Attorney General: Aaron Swartz Case Was a ‘Good Use of Prosecutorial Discretion’(wired.com)
wired.com
Attorney General: Aaron Swartz Case Was a ‘Good Use of Prosecutorial Discretion’
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/holder-swartz-case/
11 comments
The problem is when laws are written ad hoc for politically inconvenient people, at that point the executive branch will throw their hands in the air and say "We're just enforcing the law!" and ignore the ethical and moral issues.
I think you can fairly argue that the prosecutors in this case, at the least, didn't do anything atypical. The fact that this sort of behavior is par for the course is a separate issue -- and one that deserves fixing, whether or not the fix involves the prophylactic purging from the system of some high profile participants.
However, the idea that the CFAA is the best we can do in the way of legislation is just laughable. I really can't stand this futile notion that because the law can't be totally perfect, we might as well just give up and allow it to be catastrophically bad. No to that. We can't make it perfect but we can make it a lot better than it is.
However, the idea that the CFAA is the best we can do in the way of legislation is just laughable. I really can't stand this futile notion that because the law can't be totally perfect, we might as well just give up and allow it to be catastrophically bad. No to that. We can't make it perfect but we can make it a lot better than it is.
> However, the idea that the CFAA is the best we can do in the way of legislation is just laughable. I really can't stand this futile notion that because the law can't be totally perfect, we might as well just give up and allow it to be catastrophically bad. No to that. We can't make it perfect but we can make it a lot better than it is.
You're exactly right but careful about what you're arguing against. I don't think anyone is actually claiming that CFAA is the best achievable law we could have, or that we shouldn't try to improve it (even if we accept that the law will be mostly written and almost completely enforced by those without technical training in computers and networking).
You're exactly right but careful about what you're arguing against. I don't think anyone is actually claiming that CFAA is the best achievable law we could have, or that we shouldn't try to improve it (even if we accept that the law will be mostly written and almost completely enforced by those without technical training in computers and networking).
The sense of the post I responded to was very much that what happened in this case was acceptable or understandable because justice is complicated, which implies that there is little to nothing that could or should be done about it. But complexity doesn't excuse failure. Mistakes may be inevitable but that is no excuse not to learn from them and do better next time.
Why is 3-6 months in jail for breaking in and repeatedly breaking the law overreach?
Does your question have anything to do with what I posted?
OK, I'll bite. It's overreach because they charged him with a felony for doing something that shouldn't be a felony, and there is reason to suspect that they charged him and not any of the very large number of other people who violate that statute on a regular basis in significant part as a result of his political views.
OK, I'll bite. It's overreach because they charged him with a felony for doing something that shouldn't be a felony, and there is reason to suspect that they charged him and not any of the very large number of other people who violate that statute on a regular basis in significant part as a result of his political views.
Repeated breaking and entering and unauthorized network access isn't a crime?
There are mountains of computer crimes going on that are well within the current definitions. It's inconceivable that pursuing Aaron in this manner was useful for anything but making an example for the old bosses of intellectual property.
This is the same guy who thinks it's ok to assassinate US citizens with drones without trial.
Despicable.
Despicable.
It's never been not okay to kill people in other countries actively taking up arms against you, U.S. Citizen or not. People are just riding Holder's ass because it seems different to drone strike someone versus an American soldier shooting a German-American who switched sides. E.g. http://journalstar.com/lifestyles/columnist-recounts-tale-of...
USA is not in a war. There has been no declaration of war authorised by Congress. Therefore there can be no 'enemy combatants' - as (legally and officially) there are no war enemies; and drone-striking any US citizen is simply murder.
The U.S. does not need to declare war to be engaged in hostilities, nor does the U.S. need to be in a declared war for people who take up arms against the U.S. to be enemy combatants. This is a practice that is as old as the Republic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_Unite...
Holder's analysis was based on the AUMF, which as a Congressional authorization of force is as much as the U.S. has ever required.
As an aside, a declaration of war is a diplomatic issue between nations. It's not even applicable in this context, in hostilities against non-nation entities.
Holder's analysis was based on the AUMF, which as a Congressional authorization of force is as much as the U.S. has ever required.
As an aside, a declaration of war is a diplomatic issue between nations. It's not even applicable in this context, in hostilities against non-nation entities.
False. Public Law section 107-40, Section (2)(b)(1).
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ...
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ...
It's weird that so many people believe we aren't at war, like they really can't get their heads around the fact that we declared war on a brand name and unlike the "war on drugs" it was an actual war.
This is the same guy who thinks its ok to send guns into mexico to make a case against the second amendment and raise support for the U.N small arms treaty.
I just came here to say pretty much exactly that. Consider the source, people.
Don't stop there. He thinks it is unconstitutional for Congress to limit the President's power to assassinate US Citizens without a trial.
I'm genuinely curious what the Obama Administration sees in Holder. He brings no gravitas nor respect to the position; rather his role seems to be to deflect blame from Obama for his unconstitutional and generally shit-headed decisions.
This is the same attorney general who refuses to disclose the legal reasoning behind the presumption that the president is entitled to kill American Citizens at home or abroad without due process of law.
Also the same attorney general who has so far only prosecuted bit players in the nationwide mortgage document fraud without even bringing charges against executives whose name is on memos ordering the fraudulent practice.
If you're wondering why justice in this country appears to be available only to those who can afford it... He is the prime mechanism of failure.
Also the same attorney general who has so far only prosecuted bit players in the nationwide mortgage document fraud without even bringing charges against executives whose name is on memos ordering the fraudulent practice.
If you're wondering why justice in this country appears to be available only to those who can afford it... He is the prime mechanism of failure.
Would appreciate a link to information about executives whose name is on memos ordering the fraudulent practice.
I understand that there is evidence of fraudulent mortgages, and executives involved in risky financial behavior, but I am not aware of something tying the executives to the fraud.
I understand that there is evidence of fraudulent mortgages, and executives involved in risky financial behavior, but I am not aware of something tying the executives to the fraud.
The original legal memo justifying the case for killing Americans pursuant to the war on terror was written by John Yoo while working for the Bush Administration. John Yoo is also famous for writing the torture memo. He is currently, to the great shame of all alumni, employed as a professor at the UC Berkeley, in the law school.
If you can find the full video of this hearing on C-SPAN or something, both before and after you can hear him taking questions on the lack of HSBC/bank executive prosecutions, as well as the issue of drone killings of Americans on American soil while not engaged in activities that present immediate and clear danger. You won't be satisfied with the answers, but they are there. The man is a world-class expert at giving responses that don't answer the question.
A pretty clear case where the legal system and the people who run it are left behind the times (and try to keep the times back with them). Changing your MAC address, for instance, is no worse a threat to society than wearing a hoodie in public, and threats of 35 year sentences are usually reserved for cases such as murder or rape. But because hacking is such a novel kind of crime that, if it spreads, will necessitate vast changes in the expertise and structure of the law enforcement system, the powers that be feel a need to nip it in the bud with excessive, well publicized punishments and threats.
Don't be purposefully disingenuous. There is nothing wrong with wearing a hoodie in public, but if you wear a hoodie to hide your face from security cameras while you walk, without permission, onto a commercial building at night, then the fact of your wearing the hoodie can be used to show that you knew you were trespassing and trying to hide the fact. The same exact reasoning can be applied to changing your MAC address while trespassing onto a private network without permission. There is nothing wrong with doing it by itself, but if you do it to get onto someone's network when they don't want you on, that's something totally different.
As for "threats of 35 year sentences"--the statutory maximum is not a "threat." If I punch you in a bar fight, causing no injury, and you press charges, I'm theoretically facing the maximum sentence for assault in New York, which is 25 years. But at no point does anybody think anyone will actually get a 25 year sentence for a little bar fight. If I went apoplectic about the grave injustices of "facing" 25 years in prison for a bruised chin, people would point out the obvious: the statutory maximum is for people who try to kill people, not people who get in bar fights. Similar common sense should prevail in this discussion--the fact that it doesn't is because of nothing more than grandstanding.
As for "threats of 35 year sentences"--the statutory maximum is not a "threat." If I punch you in a bar fight, causing no injury, and you press charges, I'm theoretically facing the maximum sentence for assault in New York, which is 25 years. But at no point does anybody think anyone will actually get a 25 year sentence for a little bar fight. If I went apoplectic about the grave injustices of "facing" 25 years in prison for a bruised chin, people would point out the obvious: the statutory maximum is for people who try to kill people, not people who get in bar fights. Similar common sense should prevail in this discussion--the fact that it doesn't is because of nothing more than grandstanding.
> As for "threats of 35 year sentences"--the statutory maximum is not a "threat."
That's simply incorrect. It is absolutely a threat. As I recently argued:
> The prosecutor used the threat of 35-50 years in prison to get Aaron to accept a guilty plea. If he chose to plead not guilty and attempt to defend himself, it would cost well over a million dollars in legal fees, and if he were found guilty anyway, the judge would be strongly predisposed to make an example of him by giving him a very long, punitive sentence.
> A prosecutor forcing someone to admit guilt by threatening a life-destroying cruel and unusual punishment if they do not admit it - why, that is the very essence of using torture to extract a confession!
http://quandyfactory.com/blog/103/on_crimes_and_punishments_...
That's simply incorrect. It is absolutely a threat. As I recently argued:
> The prosecutor used the threat of 35-50 years in prison to get Aaron to accept a guilty plea. If he chose to plead not guilty and attempt to defend himself, it would cost well over a million dollars in legal fees, and if he were found guilty anyway, the judge would be strongly predisposed to make an example of him by giving him a very long, punitive sentence.
> A prosecutor forcing someone to admit guilt by threatening a life-destroying cruel and unusual punishment if they do not admit it - why, that is the very essence of using torture to extract a confession!
http://quandyfactory.com/blog/103/on_crimes_and_punishments_...
The trick is in the word "faces." If I went to trial for punching someone at a bar, a jury could decide that I was really trying to kill them and my ninja hands were deadly weapons, etc, and a judge could decide I'm a menace to society and need to be put away and so in that sense I "face" 25 years in prison. But that doesn't happen.
Yes, prosecutors offer lower sentences in exchange for guilty pleas, but the lower sentence is relative to the sentencing guidelines, not the statutory maximums. See: http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-agains...
Yes, prosecutors offer lower sentences in exchange for guilty pleas, but the lower sentence is relative to the sentencing guidelines, not the statutory maximums. See: http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-agains...
[deleted]
Statutory maximums are not the same as mandatory minimums.
> A prosecutor forcing someone to admit guilt by threatening a life-destroying cruel and unusual punishment if they do not admit it - why, that is the very essence of using torture to extract a confession!
I count at least 7 fallacies in that single sentence. Impressive.
> A prosecutor forcing someone to admit guilt by threatening a life-destroying cruel and unusual punishment if they do not admit it - why, that is the very essence of using torture to extract a confession!
I count at least 7 fallacies in that single sentence. Impressive.
> does anybody think anyone will actually get a 25 year sentence for a little bar fight.
Let's switch it up and say that the guy you decked was the son of the prosecutors best buddy from high school. And that you are a minority, high school dropout. In todays america, you very well might be facing the maximum sentence; if not much worse.
Let's switch it up and say that the guy you decked was the son of the prosecutors best buddy from high school. And that you are a minority, high school dropout. In todays america, you very well might be facing the maximum sentence; if not much worse.
Except you just made all that up, and also the sentences minorities get and the sentences white kids like Swartz get are (regrettably) two different conversations.
The point I was making is that we have a two tiered system of justice in this country; and while it used to be the case that the tiers were divided exclusively by race; they are now divided along the lines of class, and political opinion.
The meta-point I am attempting to make is that despite the pieties and the nice heritage architecture of the buildings it lives in; our system of justice has become unutterably and unsustainably corrupt; almost as corrupt as our political system.
The meta-point I am attempting to make is that despite the pieties and the nice heritage architecture of the buildings it lives in; our system of justice has become unutterably and unsustainably corrupt; almost as corrupt as our political system.
>purposefully disingenuous
Can we have a civilized conversation please? Criticizing my arguments is one thing, accusing me of dishonesty completely different. Thanks.
I agree with your comparison of Aaron's deeds to trespassing. What is the statutory maximum for trespassing with a hoodie? Why does trespassing onto a network fit into a category of crimes for which prosecution can (and does) seek worse punishment than for actual physical assault? Pretty much for the reasons I've outlined in my comment: entrenched interests, desire to hit novel kinds of possible crimes with excessive punishment rather than reform the system to deal with them.
Can we have a civilized conversation please? Criticizing my arguments is one thing, accusing me of dishonesty completely different. Thanks.
I agree with your comparison of Aaron's deeds to trespassing. What is the statutory maximum for trespassing with a hoodie? Why does trespassing onto a network fit into a category of crimes for which prosecution can (and does) seek worse punishment than for actual physical assault? Pretty much for the reasons I've outlined in my comment: entrenched interests, desire to hit novel kinds of possible crimes with excessive punishment rather than reform the system to deal with them.
> Can we have a civilized conversation please? Criticizing my arguments is one thing, accusing me of dishonesty completely different.
Saying "there is nothing wrong with changing your MAC address" in this context is disingenuous, because it implies that Swartz was being charged for changing his MAC address. That is a false implication. He was being charged for the other things he was doing--the things that necessitated his changing his MAC address.
Trespassing onto a network under the CFAA is a misdemeanor, just like criminal trespass in a building. Trespassing with intent to commit some other crime therein is a felony under the CFAA, and is basically burglary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burglary) in meat-space.
The problem here is that mass copyright infringement shouldn't be a crime, but rather a civil issue. But the entrenched interests that made mass copyright infringement a crime are probably different than the ones you're thinking of--it was the tech industry, the BSA with Microsoft, Oracle, etc, that turned copyright infringement into a criminal matter in their fight against mass pirating of Windows, etc.
Saying "there is nothing wrong with changing your MAC address" in this context is disingenuous, because it implies that Swartz was being charged for changing his MAC address. That is a false implication. He was being charged for the other things he was doing--the things that necessitated his changing his MAC address.
Trespassing onto a network under the CFAA is a misdemeanor, just like criminal trespass in a building. Trespassing with intent to commit some other crime therein is a felony under the CFAA, and is basically burglary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burglary) in meat-space.
The problem here is that mass copyright infringement shouldn't be a crime, but rather a civil issue. But the entrenched interests that made mass copyright infringement a crime are probably different than the ones you're thinking of--it was the tech industry, the BSA with Microsoft, Oracle, etc, that turned copyright infringement into a criminal matter in their fight against mass pirating of Windows, etc.
I didn't say "there is nothing wrong with changing your MAC address" and didn't imply that's what he was charged for. The article mentioned the prosecutors using it in support of treating the case harshly, and I just compared its seriousness (as a threat to social order etc.) to wearing a hoodie (which you basically agreed with). And I still don't believe it's justifiable for the virtual equivalent of either trespass or burglary to fit in a category of crimes that are more serious than physical assault on a living, breathing person.
> I didn't say "there is nothing wrong with changing your MAC address" and didn't imply that's what he was charged for.
> "Changing your MAC address, for instance, is no worse a threat to society than wearing a hoodie in public"
I'm not sure how else to read this other than "there is nothing wrong with changing your MAC address."
> And I still don't believe it's justifiable for the virtual equivalent of either trespass or burglary to fit in a category of crimes that are more serious than physical assault on a living, breathing person.
It may be more or less serious--it depends on the context. Trespass into a network system with intent to steal credit card numbers is worse than punching someone at a bar, while trespass into a network system just for kicks is much less bad than beating someone up. That's why both crimes can range from misdemeanors to serious felonies.
> "Changing your MAC address, for instance, is no worse a threat to society than wearing a hoodie in public"
I'm not sure how else to read this other than "there is nothing wrong with changing your MAC address."
> And I still don't believe it's justifiable for the virtual equivalent of either trespass or burglary to fit in a category of crimes that are more serious than physical assault on a living, breathing person.
It may be more or less serious--it depends on the context. Trespass into a network system with intent to steal credit card numbers is worse than punching someone at a bar, while trespass into a network system just for kicks is much less bad than beating someone up. That's why both crimes can range from misdemeanors to serious felonies.
Well you were being a bit dishonest; the actual maximum sentence was 50 years. :P
> Why does trespassing onto a network fit into a category of crimes for which prosecution can (and does) seek worse punishment than for actual physical assault?
In a word: automation. It can be (note: doesn't mean always is) entirely different in scope to be a network trespasser than to trespass in real life.
The Allies executed Germans after WWII who never so much as met their victims, based only on the fact that they wrote, approved and otherwise perpetuated policies that caused millions on the same continent to later perish.
I'm not trying to say that Aaron or anyone else is killing people obviously, just that there's a lot of things you can conceivably affect on a computer network, which might make a computer-related charge even more serious than a similar charge in real life.
> Why does trespassing onto a network fit into a category of crimes for which prosecution can (and does) seek worse punishment than for actual physical assault?
In a word: automation. It can be (note: doesn't mean always is) entirely different in scope to be a network trespasser than to trespass in real life.
The Allies executed Germans after WWII who never so much as met their victims, based only on the fact that they wrote, approved and otherwise perpetuated policies that caused millions on the same continent to later perish.
I'm not trying to say that Aaron or anyone else is killing people obviously, just that there's a lot of things you can conceivably affect on a computer network, which might make a computer-related charge even more serious than a similar charge in real life.
The video of Eric Holder is simultaneously baffling and revealing. The USDOJ really thinks it did a good job. It's unbelievable. Holder's metric of success is apparently (in this case) nothing but how little time Aaron could have spent in jail. No other considerations seem to matter.
I'm not sure how people so ignorant and blind wind up in positions of authority, but it scares me. Even scarier is the fact that I find myself agreeing with the Republican Senator from Texas who is likely only pressing the point with Holder to embarrass the Obama administration.
This microcosm encapsulates so well government doing all of the wrong things for all of the wrong reasons. How did it come to this?
I'm not sure how people so ignorant and blind wind up in positions of authority, but it scares me. Even scarier is the fact that I find myself agreeing with the Republican Senator from Texas who is likely only pressing the point with Holder to embarrass the Obama administration.
This microcosm encapsulates so well government doing all of the wrong things for all of the wrong reasons. How did it come to this?
> How did it come to this?
Perhaps some Mark Twain quotes from the late 1800s might change your mind about us having recently "come to this":
"All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling for idiots, and a compassion for them, on account of personal experience and heredity."
"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress."
"[I] was reporter in a legislature two sessions and the same in Congress one session, and thus learned to know personally three sample bodies of the smallest minds and the selfishest souls and the cowardliest hearts that God makes."
They don't just apply to Congressmen. They're relevant to pretty much any level of our government. It seems to apply anywhere that people are given power before they deserve it.
Perhaps some Mark Twain quotes from the late 1800s might change your mind about us having recently "come to this":
"All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling for idiots, and a compassion for them, on account of personal experience and heredity."
"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress."
"[I] was reporter in a legislature two sessions and the same in Congress one session, and thus learned to know personally three sample bodies of the smallest minds and the selfishest souls and the cowardliest hearts that God makes."
They don't just apply to Congressmen. They're relevant to pretty much any level of our government. It seems to apply anywhere that people are given power before they deserve it.
No other considerations seem to matter.
He was caught red-handed, so to speak. Any rational jury would have convicted him on evidentiary grounds had he chosen to go trial. There doesn't seem to be any record of his defense counsel arguing before the court that he was unfit to stand trial.
He was caught red-handed, so to speak. Any rational jury would have convicted him on evidentiary grounds had he chosen to go trial. There doesn't seem to be any record of his defense counsel arguing before the court that he was unfit to stand trial.
> This microcosm encapsulates so well government doing all of the wrong things for all of the wrong reasons. How did it come to this?
It's always been like this, and the people pushing the political buttons and pulling the political levers are patting the AG's back now. Special interests have an iron grip on politics in Washington now and the only way to win is to spend the most money.
Don't think this is limited to the Federal government, the States have been infiltrated just as well. Money makes the world go around.
It's always been like this, and the people pushing the political buttons and pulling the political levers are patting the AG's back now. Special interests have an iron grip on politics in Washington now and the only way to win is to spend the most money.
Don't think this is limited to the Federal government, the States have been infiltrated just as well. Money makes the world go around.
You use of 'infiltrated' indicates that there was a time when money did not drive politics.
There was no such time.
There was no such time.
> who is likely only pressing the point with Holder to embarrass the Obama administration.
He's doing it to build up his bid for the 2016 presidential election, and maybe a little to please his daddy.
I'm positive it has nothing to do with embarrassing the Obama administration.
He's doing it to build up his bid for the 2016 presidential election, and maybe a little to please his daddy.
I'm positive it has nothing to do with embarrassing the Obama administration.
Question: if Swartz was likely to only serve a short time for his "crimes" what's the justification for the amount of resources used in his prosecution? Either he was truly or a bad guy who deserved the concentrated attention of the US Attorney or his crimes were minor and those attentions were the result either of incompetence or personal vendetta. Are there any other options?
1. The only other cases available for the prosecuting attorneys with the kind of legal background needed to prosecute cases like Aaron's were of even lesser likely jail times (i.e. the "they'd be twiddling their thumbs otherwise" claim).
2. Or maybe, the seriousness of a crime is not actually completely correlated to the likely prison sentence. The prison sentence given should be based on what is required to prevent recurrence by the suspect in this particular case, and to prevent new occurrences of the same crime by others. E.g. if you could prevent theft of $20 million with a $5 padlock you'd normally call that a wise investment.
2. Or maybe, the seriousness of a crime is not actually completely correlated to the likely prison sentence. The prison sentence given should be based on what is required to prevent recurrence by the suspect in this particular case, and to prevent new occurrences of the same crime by others. E.g. if you could prevent theft of $20 million with a $5 padlock you'd normally call that a wise investment.
> I'm not sure how people so ignorant and blind wind up in positions of authority, but it scares me.
When will you run for office so that we may vote for you?
I'm being snide but the fact is that it's not at all a mystery how these people end up there. The self-proclaimed "best and brightest" go off to less annoying/higher paying/etc. jobs. QED.
When will you run for office so that we may vote for you?
I'm being snide but the fact is that it's not at all a mystery how these people end up there. The self-proclaimed "best and brightest" go off to less annoying/higher paying/etc. jobs. QED.
[deleted]
It's time to get beyond the shock and outrage at the stone-walling occurring, now, at every level of government, and take a good hard look at what's motivating Holder. We are asking him to empathize with us - the least we can do is empathize with him.
First things first: Swartz is small potatoes. Holder deals with a lot of things, not the least of which is fielding questions about the legality of drone strikes on US soil [1], or writing memos about Gitmo or torture [2]. The handling or mis-handling of a single case is nothing to Eric Holder, especially since his boss is not up for reelection.
Second thing: the default position for any government leader is to back up your people. It's easier that way. If everyone in government backs up their people, coupled with unapologetic denials of wrong-doing, you have a much more comfortable government for one and all - at least between elections. But hey, 4 years of total autonomy is far better than suffering constant public scrutiny and having to react to it. This is even more powerful if you have the judiciary on your side and, since you're all on the same team, that's more likely than not.
In summary, Eric Holder doesn't care about this case, and has assumed the default position of someone in his station: deny-everything. It would have been quite remarkable, in hindsight, for him to have done anything else.
Clearly this is not a good outcome: we want an Attorney General who shares our sensibilities, and in this case, we wanted someone in that role who perceives the fact that the federal prosecutor overstepped their bounds and drove a sensitive soul into oblivion for actions which caused no-one any harm. We want someone who understands that merely to be prosecuted is a severe punishment in time and treasure. We want someone who understands the difference between someone who breaks the law out of a heartfelt spirit of doing the right thing, and someone who breaks the law out of malicious, selfish intent.
Sadly, I can think of no other way to address this problem than to keep this in mind for the next election.
[1] http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/05/173572444/pre...
[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/06/pentagon-iraqi-t...
EDIT: P.S. I really like looking at inexplicable/horrible things like a software bug. Rather than indulge in pointless, impotent anger, treat the anger as a signal that your understanding of the system is flawed, and think through the forces at work. It's hard to get in the head of an insider, especially right after they pissed you off - but chances are they didn't want to piss you off. They didn't care about you at all.
Then, when your cogent analysis is through and you understand the system and how it can be fixed, you turn your anger back on a little and RIP THAT SHIT APART AND FIX IT.
First things first: Swartz is small potatoes. Holder deals with a lot of things, not the least of which is fielding questions about the legality of drone strikes on US soil [1], or writing memos about Gitmo or torture [2]. The handling or mis-handling of a single case is nothing to Eric Holder, especially since his boss is not up for reelection.
Second thing: the default position for any government leader is to back up your people. It's easier that way. If everyone in government backs up their people, coupled with unapologetic denials of wrong-doing, you have a much more comfortable government for one and all - at least between elections. But hey, 4 years of total autonomy is far better than suffering constant public scrutiny and having to react to it. This is even more powerful if you have the judiciary on your side and, since you're all on the same team, that's more likely than not.
In summary, Eric Holder doesn't care about this case, and has assumed the default position of someone in his station: deny-everything. It would have been quite remarkable, in hindsight, for him to have done anything else.
Clearly this is not a good outcome: we want an Attorney General who shares our sensibilities, and in this case, we wanted someone in that role who perceives the fact that the federal prosecutor overstepped their bounds and drove a sensitive soul into oblivion for actions which caused no-one any harm. We want someone who understands that merely to be prosecuted is a severe punishment in time and treasure. We want someone who understands the difference between someone who breaks the law out of a heartfelt spirit of doing the right thing, and someone who breaks the law out of malicious, selfish intent.
Sadly, I can think of no other way to address this problem than to keep this in mind for the next election.
[1] http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/03/05/173572444/pre...
[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/06/pentagon-iraqi-t...
EDIT: P.S. I really like looking at inexplicable/horrible things like a software bug. Rather than indulge in pointless, impotent anger, treat the anger as a signal that your understanding of the system is flawed, and think through the forces at work. It's hard to get in the head of an insider, especially right after they pissed you off - but chances are they didn't want to piss you off. They didn't care about you at all.
Then, when your cogent analysis is through and you understand the system and how it can be fixed, you turn your anger back on a little and RIP THAT SHIT APART AND FIX IT.
"Sadly, I can think of no other way to address this problem than to keep this in mind for the next election."
Even more sadly is I can think of no rational practical way to address this problem, period.
What does keeping it in mind for the next election do? When the election rolls around you basically have the choice between an asshole owned by the corporate lobbyists and another asshole owned by the same corporate lobbyists but who doesn't mind if gay people get married and women have abortions. Neither is going to fix this shit.
The only way this changes is if the election system changes to instant-runoff or another system that breaks down the two-party system, but guess how popular that idea is with the people whom the current system put into power?
Even more sadly is I can think of no rational practical way to address this problem, period.
What does keeping it in mind for the next election do? When the election rolls around you basically have the choice between an asshole owned by the corporate lobbyists and another asshole owned by the same corporate lobbyists but who doesn't mind if gay people get married and women have abortions. Neither is going to fix this shit.
The only way this changes is if the election system changes to instant-runoff or another system that breaks down the two-party system, but guess how popular that idea is with the people whom the current system put into power?
We could make prosecutorial bullying an issue in the next election... right?
Sigh. Maybe that's just me not being jaded enough :p
Sigh. Maybe that's just me not being jaded enough :p
We could introduce popular control of government between elections. I believe this is called "direct democracy". (It may introduce other problems, of course.)
Our election process is totally broken. The parties are the kingmakers. They have vast fundraising and promotional networks that extend into every state and key regions of each state, with powerful connections to incumbent governments. Which is kind of surprising because it seems like neither party is very good.
The only other network that has that kind of reach is the Internet. think it's worth thinking about the possibility that the internet could displace traditional political parties.
Our election process is totally broken. The parties are the kingmakers. They have vast fundraising and promotional networks that extend into every state and key regions of each state, with powerful connections to incumbent governments. Which is kind of surprising because it seems like neither party is very good.
The only other network that has that kind of reach is the Internet. think it's worth thinking about the possibility that the internet could displace traditional political parties.
Given the average education and intelligence of most Americans, you most certainly do not want a nuclear-capable nation run by direct democracy.
We have legislators for a reason: to act as a brake on the mob, not to echo it.
We have legislators for a reason: to act as a brake on the mob, not to echo it.
I hate it when people disparage the average American. What makes you think you're in a position to do that? And more to the point, why do you assume that politicians are better than the average American? I'd argue that they are actually worse. I reckon that my housekeeper would take the job of governing far more seriously and show far more common sense than a politician.
How about just someone who understands that a felony is a lifetime sentence? That is what blows me away. He defends their offer of "3, 4, 5" months like its totally reasonable to permanently disenfranchise a citizen whose misconduct was so negligibly harmful.
While I have always been pro-Aaron, your comment isn't true.
For a common felon, any time is a life sentence, but not for a talented techie with this kind of rap. For example, Kevin Mitnick is a very successful guy post prison. Aaron would have always been able to find work too, if not vote.
For a common felon, any time is a life sentence, but not for a talented techie with this kind of rap. For example, Kevin Mitnick is a very successful guy post prison. Aaron would have always been able to find work too, if not vote.
It is a life sentence! For the rest of one's life, a convicted/admitted felon may not vote, has his 2nd amendment rights stripped away. For. Life.
ETA: This makes me think that perhaps there should be a law to prevent 'placing oneself into the status of felon' (by admitting guilt, taking a plea deal, w/e) and that one must be convicted of a felony to be labeled "felon" and thus be required to live with the lifelong restrictions.
ETA: This makes me think that perhaps there should be a law to prevent 'placing oneself into the status of felon' (by admitting guilt, taking a plea deal, w/e) and that one must be convicted of a felony to be labeled "felon" and thus be required to live with the lifelong restrictions.
https://wei.sos.wa.gov/agency/osos/en/voters/pages/felons_an... (TL;DR: Felons can vote just fine in Washington State once they are out of prison and/or community custody).
And that was the absolute quickest of Google searches.
If you don't know something about what you're talking about then why are you making claims of fact instead of couching in terms of opinion?
And that was the absolute quickest of Google searches.
If you don't know something about what you're talking about then why are you making claims of fact instead of couching in terms of opinion?
Not every felon lives in the state of Washington. And after yet another quick Google search, twelve states permanently revoke your right to vote once you're convicted of (or admit to?) a felony. That means they may not vote for the remainder of their lives.
And what's this "couching in terms of opinion" crap? Where did I opine about this?
And what's this "couching in terms of opinion" crap? Where did I opine about this?
12 out of 50 states? So you're saying (now) that he had better-than-average odds of being able to get his right to vote back even if he randomly picked a state to live in?
My point about opinion was that you stated as a bare fact that his right to vote would be taken from him as a felon, which was not true (even if only 1 state gave felons the right to vote, he could move to that state when he's out).
Having a felon status is annoying in enough actual ways that you shouldn't have to make stuff up or state unchecked assumptions as fact.
My point about opinion was that you stated as a bare fact that his right to vote would be taken from him as a felon, which was not true (even if only 1 state gave felons the right to vote, he could move to that state when he's out).
Having a felon status is annoying in enough actual ways that you shouldn't have to make stuff up or state unchecked assumptions as fact.
>So you're saying (now) that he had better-than-average odds of being able to get his right to vote back even if he randomly picked a state to live in?
He had basically zero chance of having his rights restored.
The only way to have your rights restored after a Federal felony conviction is by way of a Presidential pardon. Unlike the states, the Federal government has no other process in place for this.
He had basically zero chance of having his rights restored.
The only way to have your rights restored after a Federal felony conviction is by way of a Presidential pardon. Unlike the states, the Federal government has no other process in place for this.
Restoration of rights after a felony conviction is completely dependent on the state where the conviction occurred. All states have a different process and some, like Florida, have intentionally been making it more difficult in recent years for felons to have their rights restored.
Further, there is no process for the restoration of your rights if convicted of a Federal felony outside of a Presidential pardon, which is what Aaron was facing.
Further, there is no process for the restoration of your rights if convicted of a Federal felony outside of a Presidential pardon, which is what Aaron was facing.
Notwithstanding softer claims about this experience effecting you psychologically for life or depleting your life savings, it should be noted that discrimination against convicted felons is entirely legal and a frequent practice of most employers, bankers, and so on.
The poster you replied to didn't say anything about economic welfare. Being disenfranchised is nothing to be taken lightly -- especially when it happens at the scale it currently does, to the point that it could actually alter the outcome of elections.
And when you're someone as politically-minded as Aaron.
>>negligibly harmful
I would actually use the term "virtually harmless" because it conveys the truth more accurately.
I would actually use the term "virtually harmless" because it conveys the truth more accurately.
We want someone who understands that merely to be prosecuted is a severe punishment in time and treasure. We want someone who understands the difference between someone who breaks the law out of a heartfelt spirit of doing the right thing, and someone who breaks the law out of malicious, selfish intent.
Those determinations are for the judicial branch to make, not the executive. Under article II of the Constitution, the executive 'shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' Under article III, the judicial power rests with the Supreme Court (and such lower courts as it has created). Prosecutors do not have the power to set aside the law, and even where plea bargains are made, they must be approved by a judge first.
I think there are severe flaws with the adversarial legal model that obtains in the US, but the Constitution is extremely clear and explicit about this.
Those determinations are for the judicial branch to make, not the executive. Under article II of the Constitution, the executive 'shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' Under article III, the judicial power rests with the Supreme Court (and such lower courts as it has created). Prosecutors do not have the power to set aside the law, and even where plea bargains are made, they must be approved by a judge first.
I think there are severe flaws with the adversarial legal model that obtains in the US, but the Constitution is extremely clear and explicit about this.
>Those determinations are for the judicial branch to make, not the executive.
It seems to me they're for the legislature in the first instance. Only when the legislature fails so egregiously as to be in violation of the constitution would the courts have the power to strike down a law, and I have to hope we want to draw the line somewhere prior to "violates constitutionally guaranteed human rights" and nearer to the point of having some resemblance to proportionality and reason.
In cases like this there is also the issue that a major part of the problem itself is the cost of access to the courts. How do you argue to the court that it costs you an unreasonably large amount of time and money to make your arguments to the court? By the time you make the argument it's moot. It needs to be addressed in the legislature before we ever get to the courts.
And I'll give you that it isn't the executive's purpose to stop things like this from happening, but they can most certainly make things better or worse by making differently the decisions that are within their discretion.
It seems to me they're for the legislature in the first instance. Only when the legislature fails so egregiously as to be in violation of the constitution would the courts have the power to strike down a law, and I have to hope we want to draw the line somewhere prior to "violates constitutionally guaranteed human rights" and nearer to the point of having some resemblance to proportionality and reason.
In cases like this there is also the issue that a major part of the problem itself is the cost of access to the courts. How do you argue to the court that it costs you an unreasonably large amount of time and money to make your arguments to the court? By the time you make the argument it's moot. It needs to be addressed in the legislature before we ever get to the courts.
And I'll give you that it isn't the executive's purpose to stop things like this from happening, but they can most certainly make things better or worse by making differently the decisions that are within their discretion.
It seems to me they're for the legislature in the first instance.
The legislature created the law in question and has no so far seen fit to amend it.
How do you argue to the court that it costs you an unreasonably large amount of time and money to make your arguments to the court?
You would make a selective prosecution argument under the equal protection clause, but you would likely lose as other defendants with fewer resources seem able to navigate the trial process even with public defenders rather than counsel of their choice.
I think access to the courts is sadly lacking in many respects, and would be quite happy to see Congress give the courts more money even at the price of higher taxes.
The legislature created the law in question and has no so far seen fit to amend it.
How do you argue to the court that it costs you an unreasonably large amount of time and money to make your arguments to the court?
You would make a selective prosecution argument under the equal protection clause, but you would likely lose as other defendants with fewer resources seem able to navigate the trial process even with public defenders rather than counsel of their choice.
I think access to the courts is sadly lacking in many respects, and would be quite happy to see Congress give the courts more money even at the price of higher taxes.
>The legislature created the law in question and has no so far seen fit to amend it.
The point is we could encourage them to do so.
>You would make a selective prosecution argument under the equal protection clause, but you would likely lose as other defendants with fewer resources seem able to navigate the trial process even with public defenders rather than counsel of their choice.
It's not even necessarily selective prosecution. All defendants face the same calculus. The trouble is that paying for and living through years of trials and appeals is arguably a greater penalty than going to jail for a few months. Even if you're totally innocent you can rationally be better off pleading guilty than proving it in court. Even if you win you don't get a free ride in a time machine to undo all the hours and years you had to spend to do it.
>I think access to the courts is sadly lacking in many respects, and would be quite happy to see Congress give the courts more money even at the price of higher taxes.
I don't think it's a money problem. It's a scale problem. We prosecute way too many people. Throwing money at it might provide a certain level of improvement, but it does nothing to address the root issue that so many people are committing crimes and have to be prosecuted. In cases where the crimes are legitimately nefarious, the money would be better spent improving social and educational institutions to the point that future would-be perpetrators are better able to find work or other satisfaction in their lives and don't turn to criminality. In cases where the "crimes" are violations of existing law that cause no real harm to anyone, they should be made trivial offenses or taken off the books entirely so that resources wasted on prosecuting them can be used for some better purpose. If we can significantly reduce the number of people being prosecuted, the amount of resources spent on each side of a trial can be increased and it will still cost less money overall than it does today.
The point is we could encourage them to do so.
>You would make a selective prosecution argument under the equal protection clause, but you would likely lose as other defendants with fewer resources seem able to navigate the trial process even with public defenders rather than counsel of their choice.
It's not even necessarily selective prosecution. All defendants face the same calculus. The trouble is that paying for and living through years of trials and appeals is arguably a greater penalty than going to jail for a few months. Even if you're totally innocent you can rationally be better off pleading guilty than proving it in court. Even if you win you don't get a free ride in a time machine to undo all the hours and years you had to spend to do it.
>I think access to the courts is sadly lacking in many respects, and would be quite happy to see Congress give the courts more money even at the price of higher taxes.
I don't think it's a money problem. It's a scale problem. We prosecute way too many people. Throwing money at it might provide a certain level of improvement, but it does nothing to address the root issue that so many people are committing crimes and have to be prosecuted. In cases where the crimes are legitimately nefarious, the money would be better spent improving social and educational institutions to the point that future would-be perpetrators are better able to find work or other satisfaction in their lives and don't turn to criminality. In cases where the "crimes" are violations of existing law that cause no real harm to anyone, they should be made trivial offenses or taken off the books entirely so that resources wasted on prosecuting them can be used for some better purpose. If we can significantly reduce the number of people being prosecuted, the amount of resources spent on each side of a trial can be increased and it will still cost less money overall than it does today.
I'm all in favor of what you suggest. But legislators have typically preferred expanding the scope and severity of criminal liability to lessening it, because they don't wish to be labeled as 'soft on crime.' There are certainly attempts (mostly at the state level) to downgrade victimless or harmless crimes, and to divert petty or juvenile criminals into non-penal programs or extrajudicial fora.
However, this is slow going; there are conflicting theories on the role of criminal law (consequentialist, deontological and so on) and no clear answer on the purpose of sanctions (deterrent, penal, and rehabilitative) that don't yield to simple analysis. Changing this will take a generation, or two.
However, this is slow going; there are conflicting theories on the role of criminal law (consequentialist, deontological and so on) and no clear answer on the purpose of sanctions (deterrent, penal, and rehabilitative) that don't yield to simple analysis. Changing this will take a generation, or two.
>But legislators have typically preferred expanding the scope and severity of criminal liability to lessening it, because they don't wish to be labeled as 'soft on crime.'
OK, so one foot in front of the other. Change the debate. Present irrational and disproportionate "tough on crime" rhetoric with strong public opposition and make sure the demagogues fighting progress have to face the scorn and ridicule they deserve.
>There are certainly attempts (mostly at the state level) to downgrade victimless or harmless crimes, and to divert petty or juvenile criminals into non-penal programs or extrajudicial fora.
Which is well and good, though I think most of the problem lies at the federal level, so it would be nice to see more progress there.
>However, this is slow going; there are conflicting theories on the role of criminal law (consequentialist, deontological and so on) and no clear answer on the purpose of sanctions (deterrent, penal, and rehabilitative) that don't yield to simple analysis.
I think the key to this is to realize that the existing system doesn't adequately serve any of those goals. Consequentialists should be dissatisfied by the number of victimless crimes being prosecuted. Deontologically there are a great many "criminals" going unpunished because they violated the letter but not the spirit of the law, while those who violate the spirit but not the letter (or otherwise raise the ire of a prosecutor) are often prosecuted on the basis of "he seems like a bad guy, let's find something we can nail him with." Anyone interested in deterrence or rehabilitation can't be satisfied with the recidivism rate, and anyone interested in punishment (as distinguished from revenge) should be extremely concerned about the lack of proportionality.
Moreover, solutions that work in practice tend to satisfy everybody. Nobody who isn't being intentionally disingenuous is going to be dissatisfied by a reduction in the crime rate or the recidivism rate.
>Changing this will take a generation, or two.
Possibly. It depends how bad we want it and what we're willing to do about it.
OK, so one foot in front of the other. Change the debate. Present irrational and disproportionate "tough on crime" rhetoric with strong public opposition and make sure the demagogues fighting progress have to face the scorn and ridicule they deserve.
>There are certainly attempts (mostly at the state level) to downgrade victimless or harmless crimes, and to divert petty or juvenile criminals into non-penal programs or extrajudicial fora.
Which is well and good, though I think most of the problem lies at the federal level, so it would be nice to see more progress there.
>However, this is slow going; there are conflicting theories on the role of criminal law (consequentialist, deontological and so on) and no clear answer on the purpose of sanctions (deterrent, penal, and rehabilitative) that don't yield to simple analysis.
I think the key to this is to realize that the existing system doesn't adequately serve any of those goals. Consequentialists should be dissatisfied by the number of victimless crimes being prosecuted. Deontologically there are a great many "criminals" going unpunished because they violated the letter but not the spirit of the law, while those who violate the spirit but not the letter (or otherwise raise the ire of a prosecutor) are often prosecuted on the basis of "he seems like a bad guy, let's find something we can nail him with." Anyone interested in deterrence or rehabilitation can't be satisfied with the recidivism rate, and anyone interested in punishment (as distinguished from revenge) should be extremely concerned about the lack of proportionality.
Moreover, solutions that work in practice tend to satisfy everybody. Nobody who isn't being intentionally disingenuous is going to be dissatisfied by a reduction in the crime rate or the recidivism rate.
>Changing this will take a generation, or two.
Possibly. It depends how bad we want it and what we're willing to do about it.
>>In cases like this there is also the issue that a major part of the problem itself is the cost of access to the courts. How do you argue to the court that it costs you an unreasonably large amount of time and money to make your arguments to the court? By the time you make the argument it's moot. It needs to be addressed in the legislature before we ever get to the courts.
This is exactly the problem actually. In the United States, the expensive nature of the legal processes make them tools the powerful use to intimidate, manipulate and disenfranchise the weak. And the real sad part is that if this wasn't the case, large parts of the system would simply crumble.
Heck, forget about federal cases. Think about something as simple as traffic tickets. If you get a ticket for $100, and it was wrongfully given, how much would it cost you to contest it? Well, not only do you have to figure out how to appeal it, but you also have to go through the official process (which in most cases traveling to a courthouse). In most cases, it will be much more costly to have the ticket thrown out than to actually pay it, which is what most people end up doing.
But what if this wasn't the case? What if the contest process was incredibly easy and efficient? Suddenly you would have a ton more tickets invalidated, which would cause police department revenues to plummet. Imagine the (beautiful) chaos that would produce.
This is exactly the problem actually. In the United States, the expensive nature of the legal processes make them tools the powerful use to intimidate, manipulate and disenfranchise the weak. And the real sad part is that if this wasn't the case, large parts of the system would simply crumble.
Heck, forget about federal cases. Think about something as simple as traffic tickets. If you get a ticket for $100, and it was wrongfully given, how much would it cost you to contest it? Well, not only do you have to figure out how to appeal it, but you also have to go through the official process (which in most cases traveling to a courthouse). In most cases, it will be much more costly to have the ticket thrown out than to actually pay it, which is what most people end up doing.
But what if this wasn't the case? What if the contest process was incredibly easy and efficient? Suddenly you would have a ton more tickets invalidated, which would cause police department revenues to plummet. Imagine the (beautiful) chaos that would produce.
The appeals process for a traffic ticket already is incredibly easy and efficient. You show up at the court on the date and time printed on your ticket (or in some areas, given to you by calling the number on the ticket). You and the cop or meter maid then make your arguments; you have about 5 minutes each. Within a minute after that, you get a ruling. The judges handle appeals at the very beginning of the day, so you're out of the courtoom by 9:30a or 10a.
The process can't get any easier or cheaper without inviting significant amounts of abuse. It also can't get any easier without denying people their constitutional right to a hearing before a judge/judicial officer.
Suddenly you would have a ton more tickets invalidated, which would cause police department revenues to plummet.
Ticket fines do not go into police department budgets, nor are they used as a revenue source for police departments. Ticket fines go into the local city/county general fund, and only go into police department budgets if allocated to the police department by the appropriate legislative body.
The process can't get any easier or cheaper without inviting significant amounts of abuse. It also can't get any easier without denying people their constitutional right to a hearing before a judge/judicial officer.
Suddenly you would have a ton more tickets invalidated, which would cause police department revenues to plummet.
Ticket fines do not go into police department budgets, nor are they used as a revenue source for police departments. Ticket fines go into the local city/county general fund, and only go into police department budgets if allocated to the police department by the appropriate legislative body.
>>The appeals process for a traffic ticket already is incredibly easy and efficient. You show up at the court on the date and time printed on your ticket
So basically, at least two hours taken out of your workday, plus however long it takes to drive to the courthouse. If you have other work-related appointments at that day and time, you need to figure out another day and time, which in itself is a process.
The process should be made online. If the only thing the judge is doing is listening to five-minute long arguments, create a secure online forum and have the respondents type out their arguments there. The judge can then read them when they have the time and issue a ruling online.
So basically, at least two hours taken out of your workday, plus however long it takes to drive to the courthouse. If you have other work-related appointments at that day and time, you need to figure out another day and time, which in itself is a process.
The process should be made online. If the only thing the judge is doing is listening to five-minute long arguments, create a secure online forum and have the respondents type out their arguments there. The judge can then read them when they have the time and issue a ruling online.
> Prosecutors do not have the power to set aside the law, and even where plea bargains are made, they must be approved by a judge first.
And yet they choose to not prosecute some times. The judicial oversight in plea bargains is to minimize abusive coercion.
And yet they choose to not prosecute some times. The judicial oversight in plea bargains is to minimize abusive coercion.
Dig into cases and you'll almost always find that the decision not to prosecute is due to insufficiency of evidence or incapacity of the defendant. Neither circumstance obtained here; the evidence of criminal liability was abundant and no motion of unfitness for trial was ever introduced by the defense (that I am aware of - if you know of one, please let me know).
This and Holder's statements on drone attacks in the US are just two more examples of our government creating problems rather than solving them.
It seems the underlying trend, regardless or political party or position, is the continual accumulation of power. Instead of primarily attempting to solve problems each new law, regulation or spending program grants some politician or government employee some additional power.
The only solution I can see is to somehow put limits on their power. This would have two benefits: (1) it would be less likely the power would be abused (say a politically ambitious government employee putting you in jail); and (2) it would reduce the incentive for powerful interests and their lobbyists to influence government policy.
The tradeoff would be a reduced ability to actually solve problems. If you think, like me, that on balance their power is being primarily abused rather than used to actually solve problems then some of their power should be taken away.
Unfortunately I don't see how this could possibly be accomplished. Other than the limits in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as interpreted by the Supreme Court nothing stands in the way of politicians and government simply granting themselves more and more power. Hard to imagine this trend reversing.
It seems the underlying trend, regardless or political party or position, is the continual accumulation of power. Instead of primarily attempting to solve problems each new law, regulation or spending program grants some politician or government employee some additional power.
The only solution I can see is to somehow put limits on their power. This would have two benefits: (1) it would be less likely the power would be abused (say a politically ambitious government employee putting you in jail); and (2) it would reduce the incentive for powerful interests and their lobbyists to influence government policy.
The tradeoff would be a reduced ability to actually solve problems. If you think, like me, that on balance their power is being primarily abused rather than used to actually solve problems then some of their power should be taken away.
Unfortunately I don't see how this could possibly be accomplished. Other than the limits in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as interpreted by the Supreme Court nothing stands in the way of politicians and government simply granting themselves more and more power. Hard to imagine this trend reversing.
The issue isn't so much Holder himself. His position is actually correct if you look at DOJ protocol. THAT, of course, is the problem. Inhuman, drone-like prosecutors use an unfair system in many cases for no purpose other than to pad their resumes in search of better paying positions at private firms. This is the standard operating procedure of the DOJ and is perfectly acceptable to the people that run it.
Over the years, lawmakers have been ratcheting up the maximum sentences on crimes and watering down the requirements for conviction. These factors have combined to create one of the most effective extortion schemes ever devised. I don't know what success rate the mob has when it extorts businesses, but I'll bet it's lower than the 90%+ plea rate that the DOJ has. They are modern-day thugs with pens instead of guns. You can't get 90% of any group to do anything - except apparently to admit to crimes that they may or may not have committed and literally send themselves to prison in order to avoid the risk of a conviction at trial and potentially draconian penalties.
Over the years, lawmakers have been ratcheting up the maximum sentences on crimes and watering down the requirements for conviction. These factors have combined to create one of the most effective extortion schemes ever devised. I don't know what success rate the mob has when it extorts businesses, but I'll bet it's lower than the 90%+ plea rate that the DOJ has. They are modern-day thugs with pens instead of guns. You can't get 90% of any group to do anything - except apparently to admit to crimes that they may or may not have committed and literally send themselves to prison in order to avoid the risk of a conviction at trial and potentially draconian penalties.
of course he also believes in using drones to hunt and kill US Citizens, whether they are within our without our borders. A bad person can do terrible damage, if left to run free (speaking about the AG here).
Do you think the military would not shoot down a hijacked airliner heading towards New York?
With that in mind, how is using a drone any different?
With that in mind, how is using a drone any different?
Within our borders, he would have a lot more trouble using military drones for policing actions.
So nobody argues that scientific papers should be free for everyone to use?
[deleted]
3 months sounds like a reasonable deal to offer.
From my understanding, it wasn't the prison term that caused Swartz to reject the plea; it was the felony conviction.
Also, it might be difficult to consider being locked in a cell with people who are liable to rape you to assert power.
In addition, we never heard his side of the story. It's possible he had zero intent to ever distribute these. In which case, going to federal prison for trespassing seems absurd (and questionable jurisdiction).
In addition, we never heard his side of the story. It's possible he had zero intent to ever distribute these. In which case, going to federal prison for trespassing seems absurd (and questionable jurisdiction).
Hackers don't go to "rape you in the ass" prison. They go to places like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Prison_Camp,_Yankton
I am not sure about the district Swartz is in, but I've known folks who went to FCI Lompoc (for non-violent felonies -- albeit ones with actual victims and non-trivial monetary damage, i.e., they did deserve to go to prison fair and square). While federal prisons are it's far cry from California state prisons (which, even at low security levels, are far more violent than state prisons -- it's not uncommon to take a longer federal sentence as opposed to a shorter CA state prison sentence for this reason), it certainly not "club fed". Swartz would have certainly have been beaten to a pulp on a regular basis, would have been treated to diesel therapy, and while possibility of sexual assault would have been low, it would be far from remote.
Federal correctional institutions (FCI's) are a step up from Federal prison camps (FPC's). They are generally used for drug offenders and somewhat scarier people. For reference, the hacker serving the longest sentence for hacking in history (caused tens of millions of fraudulent CC charges) is serving it at an FPC.
Ah, so apparently I learned something new: there's a FPC attached to FCI Lompoc, which I am guessing is where Mitnick served time when he was at Lompoc (for his earlier convictions, rather than the most infamous one) as well as Captain Crunch (I am guessing he did not offer Energy Transfer Massages there, however).
http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/lox/index.jsp
http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/lox/index.jsp
The only reasonable offer would have been to drop the ridiculous charges and stop persecuting a citizen for his non-criminal civil disobedience.
I think you don't understand. He was certainly entitled to his civil disobedience (everyone has that option). You are also entitled to face whatever penalties under the law there are for the illegal actions you take. What he did was certainly illegal.
>What he did was certainly illegal.
His lawyers didn't seem to think so.
His lawyers didn't seem to think so.
Neither did John Gotti's. You could as easily claim Aaron's guilty because Carmen Ortiz thought so.
Aaron's lawyers presented plausible arguments. Maybe he would have been found guilty at trial, maybe not. In no event was the outcome a certainty.
It's quite possible Ortiz was overzealous. It's quite possible (in fact to some extent almost certain) that the system is broken and defines computer crimes poorly, and Ortiz was doing her job well in a very tough spot. It's possible we're better off with laws aimed to stop computer fraud, and that prosecuting those who commit it (even if they happen to be people we generally like) is a necessity in the 21st century.
At the end of the day we have to remember, we need laws to prevent computer fraud, hacking, etc. Those laws will, almost by necessity, be written and enforced by non-programmers.
Which is not to say Aaron deserved 17 felony charges. But it's overly simple to vilify Ortiz or the AG's office.