:Your plan in action by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "We got your wallet back. Looks like there was a little cocaine in there. Well, maybe the mugger had it, maybe he didn't."

      *handcuffs*

      "Now I can get a warrant to search your phone and house. You have receipts for all this music?"

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  4. Must Watch YouTube Video by scorp1us · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  5. NEVER Talk to LEOs by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  6. Cops too. by naroom · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Cops too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      MOD PARENT UP.
      Don't Talk To Cops is the most informative video to grace the pages of Youtube.

    2. Re:Cops too. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Cops too. by ShakaUVM · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >>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.

  7. Lessons learned by gnujoshua · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  8. Re:We Know by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Naivete kills !! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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.

  10. Re:Naivete kills !! by timholman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    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.

    I am not saying that the prosecutors are not responsible for what happened to Mr. Swartz, they do.

    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.

    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)

    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.

  11. Re:Naivete kills !! by mdielmann · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
  12. Re:Naivete kills !! by pantaril · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.