Those of us who were following the case before Aaron's tragic episode knew that a great injustice was being perpetrated, but that it could not realistically be undone until after the damage had happened.
Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Heymann should be held accountable for their decision to use charges far out of proportion to the damage done. And the correct way to hold them accountable is to remove them from an office they have proven themselves incapable of using appropriately. They do not deserve to have the full power of the law behind their petty vendettas.
A Federal District Attorney in this country, at this time, has almost no checks on her power to prosecute. Petitioning the Whitehouse and the congress to remove one who has clearly overstepped the bounds of propriety is the only recourse we have.
You should sign the petition, because it is the only way that Ms. Ortiz's power will even be questioned officially. Like most online petitions it will accomplish little without a sustained campaign from many directions.
I guess. Doesn't seem worth it, but it's the best I got.
Do you realize that Aarons case had yet to go to trial? And that there is a good chance the EFF would have stepped in if it had? And that even if they didn't that would have said nothing about Aarons guilt or lack thereof?
I don't believe EFF's involvement or lack thereof speaks in any way to Swartz's guilt. I would say that this is the kind of thing you'd hope EFF would be right in the middle of. Were they?
I offered to contribute to Aarons defense a while ago but he declined. That may have been because he knew that any help he needed was outside of my ability to render.
Be careful, you're associating yourself with a 'known troll'.
This doesn't eliminate the fact that trials are extremely expensive, guilty or innocent, but it slightly ameliorates it.
"yet unable to appeal openly to us for the financial help he needed to fund his defense".
I'm not sure what the background on that line is but it definitely makes you curious.
We're Aarons assets frozen? Was he banned from Internet as a condition of bail?
I'm confused about this too.
Lessig really really needs to explain that sentence.
if (respectedOrganization(lawyer.getOrganization())) {
return INNOCENT;
} else {
return GUILTY;
}True or False: Lawrence Lessig, Alex Stamos (an expert witness) and Swartz's own family said that the overzealous and vastly disproportionate prosecution was the principal factor in his suicide.
The real witch-hunt was led by Carmen Ortiz and Steve Heymann and ended in Swartz's death. Witches don't exist, and the evil hacker of their imagination did not exist. Your proposal to be "better than this" seems to mean remaining silent, averting our eyes, and pretending that this was some act of nature like a mudslide. As for whether we should have done something beforehand: how could we have? Lessig himself said that the government had effectively muzzled Swartz to prevent him from defending himself online or alerting others to the severity of his situation.
There were specific people here to blame. If you believe the US Attorney's charges were merited, that they should not face discipline, that seeing a sitting US prosecutor forced to resign would not have the requisite "deterrent effect", or that we should all remain silent and accept this -- just say so. Otherwise your critique is contentless, and a recommendation for Aaron's death to be meaningless.
[1] http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120917/17393320412/us-gov...
EDIT:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5052033
And a court would have no choice but to find him guilty, as
that is the purpose of the judiciary. A court cannot let
someone walk after a crime simply because the law itself is
unjust.
Lessig, Stamos, and Swartz are what is legally known as "biased" toward Aaron's case. Naturally, MIT, JSTOR, and various persons in the federal government have differing opinions.
Aaron wasn't the target of a witch hunt; that would imply that he wasn't guilty of anything. He was--he admits to what he did. His defense was an MLK/Ghandi defense (i.e., civil disobedience).
Lessig himself said that the government had effectively muzzled Swartz to prevent him from defending himself online or alerting others to the severity of his situation.
Which clearly isn't true, since HN, reddit, and the interweb in general has been discussing this case nearly non-stop since the charges were dropped.
that seeing a sitting US prosecutor forced to resign would not have the requisite "deterrent effect"
This is a fantasy, both in the likelihood of occuring and its desired effect. People outside of the tech world simply don't think that way.
This is a fantasy, both in the likelihood of occuring
Hacktivist's suicide intensifies criticism of U.S. attorney, MIT
But his suicide by hanging Friday has also stoked a
politically malignant aftermath for the prosecutors
pursuing 13 felony charges against him in a trial that was
set to begin in a month. Some said his death could be a
watershed moment in the ongoing intellectual property
debate over the things people share and create, and how
they share and create them.
You should know his death is a good reason to revisit the
1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the law under which he
was prosecuted, since it is far too broad, and to take a
hard look at Massachusetts U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz,
whose office prosecuted Aaron with such recklessly
disproportionate vigor, and who is reportedly considering a
run for governor.
To some in the Internet community, it was a Robin Hood-like
stunt.Prosecutors disagreed and threatened to put him in
prison for more than three decades.
Mr. Swartz's lawyer, Elliot Peters, first discussed a
possible plea bargain with Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen
Heymann last fall. In an interview Sunday, he said he was
told at the time that Mr. Swartz would need to plead guilty
to every count, and the government would insist on prison
time. Mr. Peters said he spoke to Mr. Heymann again last
Wednesday in another attempt to find a compromise. The
prosecutor, he said, didn't budge.
Mr. Heymann didn't reply to requests for comment Sunday.
The Massachusetts U.S. attorney's office declined to
comment Sunday, saying it wanted to respect the family's
privacy. But in a press release from July 2011 when the
charges in the case were announced, U.S. Attorney Carmen
Ortiz said, "Stealing is stealing, whether you use a
computer command or a crowbar."
This is a CAT-4 shitstorm. Getting phone calls from the Wall Street Journal about why your aggressive prosecution caused the death of a young computer genius is not what Heymann and Ortiz signed up for. They were gunning for Bostonian of the Year, stuff like that. So already there is a deterrent effect. If and when the politicians get involved and call for an investigation into disproportionate sentencing, it will kick up to CAT-5. Moreover, there are 2300 articles like that on Google News now. Go check. The more calls for resignation, the more she becomes a public embarrassment to Obama, the more likely she is to be put on leave.
Now, pretty much everything else you've posted in these threads has been either trivially wrong ("federal prosecutors have no discretion") or a naked argument in favor of unlimited state power. But this is at least a prediction about a future outcome.
So let's make a bet. Prediction: Carmen Ortiz will be at a minimum put on administrative leave and will likely be forced to resign by the end of February. If I win, you never darken Hacker News' doorstep again. If you win, I in turn stop posting and you can push HN towards what appears to be your ideal venue: a space for lawyers rather than hackers, a space for people who sympathize with the federal prosecutor who hounded a hacker to his death.
Deal?
PS:
1) JSTOR is not on the same side as MIT. And MIT by their recent statement is not on the same side as the prosecutor.
2) Aaron never admitted guilt/plead guilty.
3) The charges weren't "dropped", they were rendered moot by his death.
I think we should have been better than this too... I think we should have been up in arms while Aaron was still alive. It was wrong then too, but easier to dismiss because it was someone else' fight.
And now they're busy tripping over each other with hyperbole-filled condemnations, and casting all members of the justice system as something subhuman.
And in all of this noise we've only heard a few whimpers about the systemic failings that have brought about this tragedy, with vastly more voices calling for specific heads to roll. This is a classic pitchfork-wielding mob - less concerned with the future prevention of the injustice, and much more concerned with blame and vengeance.
There is justice, and there is mob justice. HN has seen vastly more of the latter than the former in the past couple of days.
"Calling for specific heads" is a perfectly reasonable response to systemic failings. The system is fucked up and it's not even as if they can say "I was just doing my job". There is a large amount of discretion involved here. Even hypothetically conceding that some crime was committed and that this is just how the game is played to get people to plea doesn't justify ruining someone's life.
Hold these specific people accountable and the message will be sent that these tactics are no longer accepted. It's just a band-aid but it's a start.
Which one is this? http://www.forbes.com/sites/harveysilverglate/2013/01/03/bla...
Coincidentally the Whitey's case was by the same Carmen Ortiz, according to news sources.
It's fun to be a contrarian, but try to find a sensible angle.
It's really hard to say if punishment fits the crime when the evidence isn't available (so we can't really say what the crimes were) and what the punishment is; we only know the statutory maximums. Without a trial, verdict and sentencing we don't what the punishment is aside from the conditions of release which I don't think were unreasonable http://ia600504.us.archive.org/29/items/gov.uscourts.mad.137... )
Hate to repeat myself but this information is important:
Aaron's "crime" - http://unhandled.com/2013/01/12/the-truth-about-aaron-swartz...
Strategies to disable legal defense - http://www.forbes.com/sites/harveysilverglate/2013/01/03/bla... Whithey's case seems to be related the same attorney(Ortiz)
It may be irrational, but it's only human. Humans aren't logical all the time.
Furthermore, on HN at least, your "we" seems to actually be "a vocal minority of us", and by no means represents the pervasive sentiment. I think overall, we're angry at the machine, not the cogs in it. Certainly I am.
In time those of us who mourn Aaron's passing will hopefully channel that anger into productive change. But until then, judging a community's reasonableness in the wake of a tragedy like this is setting a really, really high bar. Emotions. We've all got 'em, even hackers.
I am ashamed to be a part of the same community that you claim to embody.
>calling for the head of everyone and anyone related to the prosecution
Not everyone. I think Lawrence clearly named ONE name. An appointed office. Not an elected representative. Her superior can politely ask her if she'd like to step down.
This is not supposed to be the most difficult part, people.
We are better than this.
Actually, evidently, no we're not. We will take a single piece of news, and then fly off the handle, careening into supposition after rumor, and proceed to label people whose actions (or inactions) are far from certain, with the most heinous crimes our society knows - up to and including murder.
We will take the news of one man's death and twist that into character attacks against people and groups we don't know, and make blanket statements galore: whether it's about the staff of MIT, all lawyers, all prosecutors, all investigators, all Federal employees, etc, ad nauseum.
We will write posts filled with hyperbole after hyperbole, followed by insinuations, emotion-appealing analogies, and mindless rhetoric.
So no, we are evidently just as knee-jerky reactionary as every other stupid online community.
But we should be better than this.