Slashdot Mirror
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."
Huge asshole defends being a huge asshole. News at 11.
The puppy sitting next to a big poo on the carpet also claims that it wasn't his fault...
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
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.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
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.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
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.
It would be the honorable thing to do.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
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.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
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 stuff. Hell I can go down to the quick mark beat up the clerk, rob the join and be looking at 3 to 20
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.
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.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
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.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
John Cornyn is a Republican, not a Democrat - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cornyn. So it should be "Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)"
FUCK. YOU. ASSHOLE.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
" 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.
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 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.
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?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
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!