US Attorney General Defends Handling of Aaron Swartz Case

TrueSatan writes in with the latest in the ongoing Aaron Swartz tragedy. "Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday said the suicide death of internet activist Aaron Swartz was a 'tragedy,' but the hacking case against the 26-year-old was 'a good use of prosecutorial discretion.' The attorney general was testifying at a Justice Department oversight hearing before the Senate Judiciary committee and was facing terse questioning from Sen. John Cornyn (D-Texas). ...Holder stated: 'I think that's a good use of prosecutorial discretion to look at the conduct, regardless of what the statutory maximums were and to fashion a sentence that was consistent with what the nature of the conduct was. And I think what those prosecutors did in offering 3, 4, zero to 6 was consistent with that conduct.' Notwithstanding Holder's testimony, Massachusetts federal prosecutors twice indicted Swartz for the alleged hacking, once in 2011 on four felonies and again last year on 13 felonies. The case included hacking charges under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that was passed in 1984 to enhance the government's ability to prosecute hackers who accessed computers to steal information or to disrupt or destroy computer functionality."

Comments

Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Huge asshole defends being a huge asshole. News at 11.

Re:Duh.

[BAKup]

Don't forget, this asshole is also an asshole that thinks that drone strikes on US citizens on US soil is OK.

Re:Duh.

[anagama]

Or that "due process" as used in the constitution does not mean judicial process, just any kind of process, such as the president making a decision in private based on secret accusations without any oversight.

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/06/attorney_general_holder_defends_execution_without_charges/

Re:Duh.

[boorack]

The same asshole claims that no criminal prosecutions should be launched against big banks because this would "jeopardize whole financial system". Even if this is HSBC laundering drug cartels money en masse and financing Al-Queida terrorist operations (I'm not joking - just search through news from last 3 monts and read this yourself!).

So you see who this asshole is working for - certainly not for you. Not for me. His view of "justice" means serving US oligarchic elites and fuck everyone else. Whole justice system of US is fucked up far beyond repair and if Eric Holder's isn't clear manifestation of this rotteness, then I don't know what is.

Re:Duh.

[slick7]

Don't forget, this asshole is also an asshole that thinks that drone strikes on US citizens on US soil is OK.

Just who, exactly, supplied international narco-terrorists with weapons and Timothy McVeigh et al, with explosives?
We are at war with arrogant criminality on all fronts. Only time will decide the victor.

In other news...

[Fluffeh]

The puppy sitting next to a big poo on the carpet also claims that it wasn't his fault...

Re:In other news...

[girlintraining]

The puppy sitting next to a big poo on the carpet also claims that it wasn't his fault...

Yes, but a puppy is too young to know better. Puppies can be trained not to shit on everything, unlike US Attorney Generals.

All the way to the top.

[symbolset]

Hopefully now they can sweep them all out, from the AG all the way down to the frontline prosecutor. As a warning to others that "Justice" in "Justice Department" is not some vestigal null word.

Re:All the way to the top.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Uh.

What he did was really illegal.

SHOULD it be super illegal? No. Of course not.

We also need a sea change in both jurisprudence and how we view crime. You know part of this is him trying to keep his ass out of hot water in the mainstream press. If we change how we as a people view crime and justice, there wouldn't be this snap call to be "tough on crime."

Rationality has left our culture. It's happening on both sides, but in Swartz's defense, and those who are outraged by Holder and everyone involved, now is not the time for well reasoned disconnected logic.

Someone died because a prosecutor turned the screw over an incident where no money was lost, no lives were lost and by all measure, relatively harmless.

To blame Holder or the prosecutor specifically ignores the bigger social context at work. That needs to change. We need to not forget what happened here.

Re:All the way to the top.

[CncRobot]

Why would you think this would happen? After the 200+ people killed in Mexico because of him and he doesn't even have to answer questions about it, why would he even have to be bothered admitting this happened?

Re:All the way to the top.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

This vaguely sounded disconnected and appealing to rationality when that was the thing I was arguing against.

I advocate for well reasoned and thoughtful outrage.

Re:All the way to the top.

[Scutter]

Fast and Furious wasn't enough to even make him break a sweat. Hell, Waco happened and Janet Reno skated. This won't even be a blip on the DOJ's radar.

Re:All the way to the top.

[Mitreya]

What he did was really illegal.

SHOULD it be super illegal? No. Of course not.

This is not the issue.
The problem is that plea-bargaining mechanism (an abomination in itself) leads to situation where to get 6 months (!) he was threatened with something like 30 or 50 years (yes, yes, federal guidelines, blah blah, but the judge would have discretion and it could lead to a lot more than 6 months)

Prosecutors should be barred from piling on an unreasonable number of charges just to scare the defendant into plea bargain.

Re:All the way to the top.

[girlintraining]

What he did was really illegal.

Whether something is illegal or not has no bearing on whether it is ethical or moral. And there are also shades of illegality. It is, for example, illegal to be publicly intoxicated, and yet if you go downtown you are sure to spot drunk people parading about, along with many police officers watching them do so. There's a reason why public intoxication is illegal, just as there are equally compelling reasons why the officers don't give a damn. Morality and ethics is the short answer.

You know part of this is him trying to keep his ass out of hot water in the mainstream press.

Do you mean the corpse, or the attorney general? I'm going to go with attorney general: His ass isn't in hot water. It's his job to ensure that the laws are applied fairly, and that the laws themselves are fair. As long as he's doing his job, he should have nothing to fear. So if his ass is in the proverbial hot water, then it's because he wasn't doing his job properly, which in turn means myself, and many others, are quite pleased to see him get a thorough roasting for causing a situation so repugnant.

If we change how we as a people view crime and justice, there wouldn't be this snap call to be "tough on crime."

You're assuming that an enhanced understanding of the problem will solve it. That illusion is one of mankind's oldest.

Rationality has left our culture.

That implies it was ever present. Even tracing back to the very foundations of our society, we can find plenty of examples of how irrationality dragged us forward. One might even argue that a dose of irrationality is exactly what's needed sometimes -- if you are known for having a strongly vindictive nature, then even though someone may be stronger than you and able to beat you up, they may leave you alone because you're simply not worth the effort. Is being vindictive rational? No of course not: It could earn you an ass pounding! And yet, counterintuitively, that's exactly what it prevents.

Someone died because a prosecutor turned the screw over an incident where no money was lost, no lives were lost and by all measure, relatively harmless.

No, someone committed suicide because society had no place for them. What he was doing may have had value to him, but society as a whole has, through its legal system, has made it so even in cases where there is no financial or physical harm to others, said that what he was doing had no value. Since what he was doing was at the core of who he was (obviously, since it drove him to kill himself when he was deprived of it), it is more accurate to say society had no place for him. Whether that's moral, or ethical, right, or wrong, I leave to you. But that is why he died.

To blame Holder or the prosecutor specifically ignores the bigger social context at work.

The larger social context here is that nobody gives a damn. It's apathy and indifference on a mass scale. There's no need to make vague motions towards a "larger social context", as though that means something more than "people are fucking self-centered, lazy assholes." It doesn't sound as academic, as intellectual, to say that, but it's closer to the truth.

Re:All the way to the top.

[girlintraining]

This won't even be a blip on the DOJ's radar.,

"Guantanamo Bay called sir, something about not being on the radar? They say we're routinely torturing the shit out of hundreds of people for years at a go, and they are kept on suicide watch all the time because if they had the chance, every single one of them would kill themselves in moments."

DOJ: "I thought I told you I wanted a LIGHTLY toasted bagel! Wait, what were you saying again?"

Re:All the way to the top.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

The larger social context here is that nobody gives a damn. It's apathy and indifference on a mass scale. There's no need to make vague motions towards a "larger social context", as though that means something more than "people are fucking self-centered, lazy assholes." It doesn't sound as academic, as intellectual, to say that, but it's closer to the truth.

It's also really fucking lazy. Because this isn't about JUST Swartz.

How many people are in prison or on death row or even dead because prosecutors are under pressure to get convictions? Or how many Governors are just simply unwilling to grant pardons or approve parole because of Willie Horton?

Ignoring why is so superficial and what's wrong with our political system right now. No amount of voter or finance reform will matter unless we stop responding to having hot buttons pressed and giving into sensationalization. Our problem is a lack of nuance, not ethics. No one wants to sit through a longer news story or have to hear about the grey areas.

I don't know if this is historical or not, but that's the problem.

Right now the media is reporting that Eric Holder will not rule out the use of drone strikes on American soil.

What they didn't report on is that even military intervention is such an extreme reaction to anything that it's generally not anything we have to worry about. It's an extremely extraordinary circumstance, the weight of which is lost in the cultural zeitgeist.

Re:All the way to the top.

[Wrath0fb0b]

Whether something is illegal or not has no bearing on whether it is ethical or moral. And there are also shades of illegality. It is, for example, illegal to be publicly intoxicated, and yet if you go downtown you are sure to spot drunk people parading about, along with many police officers watching them do so. There's a reason why public intoxication is illegal, just as there are equally compelling reasons why the officers don't give a damn. Morality and ethics is the short answer.

And whether it is ethical or moral has nothing to do with the Executive's job, who have sworn to faithfully execute the laws, not to faithfully execute their own ethical and moral judgment.

I am far more terrified of an Attorney General that decides to start pursuing their own internal sense of justice than one who tries to reliably and impartially implement the Constitution and the law. In the former case, he would be essentially unbounded -- free to do anything he though was right and proper. In the latter, he might do (admittedly stupid) things like imposing penalties based on the (idiotically drafted) CFAA but at there exists some limiting principle to his actions (the law) and some balancing branch (Congress) to his power.

Re:All the way to the top.

[Rashkae]

The 'crime' here was violatoin of terms of service. It was the equivalent of having out too many library books at the same time. It is the *same* Federal crime as creating a Facebook or Google+ profile under an assumed name.

Prosecuters refused any plea bargain that did not involve jail time because Aaron was politically emberassing to some.

Re:All the way to the top.

[fredprado]

No, someone committed suicide because society had no place for them. What he was doing may have had value to him, but society as a whole has, through its legal system, has made it so even in cases where there is no financial or physical harm to others, said that what he was doing had no value. Since what he was doing was at the core of who he was (obviously, since it drove him to kill himself when he was deprived of it), it is more accurate to say society had no place for him. Whether that's moral, or ethical, right, or wrong, I leave to you. But that is why he died.

You make it sound as if the legal system represents society's will, which is obviously not the true (and never was). Society had a place for him, but those who rule did not, and despite any illusions you may have of living in a democracy, rest assured those who rule are not the people.

Re:All the way to the top.

[symbolset]

Let me guess... Colorado?

Re:All the way to the top.

[vux984]

People have funny ideas about how the justice system works.

In that they simply would like to see justice?

Re:All the way to the top.

[funwithBSD]

This is the guy that gyrated for quite some time today trying to avoid a simple question:

It is constitutional legal to use a drone to kill a US citizen, on US soil, if he does not present a clear and present danger?

"It would be inappropriate." - Eric Holder

Re:All the way to the top.

[ohnocitizen]

Precisely. How much credibility does Holder have left, after essentially saying the 5th amendment does not exist?

Re:All the way to the top.

[Jane Q. Public]

"Uh. What he did was really illegal."

Uh. No, it wasn't.

He had authorization to download files from the source in question, though the TOS said he was not authorized to do it automatically. He wasn't "stealing" anything, or even violating copyright.

He had authorization to be on campus. A sign said he did not have authorization to be in that particular room. BUT... it is important to note that he simply walked through the door. He did not "break and enter" or pick any locks or anything of that nature.

All Aaron Swartz violated were other peoples' rules. He didn't violate any laws. Despite government's claim that violation of TOS amounts to violation of CFAA, that is a ridiculous -- I mean really, really ludicrous -- "interpretation" of the law. It is clear as an azure sky of deepest summer that Congress did not intend that when it passed the law. Sooner or later, somebody will demonstrate that in court and the prosecution's whole theory will be out the window, as it should be. (Arguably, Swartz was in an ideal position to do exactly that, but he opted for a different "solution".)

So, he violated a TOS. As for entering that room... technically, I don't think he's even guilty of trespass. The sign apparently did say "Do Not Enter" or maybe "Authorized Personnel Only" but those are ambiguous. They are not the same as a "No Trespassing, This Means You" sign.

So the only conceivable thing that Swartz was guilty of (unless you are a Federal prosecutor, who is apparently capable of conceiving some pretty wild and stupid things) was trespassing, and even that is shaky.

Re:All the way to the top.

[Jane Q. Public]

Violation of TOS is breach of contract at most. A civil matter, not even a crime, and nowhere near a felony. The notion that violating a TOS is also a violation of CFAA would mean that anybody could make their own laws, simply by writing them into the TOS on their website. The very idea is ridiculous.

Re:All the way to the top.

[chrismcb]

Uh.

What he did was really illegal.

Says who? That was what the trial was for, but it didn't happen.

Re:All the way to the top.

[Ash Vince]

"Uh. What he did was really illegal."

Uh. No, it wasn't.

He had authorization to download files from the source in question, though the TOS said he was not authorized to do it automatically. He wasn't "stealing" anything, or even violating copyright.

The things is though, we all know he intended to violate copyright by distributing what he had downloaded to other people who did not have access to it. that was the point of what he was doing.

Read the following: http://archive.org/details/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto

Now tell me you don't honestly believe that he had every intention of violating copyright law.

Whether you believe in what he was doing is one thing (I actually kind of do), but lets not bullshit about his intentions: He had no respect for a bullshit state of affairs that is enshrined in law and he had every intention of breaking the law to bypass it.

Re:All the way to the top.

[Seumas]

Exactly. And fifteen days of minor inconvenience for a few people that might have utilized this service from your campus demands the individual responsible for excessive use of that access (and violation of a TOS -- oh noes!) spend the rest of their life in prison, among hardened criminals.

Re:All the way to the top.

[andydread]

...rest assured those who rule are not the people.

+1

Re:All the way to the top.

[DarkOx]

Correct we have someone being threatened with 30 years because of what amounts to trespassing a violating a click thru contract. Aaron's death is nobodies fault but his own, he his life he had agency in that. That does not make the behavior of the state any less disgusting this man was abused and threaten with punishments that in no way fit the crime.

Frankly it's people like Eric holder who should be stood against the wall.

Re:All the way to the top.

[Ash Vince]

No, someone committed suicide because society had no place for them. What he was doing may have had value to him, but society as a whole has, through its legal system, has made it so even in cases where there is no financial or physical harm to others, said that what he was doing had no value. Since what he was doing was at the core of who he was (obviously, since it drove him to kill himself when he was deprived of it), it is more accurate to say society had no place for him. Whether that's moral, or ethical, right, or wrong, I leave to you. But that is why he died.

You make it sound as if the legal system represents society's will, which is obviously not the true (and never was). Society had a place for him, but those who rule did not, and despite any illusions you may have of living in a democracy, rest assured those who rule are not the people.

Are you sure about that?

I reckon there is a very good chance he good have opted for a jury trial and been found guilty. His lawyer will probably have warned him this was a distinct possibility too. That is not to say it was a certainty he would be found guilty, but there have been less likely things happen in courts of law with regard to juries.

The reality is that a majority of the population seem to support law of copyright and think that people like him who advocate breaking laws they do not agree with (read his manifesto to see that he does just this: http://archive.org/details/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto) actually do deserve to be punished for it, especially if they are caught trying to break those laws themselves. He might have been caught very early in the process, but a prosecutor friendly jury may well have found him guilty anyway based on his stated intent.

The best place to start looking to change copyright law in the manner Aaron desired is by trying to convince the public that the law needs to change.

If his lawyer had advised him it was a joke prosecution and he was never going to be found guilty then he probably would still be alive (assuming his suicide was anything to do with his legal problems).

Re:All the way to the top.

[fredprado]

He could have found guilty, and even if he was that does not mean society had no place for him.

Firstly a jury is not a representation of the will of the majority of the population. Not even close to that. And even if they were they still need to follow the law.

Secondly the laws that were thrown upon him were not the will of the population. In today's America laws do not reflect what people want. You can't possibly defend that US population want 100+ year copyright terms, can you?

And last, but not least, the majority of the population does not support copyright law. That is clear when you see how many people think it is ok to share songs, for example. I don't know anyone that it shouldn't be allowed, for example, or who haven't done that since the time of K7 tapes.

All your equivocated ideas stem for your belief that you live in a democracy, which is just an illusion.

Re:All the way to the top.

[pnutjam]

You sound white, well-educated, and from a relatively privileged background.
Has anyone ever crossed the street when they see you walking? Do you elicit nervous glances when you are waiting at the bus stop? Have you ever taken a bus or some form of public transportation? Have you ever been in court or been arrested? Have you ever been threatened with bogus charges by a police officer who thinks you are being disrespectful?

Re:All the way to the top.

[dywolf]

What you say is true.

However, Holder is a giant stain upon this country who was responsible for determining how to legally kill american citizens with drones. terrorists? yeah. really bad dudes? yeah.

but still american citizens under the law, and either that law means something, or it doesnt.
and now he wont rule out the same legal tactics to kill an american citizen on american soil.

he didnt say he would.
but also didnt say he wouldnt.

he just said they hadnt done it yet.
and that is scary as all hell.

Re:All the way to the top.

[dgatwood]

What they didn't report on is that even military intervention is such an extreme reaction to anything that it's generally not anything we have to worry about. It's an extremely extraordinary circumstance, the weight of which is lost in the cultural zeitgeist.

The reason it wasn't reported on is that the unusualness of the circumstances in which it might be appropriate is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is Holder's unwillingness to define a position on the subject, and his unwillingness to define any sort of bounds on the situations in which such attacks would be appropriate.

The answer to whether drone strikes against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil are legal is almost always a very resounding "No", because of the Posse Comitatus Act, several of the amendments in the bill of rights, and probably half a dozen other reasons. The only situation in which it might even remotely be legal would be if we were in a state of war, Congress had suspended habeas corpus, and forces that included U.S. citizens were actively waging war against the United States. In other words, nothing short of a second U.S. Civil War would be grounds for such an action. And if he had stated it that way, I would have been okay with it, because those bounds would make it clear why such strikes are unlikely to ever occur.

But he didn't do that. He hedged. He refused to give an answer to what should have been a simple question, and in my experience, that is almost always a sign of deliberate deception—as though he won't answer it because he suspects that it will happen, and soon. In fact, were it not for my natural assumption that any such action would likely have been noticed and reported by someone, his reaction would have been enough to make me suspect that perhaps such a drone attack on U.S. soil had already happened, maybe as an inadvertent border patrol action.

This isn't going to go away. The U.S. needs clear policies on the use of drones within our borders, both for military use and for law enforcement use. And until that happens, people with fringe agendas like Rand Paul are going to continue getting far more air time than they rightfully deserve.

Re:All the way to the top.

[Jane Q. Public]

"The things is though, we all know he intended to violate copyright by distributing what he had downloaded to other people who did not have access to it. that was the point of what he was doing."

So what? (1) Keep in mind that an intent is not a commission. Unless you want to get into the area of thought crime. And (2) copyright violation of the sort he may have intended is still not a felony.

As far as THIS prosecution was concerned, what he intended by violating the TOS still doesn't make it a crime.

Re:All the way to the top.

[genkernel]

Violation of TOS is breach of contract at most. A civil matter, not even a crime, and nowhere near a felony. The notion that violating a TOS is also a violation of CFAA would mean that anybody could make their own laws, simply by writing them into the TOS on their website. The very idea is ridiculous.

Ah, but but doesn't the DMCA already cause the breakage of any digital lock to become a violation of the law? This is just a logical extension of that sort of thinking is it not? "Digital Trespassing" oh the possibilities...

Re:All the way to the top.

[The Wild Norseman]

While we're at it, let's also make sure he has to be nice to the defendant, and tell him he's a pretty defendant, and a good defendant. Gimmie a break, it's his job to be a hard-ass.

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

But, I find it odd that you think that being sappy polite is a reasonable alternative to piling 50 years' worth of crimes -- all of which are questionable at best -- just in order to force a defendant to cave under severe emotional distress just so your hard-ass can add another star to his little report card.

If you think you can win on the merits of your case, then tell him to eat a bag of dicks, and have your public defender loaded for bear.

Or how about the prosecutor take the best charge s/he can think of and go into court as a neutral party. A prosecutor doesn't have a dog in this fight; why give them one with the only metric they are measured by is simply the number of convictions they get?

Nobody's saying you can't have your day in court...

Technically, no. Realistically, hell yes. The prosecutors put heavy, heavy pressure on all the defendants to take a deal when they have a weak case. Everyone knows it, including the defendant, who knows his/her only choice is which end of the shit sandwich to eat first.

...and nobody says the prosecutor has to offer you anything but that.

And the only reason they offer it is when they know they're case is weak. Or maybe you can tell me of all the slam-dunk cases against drug kingpins or serial killers prosecutors take and make a lowly plea bargain.

Everyone needs to face the fact that the only reason that plea bargains are offered is to try and deal with the overwhelming amount of cases. Why are there so many cases? Because there are way too many arrests for way to many stupid laws.

Bargaining before the trial is optional -- you have no right to it.

There should be severe limitations to the prosecutors bringing charges -- besides the severely compromised grand jury system -- in the first place.

People have funny ideas about how the justice system works. As if offering someone a bad deal is somehow a crime! Hey, I wanna sell my crappy car for one billion dollars, arrest me! Or you know, just don't buy my car for a billion dollars. That's how bargaining works -- you start high and work your way down. Admittedly, most people start off a less than 10,000% above the actual value, but there's nothing against you or I making ludicrious demands at the bargaining table, so why them?

Equating a car deal with potentially spending your entire fucking life in prison is ridiculous. Maybe in the history of slashdot, this was the worst time to use a car analogy.

You have no right to a plea bargain, but you do have the right to a jury of your peers. If you think 12 other people are going to call bullshit on the prosecution, then rock on with your socks on. But don't bitch that you didn't get a sweet deal from the prosecutor... he doesn't have to offer it.

This isn't bitching about not getting a "sweet deal from the prosecutor."

It's about exposing a broken part of the criminal justice system.

Re:All the way to the top.

[Ash Vince]

"The things is though, we all know he intended to violate copyright by distributing what he had downloaded to other people who did not have access to it. that was the point of what he was doing."

So what? (1) Keep in mind that an intent is not a commission. Unless you want to get into the area of thought crime. And (2) copyright violation of the sort he may have intended is still not a felony.

As far as THIS prosecution was concerned, what he intended by violating the TOS still doesn't make it a crime.

Well there must have been some reason that there was a reasonably likelihood of conviction or Aaron's lawyer would have told him not to worry about it. I am certainly not a lawyer (or even US resident) so I have no idea, although here in the UK if the police stop you in the process of committing a crime but it is obvious you were going to commit it if not stopped (to the jury) then you can still be found guilty.

One example of this is shoplifting, you can be stopped by plain clothes store detectives as soon as you put something in your pocket if it would be obvious you were not going to pay. Usually they will actually let you walk out of the store first as that makes conviction easier but legally they do not have to.

On another note though if he was innocent, then maybe his committing suicide had nothing to do with his prosecution. I am assuming he had a lawyer of some kind who was able to tell him if what he did was illegal or not better than you or I in which case by your logic his lawyer would have told him this was a bullshit case and a jury would never convict and ultimately they would drop the charges or he would be found not guilty. If his lawyer was not telling him this then maybe his lawyer should be in the dock instead.

Re:All the way to the top.

[Ash Vince]

And last, but not least, the majority of the population does not support copyright law. That is clear when you see how many people think it is ok to share songs, for example. I don't know anyone that it shouldn't be allowed, for example, or who haven't done that since the time of K7 tapes.

Are you sure? Try asking your parents, or some of their friends.

I know plenty of people who believe in copyright law. As you get older you probably will too. The simple fact is that if you ask most people in the 30-80 age group then they come out much more conservative than people in the 18-30 age group and there are far more of them.

All your equivocated ideas stem for your belief that you live in a democracy, which is just an illusion.

I used to think like that when I was young and all the old people voting meant my beliefs were drowned out. Nowadays I think things are not so simple. We definitely have elections every once in a while, and we can all definitely vote in them. We might often have some shitty choices but it is still democracy of a kind.

Also, it is worth noting that even in countries where the have proportional representation (a much fairer system in my opinion as it allows votes for smaller parties to still carry some weight) the pirate party is still a tiny minority compared to the others.

The simple fact that young people have to deal with is that most old people are scared shitless about the change that getting rid of copyright law would ensue and whether it would damage our economy even if it would not affect them directly. Even if us oldies do not agree with every element of law we often do not want them changed as we have spent more time adjusting ourselves to the status quo.

But most of this you will probably only understand in 10 or 20 years. Until then, try and ask more old people (parents, lecturers, teachers, etc) about copyright law and see where they stand. You might be surprised.

Re:All the way to the top.

[symbolset]

I think that you and me, we're from different sides of the railroad tracks. The view is different from here and the things you hold as incontrovertible truths from your side are, literally jokes on this side. And yet we're talking about the same courts. It's almost as if we lived in different dimensions, yet you might only be one zip-code away from me. This dichotomy itself makes a joke of "justice".

Re:All the way to the top.

[symbolset]

I am far more terrified of an Attorney General that decides to start pursuing their own internal sense of justice than one who tries to reliably and impartially implement the Constitution and the law.

Well then. It's time to be terrified.

Derp

[girlintraining]

The case included hacking charges under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that was passed in 1984 to enhance the government's ability to

... be so overly vague as to make anyone who uses a computer for any reason, by any method, a felon? Because that act is the quintessential example of how not to do it, and it's quoted by law professors all over the country as a shining example of the problems caused by strict liability laws.

Re:Derp

[Anonymous Coward]

how not to do it? Your government controls you. every BIT of you.
People in America think they are free and moral.
They are neither.

Re:Derp

[Mitreya]

vague as to make anyone who uses a computer for any reason, by any method, a felon?

Yes!
And the best part is that with such vague laws, the prosecutor could decide to go after anyone they want. The laws don't have to be enforced -- everyone is a felon and can be charged as needed.

There should be a law requiring to pursue existing charges against everyone and not based on prosecutor discretion. That would cut down on ridiculous laws overnight.

Re:Derp

[girlintraining]

There should be a law requiring to pursue existing charges against everyone and not based on prosecutor discretion. That would cut down on ridiculous laws overnight.

There wouldn't be anyone left then, except perhaps newborns... who would promptly starve to death since any adult capable of taking care of them would be in jail. It would, quite literally, be the end of human life in this country -- there is no person alive who doesn't commit a crime deserving of jail every week in the course of his/her everyday activities.

And you don't need vague laws for prosecutors to go after anyone they want... it just makes it easier. All you need is a big helping of the just world hypothesis and a side of Milgram's obedience experiments to clean up anyone who doesn't get suckered by the first one.

This is the morality sieve in every culture that has allowed freedom and liberty to de-evolve into tyranny and abuse of power: Anyone hurt by it deserved it and anyone who disagrees vocally enough to start convincing others this is not the case will be punished, and naturally then, they deserved it too. As far as why people go along with things they clearly know are wrong or hurtful... it's because they're afraid of being punished by The Authorities. But here's the real interesting thing... when you add in a helping of Bureaucracy, then you can have an abstract authority where no one person is responsible. When you divide responsibility amongst even a small number of people, then nobody takes responsibility, nobody is at fault, and the process continues on its merry, eating people left and right. "I was just following orders."

Re:Derp

[CodeBuster]

People in America think they are free and moral.

More free still than most, but definitely losing them. As for morals, we gave those up years ago.

Re:Derp

[phantomfive]

there is no person alive who doesn't commit a crime deserving of jail every week in the course of his/her everyday activities.

I hear that stated a lot, but I've never been convinced. What laws are these normal people breaking every day that would put them in jail? Are you sure this isn't just hyperbole?

Don't get me wrong, I know there are laws on the books that are ridiculous, and I think it should be simplified, I'm just not convinced that most people break laws deserving of jail every day.

Re:Derp

[arf_barf]

One could argue that being oppressed and knowing it, is better than being too stupid to know that you are being oppressed. At least in the former case, you can still yell out loud: You can take my life but you will never take my freedom ;-)

Re:Derp

[fredprado]

http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx

Re:Derp

[FuzzNugget]

Oh, c'mon, every week? You're exaggerating.

It's every day.

Re:Derp

[phantomfive]

I've seen that book, but it's not very convincing. I haven't committed any of those felonies in the last week, or even in the last year. I can't even call in sick to get a sick day off, because I don't have sick days.

So yes, I know there are laws that are overly broad, but it's not very convincing that everyone commits felonies that could land them in jail every week.

Re:Derp

[fredprado]

I am quite sure you think nothing of this would apply to you, until it does. But you can rest assured that there are a few thousands more laws that can and will apply to you if a prosecutor ever feel the need to stretch them a little.

Re:Derp

[phantomfive]

If that's all you have to offer, then there is no point left. All your evidence has vanished to speculation. I appreciate the effort, though.

Re:Derp

[Seumas]

Most Americans don't know that they're being oppressed, happily give up their freedoms, and relish the opportunity to strip others of theirs -- especially if it is in pursuit of pushing their own personal (usually religious) morality, while they're at it.

Re:Derp

[L4t3r4lu5]

There wouldn't be anyone left then, except perhaps newborns... who would promptly starve to death since any adult capable of taking care of them would be in jail.

Good.

Nope, nothing more. Just "Good." Something drastic needs to happen, and until thousands are imprisoned every day for doing nothing more than crossing the street or downloading a song, it won't change.

Think of this corruption as an infection, or cancer. Up to a certain point you can treat the symptoms and let your natural immune system work out the problems. After that, though? Well, sometimes you just have to remove a limb so the whole can survive.

Re:Derp

[Pav]

A guy I know through some relations of mine purchased a car, and police started following him around and booking him for the slightest traffic infraction. This guy is a better driver than most, but pretty soon he'd lost his license. Then his wife started being hassled after she started driving the vehicle. They sold the car and the problems stopped. This was not a sporty vehicle or a rust bucket, and they aren't sure to this day what the problem was. I'm sure if the police wanted to pin a "dangerous driving" charge to him they would have found an excuse and put him away.

Re:Derp

[poofmeisterp]

The case included hacking charges under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that was passed in 1984 to enhance the government's ability to

... be so overly vague as to make anyone who uses a computer for any reason, by any method, a felon? Because that act is the quintessential example of how not to do it, and it's quoted by law professors all over the country as a shining example of the problems caused by strict liability laws.

You know, I've always wondered how many misdemeanors and felonies I've committed without any knowledge of having done so. I'm not being an ass; I'm serious. If you go through the laws in every state, as well as federal, with a fine tooth comb, I'm sure there is something that everyone has done with absolutely no idea they were doing it any where no one else knew or cared.

Just something to think about to keep the head a'spinnin'.

Re:Derp

[phantomfive]

Weird. What kind of car was it?

Re:Derp

[fredprado]

I don't need to find the specific case that applies to you to show how easy is to indict and convict someone for trivial stuff in US. The book does this very well, by the way. Even the cases in the site already do, to tell the truth. Now if you are really interested in seeing how you could be arbitrarily screwed by a prosecutor chances are there is at least a case or two in the book that would apply to you, and in the odd possibility that there is not you only need to read the Federal Law code and you will find it.

But by all means if you find reassuring to remain ignorant and deny reality, do it as much as you see fit. It is well within your right.

Re:Derp

[phantomfive]

I don't need to find the specific case that applies to you to show how easy is to indict and convict someone for trivial stuff in US.

Do you understand that there is a difference between "you can convict someone for trivial stuff in the US" and "everyone commits three felonies every day?"

The first is a problem, yes, I agree, and I support changing it. But the second is lifting things to a completely different arena.

Re:Derp

[fredprado]

The name of the book and its accuracy is irrelevant to our argument in hand. The original claim in this thread was:

There is no person alive who doesn't commit a crime deserving of jail every week in the course of his/her everyday activities..

Considering how trivial it is to convict someone for trivial crimes (as we both seem to agree) it doesn't really matter if you commit in average three felonies a day, one felony a week, or even one a year, you will end in jail as long as a prosecutor wants you there. even if the exact figure the original poster claims can be challenged the idea remains the same.

Re:Derp

[phantomfive]

The exact figure is the only point I cared about, as mentioned. Don't distract to other issues.

Re:Derp

[fredprado]

Then you are more ignorant than I thought.

Not long for this administration

[Hangtime]

Between Fast and Furious, Swartz, and now giving the OK on drone strikes against US citizens in America - he doesn't have a friend in the world, he has ticked off everyone.

Re:Not long for this administration

[mkiwi]

Between Fast and Furious, Swartz, and now giving the OK on drone strikes against US citizens in America - he doesn't have a friend in the world, he has ticked off everyone.

Don't worry, there are still plenty of people drinking the Kool-aid. People tend to chain themselves to a particular ideology because it makes life easier to absorb. The "us vs. them" mentality is a basic human survival mechanism.

What will be interesting to find out is how Obama is perceived after the "not so nice" parts of his healthcare law take effect in a couple years––then scholars truly can debate who was worse, Bush II or Obama.

Re:Not long for this administration

[fustakrakich]

Not so. Obama worship goes way beyond the props given to Reagan during his time.

Re:Not long for this administration

[the eric conspiracy]

Election and popularity poll results provide evidence that your idea is baloney.

Re:Not long for this administration

[hermitdev]

You forget, we (the American populace), not I, reelected this administration already knowing about Fast & Furious and the drone strikes.

But, Swartz *did* break the law as it stands now. And, it appears he did so knowingly. And, rather than work to change the law, he decided he was above it and broke it. As such, he deserved to be prosecuted. He didn't work to change the law, he just wantonly broke it. As such, they brought down the hammer on him. He wanted access to a system he didn't have legal access to. Sure, it was just to download research docs from an educational system. But, what it if was financial records from a bank? He would have performed the same act, but against a different target. How is this different? HE. BROKE. THE. LAW. And did so knowingly.

Were the criminal penalties Swartz was facing just? I'm not sure. But, he did break the law as stands, and should have been prosecuted for it. If you selectively enforce a law, it loses are baring and effectiveness, and arguably could have been used as precedent in future cases, with more severe consequences, to dismiss a case. Common law sucks in that regard.

Re:Not long for this administration

[hermitdev]

Having only read part of the law and listening to the repeated propaganda and "your taxes will not go up" under "Obamacare": I can tell you one thing: my taxes immediately went up $6K/yr after the very first parts of that law took effect. And that's not even counting my increased health care contributions my employers takes out of my check, or the increased copay (copay went up 50% the very first year, is now up 250% from year previous to Obamacare's passing).

I said it then, and I'll say it now: If you haven't personally read the entirety of the text of a law you're voting on, you have no business voting on the law. Party politics aside, Pelosi's comment "We'll know what this bill says when we pass it" ought to have been enough alone to impeach her.

Re:Not long for this administration

[phantomfive]

Except Obama?

Re:Not long for this administration

[Rashkae]

Not exactly correct. He *did* have legal access to Jstore. Where his mistepped is creating a automatic "spider" to fetch the articles for him, against terms and service.

Re:Not long for this administration

[JWW]

Just to pile on the, with all due respect, horseshit prosecutor that handled Aaron's case.

She's also responsible for trying to seize a hotel from its owners because a couple of drug deals happened there. It didn't matter to her that the owners helped the police and were not at all involved other than renting out rooms.

Again with all due respect, this prosecutor shold have already resigned in disgrace for this.

Our legal system has no honor when the officers of the court behave worse than the supposed criminals.

Re:Not long for this administration

[hermitdev]

I was commenting irrespective of the prosecutor. I understand there are/have been other shady things. In the perfect world of my mind, a prosecutor should execute all violations of law to their fullest extent. Unjust/illegal/unconstitutional/improper laws ought either be overturned by the judiciary or rewritten by the legislature. It's not the job or role of the executive branch to decide what laws should be enforced.

Re:Not long for this administration

[Seumas]

Who cares which president was worse? They were both fucking incredibly detrimental to the country and the next guy will be, too. We have crossed a threshold and we won't ever be back to pre 9-11 days. Things will only become more restrictive and absurd and the justification for them more ludicrous. The things we've lost in the last dozen years are things which you don't get back without starting over from a clean slate and that will never ever happen in this country.

Re:Not long for this administration

[Seumas]

My understanding of the case is that Swartz "broke the law" int he same way that Slashdot telling me "you can't mass download content from Slashdot" when I create my account here and then writing a spider that ignores robots.txt and the terms of service when I signed up and just crawls and downloads all the Slashdot content.

Hell, plenty of companies and web services are guilty of that, due to poor writing of their spiders that go nuts (sometimes even crushing their victims, by accident) until they catch on and fix them.

Re:Not long for this administration

[Hatta]

Were the criminal penalties Swartz was facing just? I'm not sure.

What the fuck is wrong with you. There is no ambiguity here. Years in federal prison for downloading something is unjust. There is absolutely no concievable justification for that. How can you not be sure that this was unjust?

Re:Not long for this administration

[fustakrakich]

You gotta show some proof of that, bub. The elections, then and now, showed just exactly how popular both of them really are. All the other media polls are completely irrelevant. Both of them are the most charismatic people since Kennedy, despite all the abuses they have committed, and it shows. And if the republicans really didn't like Obama, they would have put up a real candidate with a chance of winning. But they didn't need to because their policies are not being challenged by anybody. The crimes against Swartz and the rest of us will go unpunished. In fact, it really wouldn't have mattered if a republican did the same thing, because they already did, The opposition is noisy, but scattered and ineffective. There would be some yelling and screaming, but in the end, the election always goes their way. You don't have to believe me, but when you look who is in power, your post isn't exactly accurate. And furthermore, there is no opposition between the two factions, only bickering over methodology. If you vote for one, you're voting for the other also.

"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican." -- Obama

Truth is you can still say that about him. Personally, I don't consider him "moderate" at all. He is as authoritarian as any other. And he remains very popular, for all the wrong reasons. So was, and is, Reagan. His dead body could beat a real moderate, such as Barbara Lee or Dennis Kucinich.

Re:Not long for this administration

[slick7]

Between Fast and Furious, Swartz, and now giving the OK on drone strikes against US citizens in America - he doesn't have a friend in the world, he has ticked off everyone.

But he does have some very strong neck muscles from looking over his shoulder every minute or so.

Re:Not long for this administration

[hermitdev]

What the fuck is wrong with me? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Years in federal prison for downloading something is unjust.

What did he download, what methods did employ to do so? You "information should be free" types are living in a la-la land. What if the information was your banking codes? What if he then used that to bankrupt you? What if he downloaded nuclear launch codes, then used that or gave it to someone that launched one or more? Should that info be free?

Understandably, in this context, he downloaded research papers. Where's the harm in that? While I'm no fan of the MPIA/RIAA cartel, I do believe in a limited form of copyright. He did violate copyright laws. And from what I've read, he also committed wire fraud and possibly identity theft in order to gain his unlawful physical access, which led to criminal trespass.

Despite his intentions, he is no saint. He, like you and I, need to be held accountable for our actions under the law.

The penalties are likely too severe, as they seem to exceed those of if you were to say deal drugs or murder someone. But, the laws aren't written, in this case to take into account what was stolen, just that it was.

Eric Holder: Guilty Of Murder ?

[Anonymous Coward]

By his own words is Eric Holder, Sec. of Justice, guilty of murder ?

Can charges of premeditated murder be leveled against Eric Holder and his subordinates ?

Can real Justice Exist in the United States of America ?

What else can he say?

[MichaelSmith]

If he tells a Justice Department oversight hearing that a prosecutor who worked for him drove a man to suicide then he may as well resign on the spot.

Re:What else can he say?

[symbolset]

It would be the honorable thing to do.

Re:What else can he say?

[fustakrakich]

You can be sure he will apologize in his memoirs after he does retire, just like all those before him. SOP

Re:What else can he say?

[Genda]

Folks, the creature staked out in front of the White House, make no mistake is a pitbull. It may wear an expensive three piece suit and answer to the name "Attorney General", but the long polished teeth, wide muscular muzzle, ripped forelegs and haunches bespeak an animal more fit to tear the heads off other dogs. Asking it if it thinks its lust for blood and fresh meat have any moral justification is just a piss poor use of your breath. Its a pitbull. Jeez! Its simply doing what it was lead and bred to do. Being a human pitbull, you might be inclined to hold it responsible for its actions. Good luck with that.

However, were I someone interested in the future of American culture, I might be rooting around higher up the food chain for somebody who decided that Aaron Schwartz made a better meal for a pitbull, than a fighter for American Liberty and Justice. The rest is sideshow drama designed to distract. America keeps losing important people, important moral infrastructure. That is the issue to address.

Re:What else can he say?

[Libertarian001]

I'm immediately reminded of the opening scene in "Serenity" where The Operative is describing to the admin official how, in the old days, when someone failed so completely, as he had, that they would commit suicide. The official retorts about being in a more modern era or some such and The Operative... helps him do things the way they used to.

Re:What else can he say?

[Chris Burke]

I am offended by your metaphoric comparison of pitbulls, wonderful creatures whose reputation was solely an artifact of those among whom they were popular, to something a beastly and vile as an Attorney General.

Re:What else can he say?

[gweihir]

It would be the honorable thing to do.

Indeed. But this person has neither honor nor compassion and is unfit to wield any kind of power. The real problem is however how somebody so messed up can make it into this position.

Re:What else can he say?

[slick7]

You can be sure he will apologize in his memoirs after he does retire, just like all those before him. SOP

Does it matter? Would you buy it? I mean the book, er I mean the apology?

Re:What else can he say?

[slick7]

I'm immediately reminded of the opening scene in "Serenity" where The Operative is describing to the admin official how, in the old days, when someone failed so completely, as he had, that they would commit suicide. The official retorts about being in a more modern era or some such and The Operative... helps him do things the way they used to.

I believe he said, "Fall on their sword." But the official proclaimed he didn't have one, whereby the Operative offered his.
If you wish to quote Firefly, you need to get it right. River Tam rocks!

Re:What else can he say?

[slick7]

It would be the honorable thing to do.

Indeed. But this person has neither honor nor compassion and is unfit to wield any kind of power. The real problem is however how somebody so messed up can make it into this position.

Friends, Romans, Firefly fans, Are these not honorable men?

Same DOJ That

[cosm]

This is the same DOJ that denied knowledge of gunwalker. This is the same DOJ that that is in cahorts with ICE to take-down websites without due process. This is the same DOJ that...spends thousands going after gambling sites, illegal 'copycap' handbags and sports paraphernalia, etc.

For being the entity known as the United States Department of Justice, going after torrent sites, going after guys scraping and trying to release academic journals, proprietors of gambling sites, people making gucci wannabe purses, and allowing the sale of guns to cartels....talk about wrong priorities.

Fuck you people.

Re:Same DOJ That

[the eric conspiracy]

> This is the same DOJ that...spends thousands going after ... illegal 'copycap' handbags and sports paraphernalia, etc.

So what the heck is wrong with going after this sort of stuff? Trademark infringement is seriously bad news. Ask anyone who has gotten fake merchandise thinking it was genuine.

Re:Same DOJ That

[CodeBuster]

So it turns out that the government is inhabited by the same sorts of capricious assholes that one encounters in the private sector. We can ignore private businesses and individuals but the government has ways of forcing the issue, as the DOJ has so amply demonstrated with their handling the Aaron Schwartz affair, among others. Perhaps the libertarians are on to something with this idea of small and limited government? Nah, that would make too much sense. Those who argue for more powerful government and greater government involvement in society and everyday life should be careful what they wish for, lest they actually receive it. The same power that punishes your enemies one day can just as easily be turned against you in the future by the government you empowered.

Re:Same DOJ That

[cosm]

> This is the same DOJ that...spends thousands going after ... illegal 'copycap' handbags and sports paraphernalia, etc.

So what the heck is wrong with going after this sort of stuff? Trademark infringement is seriously bad news. Ask anyone who has gotten fake merchandise thinking it was genuine.

My sarcasm meter is off but.... seriously? People who buy a 10 dollar Iphone or a 4 euro gucci purse know what they are getting....point me the the pool of angry people getting fake merchandise unintentionally and I'll point you to a DOJ that prosecutes serious issues of criminal action where actual victims lost life/liberty/pursuit of happiness. Currently they seem to be prosecuting to take those same things away away from whoever their super pac funded blame-thrower is aimed at...making them the wanton aggressor....not the guy pushing handbags or the site taking bets on a football game.

Re:Same DOJ That

[cosm]

Come on, man. Don't you think it's a little weird that in some cities we are required to use Gatorade to "water" our lawns?

I always thought it was because it has what plants need!?!?!

Re:Same DOJ That

[jedidiah]

No one on Canal Street has any delusions.

Don't try to kid us with your claims that trademark in this case is being wielded to the benefit of the consumer. The consumer knows what's going on and wants a cheap knockoff. They would never buy the real thing anyway (for lack of funds). So they aren't really relevant to the poor aggrieved trademark owner.

You're focusing on the wrong "victim" here. No one cares about the overpriced designer. They can go to hell for all we care.

Genuine consumer protection issues are interesting but that's not what this is about. Although you will happily help muddle the issue for situations have have ZERO consumer protection concerns.

Re:Same DOJ That

[hermitdev]

point me the the pool of angry people getting fake merchandise unintentionally and I'll point you to a DOJ that prosecutes serious issues of criminal action where actual victims lost life/liberty/pursuit of happiness.

While they may not angry, I'd suggest there's a large pool of people out there that think they're getting a good deal because it "fell off the bus". And its the same mentality that gets these jokers into office. The politicians that have the country's best interests in mind are not the ones that get elected. It's the politicians that can best sell their lies to a moronic populace that get elected. It's the ones that can continue to sell their lies that get reelected. Probably 90% of the populace are idiots. You don't get elected by convincing the intellectuals. You get elected by convincing the idiots they're going to starve to death if you're not elected.

Re:Same DOJ That

[makubesu]

Didn't you read? They spent thousands!

Re:Same DOJ That

[FuzzNugget]

Funny thing is, piracy, as it were, is actually a *good* thing for the fashion industry and any other industry (including iDoodads) that sells snobism.

Copycats drive more business for the brands that they copy as customers want the "real thing" in its latest iteration rather than the knockoff, even if only so they can scoff at people who buy the cheap stuff.

Yeah, I don't get it either, but that's really how it works.

Re:Same DOJ That

[Goobermunch]

Yeah, gunwalking. That sounds really bad. The facts, however, are a bit different than had been reported initially.

This is an illuminating read: http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/

--AC

Re:Same DOJ That

[Mistakill]

> This is the same DOJ that...spends thousands going after ... illegal 'copycap' handbags and sports paraphernalia, etc.

So what the heck is wrong with going after this sort of stuff? Trademark infringement is seriously bad news. Ask anyone who has gotten fake merchandise thinking it was genuine.

How would you think it'd go down if China, Iran or Russia started seizing random domains claiming they broke THEIR laws, without due process?

Or even say, France, Germany, the EU maybe... or... Fiji?

Re:Same DOJ That

[the eric conspiracy]

Sorry there are plenty of non-cheap forgeries floating around, being passed off as real. To ignore this is idiotic.

And of course there are some examples of things like fake pharmaceuticals that have led to death of their victims.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/17/health/living-well/falsified-medicine-bate

So no, it is not a benign problem.

Re:Same DOJ That

[CodeBuster]

The assumption being that a small government will be less corruptible

Government, like the private sector, is inhabited by humans and humans are by nature corruptible. How is it that the humans working in the government are somehow more noble and benign than those working in the private sector? The government enjoys special powers, including the power over life and death, and thus warrants both greater skepticism and scrutiny than the private sector.

and that large businesses will not be able to manipulate markets.

Libertarians are not anarchists. They acknowledge that there is both a need and a proper place for government. However, they view government involvement and interference as a last and not a first resort.

Libertarians also believe campaign finance should be unrestricted

Some do, but not all or even most would necessarily agree.

That they don't see the link between corporate campaign finance and an expanding government

On the contrary, we see it just as clearly as every thinking person does. However, the solution cannot be to ban or restrict speech, as some have argued that we must do. The problem will not be solved by clamping down on speech. On the contrary, limiting speech will only make the problem worse as bribery and corruption retreat into the shadows to remain unseen and uncontrolled.

means they can't be taken seriously

The libertarian solution to this problem would be to reduce the number and scope of things that fall under the purview of the government. The sheer size and intrusiveness of the government is what creates the means, motive and opportunity for corruption. The means because the government is powerful, the motive because there's much to be won by rent seeking and regulatory capture and the opportunity by the sheer number of government agencies, bureaucrats and officials to be approached.

It's not enough to have noble goals, you must have a mechanism to achieve them.

At what cost? The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Re:What an ass.

[__aaltlg1547]

this is what is wrong with america specifically: Prosecutors. Their only job is to get a guilty verdict no matter if the accused party is innocent or not of anything even remotely criminal.

To heck with this system! Use Linux instead!

Aaron Schartz was caught in a computer closet with his laptop hooked into a network that had specifically denied him permission to connect to their system.

Think again about what you would do if you found a person who was not supposed to be there in your server room, copying files and doing who knows what else before you talk about "not remotely criminal."

The prosecutor, from what I can tell, did nothing wrong.

35 years you get less time for rape and other stuf

[Joe_Dragon]

35 years you get less time for rape and other stuff. Hell I can go down to the quick mark beat up the clerk, rob the join and be looking at 3 to 20

A Culture of Fear

[ScottCooperDotNet]

There has been a significant trend in America that punishment is intended not to provide a reasonable deterrent to crime, but to set an example to keep the rest in line. The higher the possible sentence, the more likely it is for the defendant to plead down to something, or be turned against another defendant in exchange for immunity. All of this is intended to save the prosecutor the hassle of making his case in court.

Eric Holder is promoting a legal version of the Tarkin Doctrine.

Re:A Culture of Fear

[Anonymous Coward]

punishment is intended not to provide a reasonable deterrent to crime, but to set an example to keep the rest in line.

I have no idea what you might think could be the meaningful distinction between these two.

Re:A Culture of Fear

[fredprado]

Maybe he wasn't very precise in the terms he chose, but regarding the meaning he implied the distinction exists on the intensity and proportionality to the crime. When the punishment applied is completely out of proportion to a crime it is clear that it is an instrument of terror not a reasonable deterrent.

Found at the bottom of the page here

[fustakrakich]

Ain't no right way to do a wrong thing. -- The Mad Dogtender

Coincidence?

Which party?

[Skapare]

terse questioning from Sen. John Cornyn (D-Texas).

From Wikipedia:

John Cornyn III (born February 2, 1952) is the senior United States Senator for Texas, serving since 2002. He is a member of the Republican Party and the current Senate Minority Whip for the 113th Congress. Cornyn previously served as Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee from 2007-2011.

Re:Which party?

[jedidiah]

Yes this jackass is politically motivated. That's the beauty of the American system. This goes ALL the way back to the beginning. If one party gets out of line with something like the Alien and Sedition acts, then the other party can pounce come the next election.

Personally I think that Cornyn is a big fat jackass that sends form letters to his real constituents that don't even attempt to hide is insistence on pandering to out of state interests. Although I am happy that our interests manage to align just this once.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Re:Which party?

[TrueSatan]

Sorry about that...I (submitter of this article to /.) took the offending part from TFA and didn't double check to see if it was correct.

One solution to this problem

[jonwil]

Change the law such that the owner of the computer system that was accessed without authorization has to "press charges" before the feds can investigate.

If the owner of the computer does not want the alleged offense prosecuted, no prosecution can go ahead.

Re:One solution to this problem

[tftp]

If the owner of the computer does not want the alleged offense prosecuted, no prosecution can go ahead.

Not worth the ink on paper.

DOJ: "Sign here that you want him prosecuted."
Server owner: "But I don't want to hurt him."
DOJ: "OK, then I must treat you as a conspirator; you will be arrested in a few minutes. By the way, the English-Arabic dictionary that the guy illegally downloaded may have been used to translate the drawings of a nuclear weapon. You will be charged with terrorism. Or, perhaps, you changed your mind and want to sign this little paper? The choice is all yours." (DOJ starts absently playing with handcuffs.)
Server owner: "But... but... you cannot do that!"
DOJ: "Who is going to stop me? All the police that you see around here are under my command. Their orders are law to all peasants. Any disobedience is a shooting offense. If you didn't have an illegal gun when you attacked an officer, a drop gun will be provided for you. We also have a choice of bags with drugs, maps of subway systems, and some other items that you may like. Do you understand, WORM, that you are still alive only through my kindness? Don't make me angry. Sign here and I will let you live."

John Cornyn

[fermion]

While I would like to see this case be the impetus to reform the way we deal with criminals, John Cornyn is not the one who is going to do it. This is just a political ploy to gain points with the right wingnuts. Cornyn sponsored a bill that would force anyone detained by the police to submit a DNA sample. Not arrested, no arraigned, not indicted, but simply stopped by a police officer for no apparent reason. He fully supports the patriot act and wiretapping without a warrant. He in no way is concerned that the police and prosecutors have too much power. He is simply one of those people who is leveraging people fear of the man in the office of the presidency. He is simply trying to win the next election.

I would add one more thing. While I really question what happened in this case, I also know that when you play with the big dogs you have to be able to deal with getting bit. Someone like Schwartz who father gave him ample opportuniteit and who was private school educated may have they did not have to live in the real world. Maybe they thought they had protection, and when they did not it frightened him. I saw this a lot when I was growing up, and even now. There were some white kids in Louisiana, for instance, who thought it might be fun to taunt the black boys. They were asked nicely to stop, but they did not. When retaliation did occur then thought it was very unfair. After all they were white and protected. I am not saying that the cases are similar, just that some people don't know that real world consequences exist. We live in a dangerous world where people, especially powerful people, will retaliate with excessive force. Fairness is not the point. Solving the problem is. Some of us have had experience with this from a young age

Compare this case to Julian Assange and Bradley Manning. The retaliation against them are orders of magnitude greater than against Schwartz, yet they are dealing with it the best they can. Actions have Consequences. Thoreau was against the war, did not pay taxes, and went to jail. He honored his conscience and paid the price. Just as we all do.

Re:John Cornyn

[Anonymous Coward]

haha thoreau was a prick. he got out of jail because his rich friends paid his taxes for him, and his fucking cabin was on his rich friends property. talk about isolation haha " today i had to spend 15 minutes to visit my friends and get a five course meal" what a rugged life i'm living nao. at least use byron or someone with actual conviction. i'm not saying byron was a good person but he did end up using his fortune to fund the greek navy in their war against the ottoman empire. shit he even went down there personally and died for it. (albeit he died of sickness before he saw any combat :P).

if you really want a man with conviction look at miltons satan.

Error in summary - Cornyn is a Republican

[pgoldstein]

John Cornyn is a Republican, not a Democrat - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cornyn. So it should be "Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)"

Re:Error in summary - Cornyn is a Republican

[TrueSatan]

It was also an error in TFA...I submitted this article and had assumed that they had it right.

Attorney General Eric Holder:

[Ralph Spoilsport]

FUCK. YOU. ASSHOLE.

Re:Attorney General Eric Holder:

[HPHatecraft]

Sorry, I'm not following that. Is that some kind of acronym? What does it stand for?

what part of using a law for ATMs applies to this?

[Creepy]

The part of the CFAA being used against Aaron Swartz was designed exclusively for ATMs. Any variance is an abuse of authority on the part of the prosecutors, who reinterpreted a law just to prosecute a benign act. Eric Holder should be held accountable for an abuse of justice and for murder.

Remove them both!

[MobyDisk]

Remove United States District Attorney Carmen Ortiz from office for overreach in the case of Aaron Swartz
http://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-district-attorney-carmen-ortiz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck

Remove Attorney General Eric Holder from office
http://wh.gov/GGrN

Re:What an ass.

[mbc2000]

How about charging him with trespass, which under Massachusetts law is punishable by "one hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days or both such fine and and imprisonment?"

Pleading guilty compulsary

[Anonymous Coward]

" Even after that, a plea offer was made of a range of from zero to 6 months that he would be able to argue for a probationary sentence. The government would be able to argue for up to a period of 6 months."

You can see the problem here, he's arguing that the guy's rights are dependent on him pleading guilty. He should have been charged with a crime that had a 6 month sentence, but instead they charge him with crimes which would have locked him away for most of his life, in ORDER TO FORCE HIM TO SKIP THE TRIAL AND PLEAD GUILTY.

And admitting they thought a 6 month sentence was appropriate confirms they shouldn't have gone for the more serious crimes.

So MIT and JSTOR didn't think a criminal charge was appropriate, which removed their evidence. That removed the 'exceeded access authority' (they dropped that charge when it became untenable) and the 'didn't have access authority' claim was dodgy as f*** since he certainly did have authority to access the site.

So the charges they had against were untenable. They then piled on a load of BS Federal claims to try to go for the smear tactic. The 'he's charged with 13 crimes so he must be guilty of at least one of them' tactic. Make it so risky that he has to accept the plea bargain.

And here the prosecutor is confirming the only way to get an appropriate sentence was to go for the plea. Which confirms what we know.

Really, the prosecutor is abusing the system, he might think its for the greater good (to reduce court ques and put more people in jail), but its not. Carmen Ortiz on the other hand is the real criminal here, she literally used this case as a stepping stone in her political career.

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[Anonymous Coward]

Except we aren't talking about selling a car. We are talking about putting people in prison and labeling them as a felon.

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[fredprado]

You list the exact motive why such bargains shouldn't be allowed. As long as they are they will be used exactly like this, which is a derailment of the legal system's purposes. Plea bargains are an abomination of US justice system whose only purpose is to blackmail people into forfeiting their constitutional rights.

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[fredprado]

If by "more efficient" you mean putting people in jail despite their being guilty or not, and creating the biggest (by far) incarcerated population in the world, than by all means you are right. You know, the Holy Inquisition didn't convict you until you self-incriminated yourself either...

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[fredprado]

Oh I am quite sure 97% of the people charged are guilty in US, as only 3% of the accused do not plea guilty. Because you know US is THAT different from everywhere else and the government is right 97% of the time in this even though it is usually wrong about pretty much everything else much more often than it is right.

That certainly is a much more reasonable explanation than thinking that maybe a lot of innocent people simply plea guilty because they cannot take the change of being judged guilty and spending a few decades in prison.

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[Jane Q. Public]

"Show me the part of the constitution where it says 'And the state shall not do anything that might make administration of the judicial process cheaper, faster, and more efficient.'"

In this case, "Constitutional scholar" bedamned. You err in citing the Constitution -- or lack of mention in the Constitution, that is -- for justification.

Our legal process is mostly based on Common Law, which predates the Constitution by a rather large margin. Most of it has very little to do with the Constitution, per se.

Regardless, I have to side with GP. Plea bargaining might have started out as an attempt to find ways to keep criminals off the street when cases are difficult to prove. BUT, it has become not just a way to make trials more efficient. It has become a major instrument of coercion on the part of government. The deal offered Aaron Swartz was coercion, plain and simple. It was not an attempt to enforce justice. Hell, it was not even close to anything like justice. They tried to get him to plead guilty to a felony, for the act of downloading files which he had legal right and authorization to download. His "crime" was not even really a crime; he violated an online service's TOS. If you don't think the charges represent a real, genuine threat to freedom then you aren't thinking very clearly.

The proper role of government is neither to make its own job simple at the expense of citizens, or to be coercive in order to "make an example". Coercion has no rightful place in government, and government has no right to be coercive. No, the government did not kill Aaron Swartz. Yes, it was blackmail. Worse than blackmail, really. He was given the option to plead guilty to a felony, or to face charges for far worse felonies, when he hadn't even really broken the spirit of any laws.

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[tsotha]

Except the transfer of ownership on a vehicle involves a voluntary transaction for both parties.

This is more like "Okay, either you buy this car for $4000 or I'm gonna flip this coin. Heads and the car is $2000. Tails and I shoot you."

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[gishzida]

How about that fuzzy part about being tried by a jury of your peers? And what about that part about facing your accusers? or a Speedy trial? Any thing else is not constitutional.

Instead we have a process that is designed to abuse the accused and give the prosecutors political points. If the prosecutor cannot convict the accused for what they were charged then maybe the prosecutor should not be wasting the taxpayer's money in the first place especially when the "victims" did not want to press charges. This is a case of prosecution for political gain which seems to be a favorite pass time of prosecutors [of both parties] who want to get political traction.

If Judges are forced to used guidelines prosecutors should as well.

Holder should be fired for this bit of stupidity...

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[tsotha]

Effectively it's denying people a their right to a trail. At some point the whole thing becomes a variant of Pascal's wager, in that the worst case outcome is so severe it makes sense to plead guilty even if you're innocent.

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[Anonymous Coward]

You made the false assumption that when an individual (plea) bargains with the government that both have an equal standing in the bargain. The prosecutors have nothing to lose by over charging. There is no personal cost that the prosecutor(s) has to bear. An individual as a defendant on the other hand can lose even if they win. There's no Constitutional right to a free trial and defending yourself in a Federal trial such as Aaron's would have a significant cost.

The Supreme Court has ruled that prosecutors have full discretion to charge a defendant with what ever crimes they see fit. That means that the prosecution didn't violate any law or the Constitution. They did, however, violate the intent and spirit of the Constitution by not seeking JUSTICE as their sole and primary goal.

As Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland put it in a 1935 case that Balko quotes, a prosecutor is "representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done." (http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/16/how-can-overcharging-be-ethical)

If you're saying that the prosecutors were seeking justice then you're flat out wrong. If you're saying that they used good discretion as Eric Holder testified, then you're wrong along with Eric Holder. If you're saying that the prosecutors had the right to do what they did, then you're right, but what the prosecutors did was wrong. Just because what the prosecutors did is common practice and legal doesn't mean we should stand for it. It also doesn't mean that Aaron wasn't guilty of doing something wrong (even if for the right reasons).

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[hairyfeet]

Except we are talking about not a car but to utterly destroy another person's life. That is the problem in a nutshell with the current system, unless you have a cool quarter million to throw away on a defense you are screwed either way because the state has unlimited resources.

I should know as I had a friend that lost a house that had been in his family 4 generations because of this kind of plea bargaining horseshit. He was in the midst of a REALLY nasty divorce (heard of a midlife crisis? Well it was her and not him that had one, started fucking a 20 year old on the side) when the bitch got pissed and pulled a "tell the cops daddy touched you and you'll get a new car for sweet sixteen" move. Even the cops ended up testifying for him, saying the girl changed her story so many times there was zero credibility but it turned out the local prosecutor was raped in college and from that point on if you had a penis you were a rapist so by the time she got done digging up every possible charge she could come up with he was looking at triple life. The lawyer fees ended up costing him everything and the bitch used this to her advantage by getting sole custody of his son while he was tied up with the fight for his freedom. She took him overseas and he has never seen him since, wouldn't even recognize his own son if he ran into him on the street.

so by piling on the charges not only do they try to force a plea bargain by how much time you are looking at but they know your lawyer fees will cost more with each charge so even if you win? Like my friend you lose. He went from having a great job, 2 rental properties and his son to having nothing but a used car and a rented trailer. Some victory huh?

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[hairyfeet]

If you take them out back and shoot them it only costs the state a bullet, does that make it a "better" system or a worse one? We are now right up there with China and some of the third world hellholes when it comes to how many people we destroy per year (and yes its destruction, a felony equals a life of lousy jobs and suspicion in this country) and this isn't really the kind of company we should be keeping, don't you agree?

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[rtfa-troll]

The US constitution does not rule out plea bargains of any kind. However it does rule out the current system of bargains used in the US. That is simply in there in the section which gives you the right to a "fair and speedy trial". Being threatened with 30 years, no matter how unlikely, for a breach of a web site TOS is not something that can be part of any "fair" process. Having to wait years to even know what you are charged with is nothing like "speedy". Pretty soon after you are arrested you should know what they plan to charge you with.

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the Ninth Amendment?
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Aaron's right to be treated fairly and honestly by the judicial process was flushed down the toilet.

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[the_B0fh]

So you're saying Eric Holder and other prosecutors are used car salesmen?

No wonder we're fucked.

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[SourceFrog]

Holder fired? This is the same Holder who has come out publicly saying you don't have due process, this is the same Holder who advocates for blowing up American citizens with drones on US soil with no due process, this is the same Holder involved with Fast and Furious ... so for him to blithely say it's OK to trample on a little person like Aaron Schwarz, seems perfectly in character for this sociopath of note. But if Holder hasn't been fired by now for all the other crap, one can only assume the average American supports what he says and does, either that or Americans are collectively asleep or something.

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people who get arrested actually committed a crime.

If it's so easy, then why don't you skip the trial and just put them in prison. Oh wait ... you do.

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[Seumas]

Plea bargains are an abomination of US justice system whose only purpose is to blackmail people into forfeiting their constitutional rights.

Show me the part of the constitution where it says "And the state shall not do anything that might make administration of the judicial process cheaper, faster, and more efficient." There's no depriving of due process, there's nothing saying the defendant can't have the right not to self-incriminate. Plea bargaining is just that: Bargaining. And there's nothing in the constitution that says you can't bargain with the prosecutor, or vice versa.

But by all means, beat your chest and rip up the grass thinking people are being "blackmailed" to give up their non-existant non-rights. This is the internet afterall, where everyone's an armchair constitutional scholar!

Actually, that is pretty much exactly depriving the defendant of due process. Due process is not merely about "getting a trial in a reasonable amount of time". It's about fair, non-arbitrary, reasonable treatment.

But by all means, continue offering excuses for treating the prosecution of citizens like a game to gather the most points before leveling up rather than dealing with a human being's life.

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[Seumas]

Most people who get arrested actually committed a crime.

Case in point, it's really east to be an opinionated asshole if you base you opinion on politics not reality.

What an idiotic statement. That ranks right up there with "where there's smoke, there's fire" and "if you have nothing to hide, why do you need privacy?" and "he must be guilty of something, because they're investigating, questioning, or arresting him". None of which is true. All of which is a detriment to our idealized system of justice, where people are innocent until proven otherwise and, sometimes, guilty but justifiable.

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[amiga3D]

Actually Holder does believe in giving due process. He's just redefining due process as "the government thinks you are guilty."

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[DarkOx]

I think comparing Holder to a used car salesman is really unfair to used car salesmen. I know which one I'd rather trust my assets, lively hood, and personal freedom to and it's not Holder

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[amiga3D]

Funny thing is that if he had just nutted up and slit the bitches throat he'd probably only have gotten 7 or 8 years. As long as you don't use a gun it's like they don't even care. People typically get more time for selling drugs than for murder. If he'd just beat her to death he could have claimed he snapped and used an insanity defense and pled it down to 2 or 3 years. The system is screwed. Murder and rape are becoming minor crimes.

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[pantaril]

Tell me, do you sell your car for what it's actually worth, or do you add a little bit extra to negotiate down from? Same thing. Admittedly, most people add 10--15%, not 1000%...

And what happens, if the accused accepts the original terms inflated for about 10-15%? You would lock him for the extra time he doesn't deserve?

This is clearly bullshit, legal system is not a barter. People should be charged with sentences apropriate with the damages they caused. In the case of Aaron Schwarz, that woul be warning or probation, certainly not 30 years in prison. The prosecutor should be jailed instead.

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[BlueStrat]

So you're saying Eric Holder and other prosecutors are used car salesmen?

Come, walk with me.

Let me take you on a little trip back to '90s TV auto ads and Holder's apparent mentor. Only Holder is even less believable.

Just call him "Joe": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJMq_7alQpU

I'm tempted to ask older people who defend Holder and his testimony if they also bought an Isuzu in the '90s, just out of morbid curiosity.

No wonder we're fucked.

Indeed, as long as everyone remains asleep.

Strat

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[jythie]

DAs as used cars salesmen... now there is a scary image....

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[TheRaven64]

Show me the part of the constitution where it says

What happens at schools in the USA that makes so many citizens think 'ethical behaviour' means 'on a bit of paper that a bunch of dead slave-owners wrote down as the minimum set of things that they could agree on a couple of hundred years ago'?

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[pnutjam]

If you kill someone they know you are serious. Mandatory death penalty or life in prison endangers the cops because there is no way you are going peacefully. They know that you can and will lash out when you get the chance and they only hear one side of the story since the deceased isn't talking, so you probably getting sympathy from some part of society.

If your just some schmuck who is falsely accused or committed some minor crime they can smack you around and call you Charlie. You are't going to do anything about it. You will do your time, pay your fines, get evicted, live in poverty, and try to stay out of their way.

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[Jane Q. Public]

"Plea bargaining is normally actually a pretty good tool, allowing both sides to make things a bit better for themselves, but like any tool it can be abuse"

I agree that it CAN be a good tool, but it seems to me that in recent years it has far too often been abused. I think we need to find some way to prevent that abuse. My personal feeling is that no plea bargains at all would be better than the kind of abuse we have seen in recent years.

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[Zero__Kelvin]

You completely miss the point. There is nothing wrong with plea bargains. What is not acceptable is abuse of the system. The practice of leveling charges that are excessive and absurd to get people to plead to the charge they actually want to make stick is the issue. In fact, all too often they level charges they cannot prove, or highly doubt they can prove and one that carries much stiffer penalties, which they also cannot prove and then offer to drop the child molestation charge if the defendant pleads guilty to felony littering. In other words, all too often the real problem is that the prosecutors are bigger moral criminals than the defendants.

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[Zero__Kelvin]

Most Americans watch a lot of Law and Order, or similar TV shows. They are firmly convinced that anyone who chooses to be a prosecutor is inherently good. After all, if he was bad he would want to defend criminals, not put them in jail ... OMG !!! What the US needs is a good TV show about real (i.e. criminal) prosecutors, that shows how they really work and how little justice has to do with their thought process. It is all about the power and the numbers for many of them, if not most of them. Unfortunately, it isn't that way on LA Law and Law and Order, so it isn't that way in the mind of the typical US Citizen.

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[jythie]

Abuse makes for good headlines, and is a real problem. But headlines rarely represent the typical situation accurately.

Something to keep in mind, something like 95% of federal cases result in plea bargains rather then going to trial. That might sound like a huge problem, but keep in mind our court system is already overloaded. A 20x increase in cases going to trial would cripple it, and probably send lawyers fees through the roof since it would also represent a 20x increase in demand for both defense and prosecution.

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[AK Marc]

Threats in exchange for a confession used to be called "torture" Now it's called "due process".

Re:Pleading guilty compulsary

[Jane Q. Public]

"That might sound like a huge problem, but keep in mind our court system is already overloaded."

It is not government's place to make its own job easier at the expense of citizens. If the government can't handle the job, that's just too damned bad. It is NOT justification for twisting "justice".

Re:What an ass.

[rok3]

I was going to use my mod points but I didn't see an 'idiot' option. The only illegal thing he actually did was to trespass in a computer closet.

It isn't the sentence that is appalling

[MobyDisk]

The focus should not be on the fact that the statute lists 35 years, or that Ortiz offered him a plea bargain of 3 months. The question is more fundamental: Why did anyone even think to prosecute this guy at all, when J-STOR dropped the charges?

Two Words

[FuzzNugget]

Horse and Shit.

I struggle to think of a situation more aptly described with the term "prosecutorial misconduct"

He was intimidated and bullied by the force of the US government, which stretched, contorted and perverted a dated and obsolete law designed to prevent people from hacking ATMs, not copy documents (created with public money) from a computer in a slightly and ambiguously shady way.

But we all know they acted with extreme prejudice and vengeance because of the PACER situation (even though he didn't actually do anything illegal, just pissed off the establishment which moved too slowly in the age of digital technology)

Fun trivia: by the definition they extrapolated from the CFAA, you're committing a felony just by browsing public websites everyday. Selective enforcement for everyone!

Re:Waah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude committed suicide because the prosecutor was drafting paperwork to charge his girlfriend too and take away her child. So he took away their reason to do so.

Anonyclerk

In other words

[jameshofo]

"No we do this all the time, its unfortunate he killed himself but its easier to us to harass petty criminals into oblivion rather than utilize the justice system in a balanced way, I mean come on how are we supposed to measure success around here?"

Re:What an ass.

[Rashkae]

Nope, they couldn't even charge him for Tresspass, The closet was publicly accessible... (and was even being used by some of the public as a coat closet.) Using the network jack he found in there, however, was a no-no.)

Re:What an ass.

[Goobermunch]

And trespass into a computer network. Which is what the statute was intended to discourage.

Oh, and there was that whole downloading journal articles from a business that makes its money from charging people to view them. I'm pretty sure there's something in the U.S. code about that.

Look, I don't agree with what the U.S. Attorneys did in this case, but let's be honest. Aaron Swartz was willfully and intentionally committing at least two felonies. He was doing it because he believed that we, as a people, would be better off if the information he was accessing was freely available to everyone. That's a noble goal. I agree with him.

But--if you engage in an act of civil disobedience, you have to be willing to accept the consequences, whatever they may be. That's the tradeoff--you get to break the law with a clear conscience, but you also suffer the punishment to demonstrate the injustice of the law. To say that Mr. Swartz ought not have been punished, or that his punishment should be minimal because we like what he was doing is to say that the ends justify the means. If I were to access a server room at your bank to access information that is valuable to you--like the 1s and 0s that represent your bank balance--I suspect you wouldn't be so forgiving, even if I were moving those 1s and 0s to help the poor or the sick.

I do think the prosecutors should have exercised their discretion in a less overbearing way. It makes me sad and furious that a brilliant young man is dead. But we don't do ourselves any good by glossing over the facts and minimizing what was and is at stake. Aaron Swartz wanted us to change the way we think about "intellectual property." He envisioned a world in which the work of human minds was freely available to enrich the lives of everyone. Where one person's brilliant thoughts could spark genius in minds years and miles from the source. He did so in a legal climate that inflicts draconian civil and criminal punishment on people who try to make that dream a reality. And he did it by flouting the very laws he wanted changed.

He didn't just trespass, he flipped the bird to the Federal Government. But then, when confronted with the reality that the U.S. Attorneys were going to treat him in the exact same way they treat every "criminal" they see, day after day, he realized he'd bitten off more than he could chew. And he killed himself. I don't know how to respond to the situation, because I'm mad about the whole thing. I'm mad at my government for its stupidity and heavy handed tactics, but I'm mad at Aaron Swartz for not having the courage to stand and fight or to be a political prisoner and a symbol. Hell, I'm even mad at myself for lacking the courage he had. But I'm really frustrated with the idea that we should gloss over what actually happened. The only way we can learn from what went wrong is to look at it with clear eyes.

--AC

The feds be THOR.

[MarkvW]

Every prosecutor wants the POWER to DICTATE the plea bargain that the prosecutor thinks is fair.

That is a good thing because it enables cost-effective prosecution of bad guys.

But every prosecutor craves that POWER, and we must watch out that we don't give them too much, of it, because we all know about absolute power . . ..

Aaron Swartz got SCREWED. We need changes in our copyright law NOW! NEVER FORGET!

Re:What an ass.

[fredprado]

The difference? Maybe the fact that inflicted physical violence upon the woman? Maybe the fact that you actually damaged property and her physical and mental integrity in the process? He was accessing something that didn't belong to him in violation of an EULA. He should be sued by the damaged part, not criminally charged. "Damaged" parts, that weren't damaged at all, and explicitly asked the prosecution to drop the charges against him, but where ignored.

All analogies are useless, ridiculous and serve nothing but to generate confusion and disinformation. That said your analogy is not only ridiculous it is childish and completely out of touch with reality, as you probably are.

Be nice if DOJ went after harmful criminals

[Beeftopia]

Today, Holder testified before the Senate: "US Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill today, and discussed the lack of criminal cases against financial institutions in the aftermath of the financial crisis." -- Forbes magazine online

Contrast this with Aaron Swartz. A soft target. It's unclear how much, if any, of a net cost he imposed with his illegal downloads of journal articles. "Illegal Downloads Of Journal Articles." It even sounds trivial. And they hounded him for it. To death. They presented the credible possibility of decades in jail to him.

But, as always, follow the money. Wall Streets spends a tremendous amount of money on federal politicians so they can keep running their swindles and funnel part of the proceeds back to Washington. Swartz was paying little if anything to the politicians as he was trying to provide information to the public at no personal gain.

To understand what's going on here, you have to understand politicians: "No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems — of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind." -- Thomas Sowell

Plea bargains..

[BrookHarty]

Plea bargains make people plead guilty all the time. I remember when Wennatchee sex ring scandal happened. The whole population wanted justice, hang the child rapists! The state went for life sentences for all 40+ people accused.
Many of the people pleaded guilty when they faced life in prison. Only after years of litigation did it come out the entire thing was a hoax. No child was raped.

The stresses this young man faced shouldn't be the norm. Obama was suppose to be the voice the people, the people who work in his administration should echo his values.

I can only hope that a 3rd party takes off someday, we really need to vote the bastards out, not vote pretend in a 2 party system.

Prosecutor doesn't decide sentence

[Anonymous Coward]

The *court* decides the sentence, not the prosecutor. This isn't a negotiation between prosecutor and accused, to decide what is fair.

But he thinks it is. He thinks its his job to usurp the courts right to sentence.

If he thinks the crimes were minor, then he should have prosecuted the minor crimes, not pretend inappropriate hacking laws applied. Aaron had a legal right to view every single webpage on that site, everyone of them. It was not hacking, and the only reason to invoke that was to force him to go for the plea bargain.

Ortiz is the real criminal here, she clearly knew she was misusing her role, you can hear it in her grandstanding speeches. She's clearly playing politics and clearly needs to be removed before she does further harm to the legal system.

Re:What an ass.

[complete loony]

Aaron Schartz was caught in a computer closet with his laptop hooked into a network that had specifically denied him permission to connect to their system.

If he was caught in a TLA government agency in similar circumstances I'd agree with you. But this is a school, where you have to expect students to misbehave. The appropriate response should have been somewhere between a severe talking to, expulsion, or a lengthy discussion on how he should have randomised the requests to cover his tracks better ;)...

Not really as "illegal" if charges are not pressed

[SuperKendall]

What he did was really illegal.

Not "really" because no-one wanted to press charges. You only had MIT neglecting to say IF they wanted to press charges and it was off to the races.

If no-one wants to press charges for lots of other crimes nothing happens. This is how real justice often takes place, giving people a break that don't deserve to be chewed on my the System. But in this case the System was hungry, and took him anyway.

What was the hope of the founding fathers for USA?

[Taco Cowboy]

As all these happened in the United States of America, why don't we go back all the way to the beginning of the United States of America - to what the founding fathers had in mind for their new country

What was the one thing that irritated the founding fathers the most ?

An abusive government

It was precisely because of the abuses from the Brits that the American colonialists just couldn't stand it no more and decided to take up arms and revolt

There are over 200 countries in this world, and the United States of America is one of the handful of countries where not only popular revolution was the spark that had created the country, but also that the founding fathers was thoughtful enough to write down their wish and blessings for the new country that they had formed, and their wish was also expressed in the Constitution, along with the Bill of Rights

The current form of the American government is exactly the form of government that the founding fathers would fight vehemently against

As an American who isn't staying inside America, I am sad to say that most of my fellow Americans have no idea what America is all about

How many of my fellow American understand the duty of being an American citizen?

Public domain?

[aklinux]

Wasn't most, if not all, of this information in the public domain? If it was public domain, didn't Aaron have as much right to it as anyone else?

Re:Not really as "illegal" if charges are not pres

[Seumas]

We have to teach citizens not to misbehave or dissent now. It might have cost a fairly innocent, innovative, and (from what I've understood) nice young man's life, but at least it serves as an example to the rest of us to shut the fuck up, put our heads down, and fucking behave less we be the next example.

Re:What an ass.

[Seumas]

For all we know, he could have been using the systems in that closet to access the military's launch command for nuclear missiles! We should have executed him for treason, by that same line.

Re:I support the prosecution in this case

[Seumas]

So what?

Excessive use of a service for content you already have access to (but maybe not to that extent) justifies threatening him with the rest of his life in prison? Are you mother fucking insane? You slap him with some community service, a record, and maybe at the most extreme a short probation.

Eric Holder

[ThatsNotPudding]

A quieter version of John Ashcroft. Not as preachy, but just as thuggish.

Re:What was the hope of the founding fathers for U

[jythie]

Actually, if you read many of the original debates, many of the 'founding fathers' were trying to counter each other since many states were jumping at the oppurtunity to become repressive regimes themselves, and many of the debaters could recall when their particular group was oppressed in one state or another, so there was this weird 'hey, we get to be crappy to XYZ, but wait, we need to stop other states from being crappy to ABC' stuff going on.

Re:What an ass.

[pantaril]

Think again about what you would do if you found a person who was not supposed to be there in your server room, copying files and doing who knows what else before you talk about "not remotely criminal."

I would look at the logs, see what did he copy. I would find out, he is copying scientific articles. I would thank him for spreading the knowledge and probably help him.

The prosecutor, from what I can tell, did nothing wrong.

Charging someone with 30 years in prison for copying scientific articles (note that he never released the copies, so no big damage was done) is not wrong? The charges were totaly out of proportions.

Forgot one

[ThatsNotPudding]

Busting medical marijuana clinics instead of corrupt bankers and brokers whose minor offense was the near destruction of the global economy.

Priorities!

prosecutorial discretion =/= selective javertism

[luis_a_espinal]

a good use of prosecutorial discretion.

Like, the prosecutorial discretion of doing absolutely nothing with the fat cats that nearly ruined the economy? Like that kind of prosecutorial discretion?

Damned bought-out hypocrites. They have no right to bring "prosecutorial discretion" as a justification until we see "prosecutorial discretion" being used fairly and uniformingly.

This was not a case of prosecutorial discretion. It was a case of selective Javertism fueled by ulterior motives. At least the mythical Javert would prosecute everyone. So these prosecutors are even worse.

I'd like to say...

[sesshomaru]

I wish I could say that Holder was our worst Attorney General. He's criminally corrupt and incompetent to boot, the fact that he's still there speaks to the poor judgement and childish stubbornness of the President of the United States. Seriously, he should have been out a long time ago, and the way certain people get flung under buses for nothing (Shirley Sherrod, Sheila Bair) while others get to hang on forever shows you what this administration and this President really believes in, in case anyone was in doubt.

But if you compare him to his predecessors, it's not that he looks better but that he looks like he fits in. Janet Reno literally put people in prison for Witchcraft, and Alberto Gonzales.presided over the dismantling of many constitutional protections.

So, they've been a bad bunch, and it's an office people really need to pay attention too.

I expect Carmen Ortiz will be an Attorney General some day.

Duty?

[gwolf]

Did I read right? Does having been born in your country come with a duty to fulfill the desires of long-dead politicians who would most probably not understand the world as it is today?

Many countries have a common story with yours, at least in the topic you mention. Countries founded on dreams, aspirations and ideals, and with debates and rationalizations serving as an ideological base. Mine (Mexico) does. And yes, many of those ideals are current, noble and worth defending — "El Generalísimo" José María Morelos, a half-black man, introduced the abolition of slavery (in 1812). Guadalupe Victoria and Vicente Guerrero (first and second presidents) fought for the country to be a democratic republic. But some of the ideals (i.e. assuring there would be only one accepted and tolerated religion, Catholicism) are just anachronic, and had to be completely scraped and rethought — Even within 50 years of their procclamation!

So, yes, very nice that your Founding Fathers had some vision on what they were seeking. But principles must be debated all along as progress is made, as time passes. Read, yes, the Federalist Papers. But debate them, don't follow them blindly! If you disagree, please make sure your fellow citizens understand your disagreeing! Shape your country different wherever it needs to be reshaped!

Re:Duty?

[misexistentialist]

So as society progresses slavery might be a good idea again? Some principles are in fact eternally valid. Yes, everything can be debated, but most people lack understanding, and are wisest when they are humblest.

Re:Duty?

[dywolf]

some ideals are timeless and beyond debate.
life
liberty
freedom from oppression
those are the core ideals, around whcih the rest are based. it is only the rest that need be logically debated and considered and reexamined from time to time.

one such "reexamining", led to the civil war, and resulted in the 14th amendment.
another resulted in women sufferage
another the civil rights movement

these reexaminings of the logical constructs we have made based on the core ideals are important. we said "liberty for all", but originally only applied it to white male property owners. we've since gotten past that.

but when people start to question the core ideals, then it's time to start over because the society itself has lost its way and needs a refresher course.

and yes, Duty. freedom/liberty has a price. it is not self-perpeuating. it needs constant pushing against outside and inside forces that would snuff it out.

Re:Duty?

[redlemming]

So as society progresses slavery might be a good idea again.

Many of the Founding Fathers were strongly opposed to slavery. Ben Franklin, for example, stated that the American Revolution was necessary due to the resistance on the part of the British Government against ending slavery.

Ironic, given how things turned out. Or, perhaps, it would be better to say that then, like now, entrenched corruption won out over principles.

Re:Duty?

[redlemming]

some ideals are timeless and beyond debate.
life
liberty
freedom from oppression
those are the core ideals

You (and the Founding Fathers) missed a core ideal: ethical government (and ethical law). The absence of this in so many current legal and governmental matters is a major factor why the others are being eroded.

But no HSBC....

[oh_my_080980980]

But you can't prosecute HSBC for breaking the law. What's up with that....

I think the point is being missed.

[mcmonkey]

One of the important aspects of this story is the lengths to which a prosecutor will go to get a guilty plea. In this case Swartz is lucky the prosecutor didn't think the laptop used was a gift from Swartz's mother, or she would have been threatened with arrest as an accomplice.

The other important aspect, which is being missed in these /. conversations, is the implication of being a felon in 21st century USA. This case could very well have the same outcome even if the prosecutor made an offer of zero jail time. Depending on where he lived, he could have lost his right to vote, among other rights.

I think people are too focused on the " would have locked him away for most of his life" aspect. For one, Swartz was not facing 30 years behind bars. Two, I don't think we really want to take away discretion in sentencing. Yes, there are abuses, but is abuse by a prosecutor or judge worse than abuse by legislation? Would you rather have the proverbial 20 years for stealing a candy bar? Or someone who really breaks in to a system and takes some really sensitive information only get 6 months because of the fall-out from this case?

I don't pretend to know Swartz's mind, but my impression is an offer of 6 months in jail on a misdemeanor change would have gotten a guilty plea while a felony with no time behind bars would have had a similar outcome as we saw.

Right, but some things might require rethinking

[gwolf]

We have not, and I hope we don't ever, reverse our shift regarding slavery. But that's the reason I mentioned the "virtue" of a single religion being scraped, something that was unthinkable by 1821 (when Mexican independence was definitively achieved) but a fact in 1860, with complete separation between church and state.
In 1821, the groups that thought that a monarchic rule was more adecuate to this country were a majority. They were defeated in 1824 (and we ended up with a dead emperor). Then again, in 1861-1865 we had a second Mexican empire (which also ended with a dead emperor). Since then, the idea hasn't floated, and the country has a rooted republican tradition (although our democracy is still quite weak).
Now, back to what prompted me to write this: The USA were born as a reaction to being a colony, of England exerting too much control and not allowing for self-administration thousands of kilometers away. So, there was a genuine push for as tiny a government as possible. And a huge amount of US citizens are currently for small-government — That's (of course) correct on its own! You are surely free to have your own political ideology. But quoting the reason to be for small-government as "that's what the Founding Fathers intended!" is, IMO, equivalent to throwing away 250 years of political history.

Self-centered

[CanEHdian]

He's self-centered too, writing in about an article about himself:

TrueSatan writes in with the latest in the ongoing Aaron Swartz tragedy.

"Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday said

Sequester defund DOJ

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

Defund DOJ until this thug resigns for both Fast & Furious and Aaron Swartz. This lawless administration only understands money & force, because that is how they do things.

Re:What was the hope of the founding fathers for U

[hondo77]

As all these happened in the United States of America, why don't we go back all the way to the beginning of the United States of America - to what the founding fathers had in mind for their new country

You want a return of slavery, an end to women's suffrage, and no standing army?

Surprised?

[kwiqsilver]

This is the same guy who thought it would be a good idea to have the ATF force American gun dealers to sell firearms to Mexican drug lords, so he could use that later for political gain.
This is the same guy who helped cover up the FBI's involvement in motivating and equipping Timothy McVeigh for the Oklahoma City bombing.
This is the same guy who last week said the president has the authority to order the murder of Americans (somehow, to most Americans, ordering the murder of non-Americans is okay) without a trial, or even the presentation of evidence, simply because the president claims the target is a threat to "national security".

Defensive?

[TemperedAlchemist]

Of course the pathetic piece of trash must rationalize his actions. He must make it seem like it was all a big accident, misunderstanding. That he was just doing his job, he's not to blame.

Tough luck.

Maybe you do get off, maybe you don't.

One thing is certain for me, though, is that this kind of bullshit stops here. I don't know if he quite understands who he pissed off. Aaron Swartz? He was weak; noble and admirable, but still not strong enough. Pushed hard enough and he toppled over. Like some bully at the playground. I don't like that, and I'm not the only one.

See, there are people in this world that don't topple over when you push them. There are people that, when their back is against the wall, are going to make you regret the day you pushed them into it. It's easy to bully the awkward kid who's just trying to do good. But some of us looking out from the shadows, those of us who aren't so noble and good willed, but cared very deeply about what he had done... We are going to face you and your hypocrisy.

And to call what you'll be doing a defense? That's an overconfident assertions if I ever heard one. It'll be more like a steamroll, just like you thought Swartz was just another hacker to pluck off, so too are you going to be just another lawyer to cross off our list.

Because what you've attacked is not a person. It is not a thing. You cannot destroy it, you cannot hide it, you cannot prevent it. What you have attacked is an idea. And ideas can only be fought by ideas. And you, sir, have no such weapon.

Re:What was the hope of the founding fathers for U

[AK Marc]

No standing army and no universal sufferage (not women specifically, but anyone paid by the government doesn't get to vote. Their "vote" of no confidence would be to quit whatever is getting them government money. And yes, by that, I mean nobody working for Lockheed Martin, Schlumberger or Exxon should get the vote, so long as they take billions in government handouts). And if you listen to the Libertarians here, we have wage slavery, though I don't agree with them.