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!
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
It would be the honorable thing to do.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
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.
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.
" 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.
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.
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.
People have funny ideas about how the justice system works.
In that they simply would like to see justice?
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.
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.
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 !