In what world is "government takeover" equal to "mandating that all citizens buy a product from a private corporation"? I think you don't understand what the words "government takeover" mean. By the way, who was it that passed Medicare Part D, again?
The executive orders he's signing? Notably, you didn't mention any of the things he was going to use executive orders for. That's because they were things like "have the CDC do a study on guns". It's much easier to get people outraged if you don't tell them details like that.
How many times did Reagan raise taxes? And didn't H.W.Bush also raise taxes, too? And how is it Obama's fault for "raising taxes" that were scheduled to expire anyway? Instead, shouldn't you be upset with the legislators who wrote a bill that had tax cuts which expire? And mind you, this is after he argued for their extension once already, and after he had already cut several other taxes (such as FICA, which I personally didn't agree with).
As far as "spending more than Bush did", you gotta remember, Obama's administration brought the wars on-budget. No more "emergency" supplemental spending bills that circumvented the budget process (lol, a five year emergency?). And wasn't it Cheney who famously said "deficits don't matter"?
I'm sure there's other things wrong with your partisan rant, that's just the stuff off the top of my head. Sorry mate, but you've got a case of Obama Derangement Syndrome. I mean, don't get me wrong, there's things I don't like about the administration, but at least my reasons are grounded in reality (for example, killing a 16-year old American citizen without a trial or due process of any kind, or failing to prosecute any financial criminals like Reagan's administration did in the 80's during the S&L crisis)
How about American Citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki? He was born in Denver, Colorado on August 26, 1995 at 1:16 PM. He was killed by an American drone strike in Yemen on October 14, 2011. He was 16 years old at the time. Does anyone have any evidence that this teenager posed an imminent threat to the US?
Oh, yes, as Robert Gibbs said in an interview, it was Abdulrahman's fault that his father - who he hadn't seen in over two years - was an alleged terrorist. That's the threat he posed to America, and that's what justified killing him.
Can you point me at the federal law that makes going 25mph over the speed limit into a felony? And the red light one, too.
Because I've been charged with doing 80 in a 40 (wrongly, mind you; my car couldn't make those turns at 80, lol). All they did was suspend my license. Funny how the math with the VASCAR lines was accurate to infinite precision - almost as if the value of twice the speed limit was intentionally chosen, and VASCAR times were reverse engineered from the desired speed. When presented with this evidence, and some photos of the turns I was allegedly doing 80 through, the cop in question decided to work out a deal with me that didn't involve any points on my license.
I've also been pulled over for "running a red light". Was given a citation for "failure to obey a traffic signal". Small fine, didn't even affect my insurance.
So, forgive me for calling bullshit on your allegations that these two actions are felonies.
And, for the record, all of the plea deals offered to Mr. Swartz involved pleading guilty to all thirteen felonies and spending at least six months in prison. "ever hear of plea deals", indeed...maybe you should have looked into what deals were offered to him before running your mouth about "cowards".
I'd like to see you call Mr. Swartz a coward to his parents' faces. I'll bet you wouldn't have the guts. You're just full of Internet Bravado.
Majority opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun.
"Holding - Copies of copyrighted works cannot be regarded as stolen property for the purposes of a prosecution under a statute criminalizing the interstate transportation of such property."
Also, for the record, none of the indictments had anything to do with "stealing", or even "copyright infringement". They were for, among other things, using a static IP address.
Whine all you like. Mr. Swartz didn't steal anything.
Don't blame the prosecutor when the public demands stupid laws
Have you heard of the Responsible Corporate Officer doctrine? In a nutshell, if a company does something bad, their executives can be held criminally accountable, even if they didn't know what was going on, because it's their duty to know.
And yet when Forest Laboratories was marketing drugs to children when they were approved only for adults, what did Carmen Ortiz do? She could have held the executives responsible for the criminal actions of the company...and yet she chose not to. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/health/16drug.html?_r=0
I blame the prosecutor. The law says she could hold the executives accountable, and yet she used her discretion with Forest Laboratories to avoid sentencing anyone to any time in prison. Why not with Aaron Swartz?
You mean the prosecutor gets to decide what sentence they think your crime deserves, and then offers you a chance to plead guilty for that sentence...and if you choose to exercise your Constitutional right to a jury trial, the prosecutor then punishes you for exercising this right by seeking a sentence that is harsher than they think your crime deserves.
I'm not sure what your point is. The date on that post is four days after Mr. Swartz was arrested, so it was not in effect when he was downloading JSTOR's articles en-masse.
TFA discusses traumatic brain injury (TBI), which reminded me of another FA that I read a while ago about detecting TBI with MRI machines.
Two guys, Dr. Walter Schneider and Dr. David Onkonwo, are using MRI to identify neural tracts throughout the brain. Their new technique, HDFT, is able to visualize the brain's wiring, and it can identify where the wiring has been broken.
This just shows how little you know about the Aaron Swartz scandal. The "restricted network closet" isn't restricted at all. No locks. No signs that say "do not enter" or "employee's only". It's in a publicly accessible hallway.
Go read the indictment. It does not mention trespassing. Anywhere.
Two counts "Wire Fraud", five counts "Computer Fraud", five counts "Unlawfully Obtaining Information from a Protected Computer", one count "Recklessly Damaging a Protected Computer". Thirteen felony counts. The end.
They consider as evidence of hacking that he assigned himself static IPs instead of getting an IP from the DHCP server.
Given all this...what else might you have wrong about this case?
They already decide who to prosecute. Prosecutors have amazing discretion. For instance, Carmen Ortiz - the lady who handled Mr. Swartz's case - has had settlements with at least three major health care companies where no individual human had to plead guilty to doing anything wrong (in at least one case, not even the company admitted any guilt).
Face it, Mr. Dimedici. We already have tyrant prosecutors which decide who gets away with what crimes unpunished. I remember reading the words of one Judge who said something along the lines of "stealing is stealing, yes, but stealing an apple because you're hungry is quite different from Bernie Madoff".
The underwear bomber boarded his flight in Amsterdam. The shoe bomber boarded his flight in Paris.
What good does using body scanners in the US do? If the terrorist's goal is to blow up a plane, it doesn't matter if he gets scanned in the US, even upon arrival, because he'll have long since carried out his attack.
No, the point of these body scanners is to enrich the manufacturers and catch drug smugglers. That's it. Terrorism is just a convenient pretext.
No, evading the ban or continuing to access after ordered not to by the owner should get you fined - provided you didn't do any damage. If you do damage during unauthorized access, THEN you get sent to jail. If the damage exceeds a certain monetary value, THEN it can be a felony.
By the way, do you have any evidence that MIT told him to stop? I don't think blacklisting his MAC address counts as correspondence. Perhaps they should have considered asking him to stop before calling in the cops.
Read Orin Kerr's latest discussion on this. A lot of the charges against Aaron would duplicated under multiple statutes for the same act, and Mr. Kerr recommends removing the redundant laws.
Were there any signs on the door saying "employees only" or anything to that effect? No.
Did JSTOR want the case dropped? Yes.
Did he have to agree to any terms of service in order to use the network or JSTOR? No.
No one, and I mean no one, is saying he shouldn't be held accountable for what he did wrong. But if you were caught jaywalking and the prosecutor wanted to send you to prison, I have a feeling that you might have a problem with that.
Generous? What fucking planet are you from? He didn't hurt anybody. He didn't kill anybody. He wasn't out for a profit. He downloaded some data that anyone can access for free by going to the right place.
Six months for that crime is not generous. It's bullshit. Would you think a six month plea for jaywalking is generous?
You're wrong, a prosecutor's job is to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.
Really? So was St. Jude's prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?
“Medical device and pharmaceutical companies can use post-market studies legitimately to obtain information about how their products work in the field, but they cannot use those studies, and the honoraria associated with them, to induce physicians to select their products. Cardiologists and electrophysiologists should make their decisions on which pacemaker or defibrillator to implant in a patient based on their independent medical judgment, not based on how much the manufacturer is paying them to implant the device,” said Carmen Ortiz, U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts.
“We will not tolerate corporate attempts to profit at the expense of the ill and needy in our society -- or those who cut corners that result in potentially dangerous consequences to consumers,” Carmen M. Ortiz, the U.S. Attorney in Boston, said at yesterday’s news conference.
But hey, at least someone was found guilty this time. His name was SB Pharmco Puerto Rico Inc. I don't think he had to serve any time in prison, though.
“Forest Pharmaceuticals deliberately chose to pursue corporate profits over its obligations to the F.D.A. and the American public,” Carmen Ortiz, the United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts, said in a statement Wednesday.
Someone was found guilty this time, too. His name was Forest Laboratories. No time served in prison, although there was one felony count - lying to FDA officials.
You know, if I squint really hard, I think I can see the impression left by the book that Ortiz threw at Mr. Forest Laboratories and Mr. SB Pharmco Puerto Rico Inc.
whereas a prosecutor's job appears to be to assume that the defendant is automatically guilty.
I think this is really what this was. They assume not only that the perp is automatically guilty, but guilty of everything, with aggravating circumstances. I would imagine there should be a level of discretion involved, perhaps not prosecuting when the injured party asks you to drop the case...but I could be mistaken.
I believe I've read elsewhere that he would have copped to a misdemeanor, but not a felony. I also read that Heyman refused to offer any plea that didn't include guilty on all felony counts.
But did you really just compare Aaron Swartz downloading material that you admit can be obtained for free pretty easily to Hans Reiser murdering his wife? Come on, Swartz didn't kill or injure anyone, and JSTOR wasn't asking for him to be prosecuted.
The only reason a six month plea bargain even appears reasonable is when it is juxtaposed to decades in prison. George Hotz did far more damage to Sony - they did try to sue him, unlike JSTOR - and Hotz did not have to plead guilty to anything for his deal, let alone labeled a felon and thrown in prison. It's a more reasonable analogy than Reiser, but Hotz is still very different.
And you also need to consider the problems associated with being a felon. Should Swartz have given up his right to defend himself with firearms for IP and MAC spoofing? The right to vote, in some states forever? Who would hire a man convicted of a dozen computer felonies?
There is no doubt in my mind that the prosecution was intentionally trying to make him plead out by massively trumping up charges. It was originally four felonies, later nine more were added. Again, JSTOR wasn't even asking for a lawsuit, and I haven't heard that MIT wanted to sue him either, so why were the prosecutors so eager to pin so many felonies on him?
Interestingly, Ortiz' office let some health care companies get away with doing some nasty things...and nobody had to plead guilty to anything, just some fines and settlements. Prescribing drugs only approved for adults to teens, putting the wrong drugs in the bottle, kickbacks for implanting medical devices unnecessarily...things that can actually injure someone...and not a single guilty plea? I would think what they did is far, far worse than what Swartz did. Using the technique of "trump up felony charges to force them to cop a plea" on a known suicide risk over a victimless crime is reckless, negligent, and unprofessional.
Slashdot Mirror
In what world is "government takeover" equal to "mandating that all citizens buy a product from a private corporation"? I think you don't understand what the words "government takeover" mean. By the way, who was it that passed Medicare Part D, again?
The executive orders he's signing? Notably, you didn't mention any of the things he was going to use executive orders for. That's because they were things like "have the CDC do a study on guns". It's much easier to get people outraged if you don't tell them details like that.
How many times did Reagan raise taxes? And didn't H.W.Bush also raise taxes, too? And how is it Obama's fault for "raising taxes" that were scheduled to expire anyway? Instead, shouldn't you be upset with the legislators who wrote a bill that had tax cuts which expire? And mind you, this is after he argued for their extension once already, and after he had already cut several other taxes (such as FICA, which I personally didn't agree with).
As far as "spending more than Bush did", you gotta remember, Obama's administration brought the wars on-budget. No more "emergency" supplemental spending bills that circumvented the budget process (lol, a five year emergency?). And wasn't it Cheney who famously said "deficits don't matter"?
I'm sure there's other things wrong with your partisan rant, that's just the stuff off the top of my head. Sorry mate, but you've got a case of Obama Derangement Syndrome. I mean, don't get me wrong, there's things I don't like about the administration, but at least my reasons are grounded in reality (for example, killing a 16-year old American citizen without a trial or due process of any kind, or failing to prosecute any financial criminals like Reagan's administration did in the 80's during the S&L crisis)
And Awlaki's son, Abdulrahman? Was that 16-year old American Citizen a high-level terrorist?
Or when they happen to be out on the open road, not on a terrorist base.
Or when they're the 16-year-old American son of an alleged terrorist who hasn't seen their father in over two years
How about American Citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki? He was born in Denver, Colorado on August 26, 1995 at 1:16 PM. He was killed by an American drone strike in Yemen on October 14, 2011. He was 16 years old at the time. Does anyone have any evidence that this teenager posed an imminent threat to the US?
Oh, yes, as Robert Gibbs said in an interview, it was Abdulrahman's fault that his father - who he hadn't seen in over two years - was an alleged terrorist. That's the threat he posed to America, and that's what justified killing him.
Can you point me at the federal law that makes going 25mph over the speed limit into a felony? And the red light one, too.
Because I've been charged with doing 80 in a 40 (wrongly, mind you; my car couldn't make those turns at 80, lol). All they did was suspend my license. Funny how the math with the VASCAR lines was accurate to infinite precision - almost as if the value of twice the speed limit was intentionally chosen, and VASCAR times were reverse engineered from the desired speed. When presented with this evidence, and some photos of the turns I was allegedly doing 80 through, the cop in question decided to work out a deal with me that didn't involve any points on my license.
I've also been pulled over for "running a red light". Was given a citation for "failure to obey a traffic signal". Small fine, didn't even affect my insurance.
So, forgive me for calling bullshit on your allegations that these two actions are felonies.
And, for the record, all of the plea deals offered to Mr. Swartz involved pleading guilty to all thirteen felonies and spending at least six months in prison. "ever hear of plea deals", indeed...maybe you should have looked into what deals were offered to him before running your mouth about "cowards".
I'd like to see you call Mr. Swartz a coward to his parents' faces. I'll bet you wouldn't have the guts. You're just full of Internet Bravado.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985)
Majority opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun.
"Holding - Copies of copyrighted works cannot be regarded as stolen property for the purposes of a prosecution under a statute criminalizing the interstate transportation of such property."
Also, for the record, none of the indictments had anything to do with "stealing", or even "copyright infringement". They were for, among other things, using a static IP address.
Whine all you like. Mr. Swartz didn't steal anything.
Have you heard of the Responsible Corporate Officer doctrine? In a nutshell, if a company does something bad, their executives can be held criminally accountable, even if they didn't know what was going on, because it's their duty to know.
And yet when Forest Laboratories was marketing drugs to children when they were approved only for adults, what did Carmen Ortiz do? She could have held the executives responsible for the criminal actions of the company...and yet she chose not to. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/health/16drug.html?_r=0
I blame the prosecutor. The law says she could hold the executives accountable, and yet she used her discretion with Forest Laboratories to avoid sentencing anyone to any time in prison. Why not with Aaron Swartz?
You mean the prosecutor gets to decide what sentence they think your crime deserves, and then offers you a chance to plead guilty for that sentence...and if you choose to exercise your Constitutional right to a jury trial, the prosecutor then punishes you for exercising this right by seeking a sentence that is harsher than they think your crime deserves.
I'm not sure what your point is. The date on that post is four days after Mr. Swartz was arrested, so it was not in effect when he was downloading JSTOR's articles en-masse.
TFA discusses traumatic brain injury (TBI), which reminded me of another FA that I read a while ago about detecting TBI with MRI machines.
Two guys, Dr. Walter Schneider and Dr. David Onkonwo, are using MRI to identify neural tracts throughout the brain. Their new technique, HDFT, is able to visualize the brain's wiring, and it can identify where the wiring has been broken.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57389325-10391704/new-technology-could-change-how-traumatic-brain-injuries-are-diagnosed/
This just shows how little you know about the Aaron Swartz scandal. The "restricted network closet" isn't restricted at all. No locks. No signs that say "do not enter" or "employee's only". It's in a publicly accessible hallway.
Go read the indictment. It does not mention trespassing. Anywhere.
Two counts "Wire Fraud", five counts "Computer Fraud", five counts "Unlawfully Obtaining Information from a Protected Computer", one count "Recklessly Damaging a Protected Computer". Thirteen felony counts. The end.
They consider as evidence of hacking that he assigned himself static IPs instead of getting an IP from the DHCP server.
Given all this...what else might you have wrong about this case?
They already decide who to prosecute. Prosecutors have amazing discretion. For instance, Carmen Ortiz - the lady who handled Mr. Swartz's case - has had settlements with at least three major health care companies where no individual human had to plead guilty to doing anything wrong (in at least one case, not even the company admitted any guilt).
Face it, Mr. Dimedici. We already have tyrant prosecutors which decide who gets away with what crimes unpunished. I remember reading the words of one Judge who said something along the lines of "stealing is stealing, yes, but stealing an apple because you're hungry is quite different from Bernie Madoff".
The underwear bomber boarded his flight in Amsterdam. The shoe bomber boarded his flight in Paris.
What good does using body scanners in the US do? If the terrorist's goal is to blow up a plane, it doesn't matter if he gets scanned in the US, even upon arrival, because he'll have long since carried out his attack.
No, the point of these body scanners is to enrich the manufacturers and catch drug smugglers. That's it. Terrorism is just a convenient pretext.
No, evading the ban or continuing to access after ordered not to by the owner should get you fined - provided you didn't do any damage. If you do damage during unauthorized access, THEN you get sent to jail. If the damage exceeds a certain monetary value, THEN it can be a felony.
By the way, do you have any evidence that MIT told him to stop? I don't think blacklisting his MAC address counts as correspondence. Perhaps they should have considered asking him to stop before calling in the cops.
You're exactly right.
So, did that door have a big "PRIVATE" sign on it? No.
Was it locked? No.
Was it in a publicly accessible area? Yes.
So, what was your point?
Read Orin Kerr's latest discussion on this. A lot of the charges against Aaron would duplicated under multiple statutes for the same act, and Mr. Kerr recommends removing the redundant laws.
I'm sorry, did I miss JSTOR filing charges and then recanting them?
In fact, did I miss Aaron Swartz having the power to coerce JSTOR into requesting the charges be dropped?
Or is it the case that Mr. Swartz had no ability to coerce JSTOR and that JSTOR never filed any charges to recant?
In case you missed it...JSTOR, the injured party in question, asked them to drop the case.
Charging people with felonies when the victim said "no dude, it's cool, no harm no foul" shows a stunning lack of discretion.
Was the room he entered locked? No.
Was it in a publicly accessible area? Yes.
Were there any signs on the door saying "employees only" or anything to that effect? No.
Did JSTOR want the case dropped? Yes.
Did he have to agree to any terms of service in order to use the network or JSTOR? No.
No one, and I mean no one, is saying he shouldn't be held accountable for what he did wrong. But if you were caught jaywalking and the prosecutor wanted to send you to prison, I have a feeling that you might have a problem with that.
Generous? What fucking planet are you from? He didn't hurt anybody. He didn't kill anybody. He wasn't out for a profit. He downloaded some data that anyone can access for free by going to the right place.
Six months for that crime is not generous. It's bullshit. Would you think a six month plea for jaywalking is generous?
You didn't answer his question.
What kind of punishment do you think Aaron Swartz deserved? When answering, please remember that JSTOR's opinion was "none".
Really? So was St. Jude's prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?
Was anyone found guilty of anything? "St. Jude officials said they weren’t admitting liability"
How about GlaxoSmithKline?
But hey, at least someone was found guilty this time. His name was SB Pharmco Puerto Rico Inc. I don't think he had to serve any time in prison, though.
Or Forest Laboratories?
Someone was found guilty this time, too. His name was Forest Laboratories. No time served in prison, although there was one felony count - lying to FDA officials.
You know, if I squint really hard, I think I can see the impression left by the book that Ortiz threw at Mr. Forest Laboratories and Mr. SB Pharmco Puerto Rico Inc.
I think this is really what this was. They assume not only that the perp is automatically guilty, but guilty of everything, with aggravating circumstances. I would imagine there should be a level of discretion involved, perhaps not prosecuting when the injured party asks you to drop the case...but I could be mistaken.
I believe I've read elsewhere that he would have copped to a misdemeanor, but not a felony. I also read that Heyman refused to offer any plea that didn't include guilty on all felony counts.
But did you really just compare Aaron Swartz downloading material that you admit can be obtained for free pretty easily to Hans Reiser murdering his wife? Come on, Swartz didn't kill or injure anyone, and JSTOR wasn't asking for him to be prosecuted.
The only reason a six month plea bargain even appears reasonable is when it is juxtaposed to decades in prison. George Hotz did far more damage to Sony - they did try to sue him, unlike JSTOR - and Hotz did not have to plead guilty to anything for his deal, let alone labeled a felon and thrown in prison. It's a more reasonable analogy than Reiser, but Hotz is still very different.
And you also need to consider the problems associated with being a felon. Should Swartz have given up his right to defend himself with firearms for IP and MAC spoofing? The right to vote, in some states forever? Who would hire a man convicted of a dozen computer felonies?
There is no doubt in my mind that the prosecution was intentionally trying to make him plead out by massively trumping up charges. It was originally four felonies, later nine more were added. Again, JSTOR wasn't even asking for a lawsuit, and I haven't heard that MIT wanted to sue him either, so why were the prosecutors so eager to pin so many felonies on him?
Interestingly, Ortiz' office let some health care companies get away with doing some nasty things...and nobody had to plead guilty to anything, just some fines and settlements. Prescribing drugs only approved for adults to teens, putting the wrong drugs in the bottle, kickbacks for implanting medical devices unnecessarily...things that can actually injure someone...and not a single guilty plea? I would think what they did is far, far worse than what Swartz did. Using the technique of "trump up felony charges to force them to cop a plea" on a known suicide risk over a victimless crime is reckless, negligent, and unprofessional.
You should do some research...movie ratings are an entirely voluntary system without the force of law.
And California has tried to restrict violent video games. I think they tried a few times, actually. They lost. Every. Single. Time.