Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out(harpers.org)
harpers.org
Carmen Ortiz Strikes Out
http://harpers.org/blog/2013/01/carmen-ortiz-strikes-out/
266 comments
The press will never get everything 100% accurate, but let's look on the bright side. A week ago, many lawyers (example: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5052339) were assuring us that seeing any accountability for Ortiz and Heymann would be a "fantasy", that this wasn't the way things worked, that hackers had to wise up and embrace their impotence.
That wasn't the way things played out. With this (as with the movement against SOPA/PIPA), we can see an embryonic new power arising in the Internet, a power which can drive mainstream media coverage which in turn drives political decision-making.
This week, at least, the lawyers' worldview was proven wrong and the hackers' worldview was proven right, in both the empirical and moral senses of the terms. Let's hope that continues.
That wasn't the way things played out. With this (as with the movement against SOPA/PIPA), we can see an embryonic new power arising in the Internet, a power which can drive mainstream media coverage which in turn drives political decision-making.
This week, at least, the lawyers' worldview was proven wrong and the hackers' worldview was proven right, in both the empirical and moral senses of the terms. Let's hope that continues.
> This week, at least, the lawyers' worldview was proven wrong and the hackers' worldview was proven right, in both the empirical and moral senses of the terms. Let's hope that continues.
I've seen more prevaricating (and sometimes outright lying) this week from the hackers than from the lawyers so I, for one, hope that the lynch mob ceases immediately.
I've seen more prevaricating (and sometimes outright lying) this week from the hackers than from the lawyers so I, for one, hope that the lynch mob ceases immediately.
I agree with you but I think instead of lies it's likely ignorance or people blinded by emotion.
Ever since Aaron killed himself people have been saying the most logically unsound things about this case and others. Such as: he was a hero, he didn't commit any crimes, others who did similar things were not criminals, copyright shouldn't even exist, MIT is evil for not not caring about the breach, calling other cases bogus because the perpetrator was a young programmer, and so on. Many of the people commenting seem so out of touch with reality that it looks like trolling.
It's all the emotions. Makes it hard to write a sound argument.
Ever since Aaron killed himself people have been saying the most logically unsound things about this case and others. Such as: he was a hero, he didn't commit any crimes, others who did similar things were not criminals, copyright shouldn't even exist, MIT is evil for not not caring about the breach, calling other cases bogus because the perpetrator was a young programmer, and so on. Many of the people commenting seem so out of touch with reality that it looks like trolling.
It's all the emotions. Makes it hard to write a sound argument.
> logically unsound things about this case such as ... he didn't commit any crimes
Please consider the notion of civil protest. After all, this great country started by throwing the English tea overboard. To defend this view I would like to say that:
1. he was not personally profiting from the act
2. he was doing it for the betterment of society
Illegal things are sometimes morally right, and legal things morally wrong. We need to raise above the laws when they don't fit reality any more.
Please consider the notion of civil protest. After all, this great country started by throwing the English tea overboard. To defend this view I would like to say that:
1. he was not personally profiting from the act
2. he was doing it for the betterment of society
Illegal things are sometimes morally right, and legal things morally wrong. We need to raise above the laws when they don't fit reality any more.
The most religious people refuse personal profit and earnestly and honestly believe they are doing it for the "betterment of society".
This is the logic that was used to colonize (er, "civilize") the "savages" of Africa and the Pacific.
So no, I refuse to subscribe to the idea that because he felt that it was better for everybody that it was his job to force it on everyone else.
You know what else the American colonists did to the English, right? They tarred and feathered them, burned down their houses, and many other forms of not-quite "civil" protest. And they did this in response to far worse transgressions than "those JSTOR assholes make me go to a public library to read this peer-reviewed literature I wouldn't know what to do with".
This is the logic that was used to colonize (er, "civilize") the "savages" of Africa and the Pacific.
So no, I refuse to subscribe to the idea that because he felt that it was better for everybody that it was his job to force it on everyone else.
You know what else the American colonists did to the English, right? They tarred and feathered them, burned down their houses, and many other forms of not-quite "civil" protest. And they did this in response to far worse transgressions than "those JSTOR assholes make me go to a public library to read this peer-reviewed literature I wouldn't know what to do with".
I agree with you, letting people think they can change society as they wish by civil disobedience might easily be destabilizing and a bad thing, yet, the opposite is also true. From time to time we need to protest, voting doesn't change shit.
Oh please. Wanting someone held accountable for their negligence and overreach is not a "lynch mob".
We live in a world were comparing government action to government action seen in 1930/1940s Europe is considered "losing the conversation" and is just met with screams of "but Godwin's law!", but where it seems to be perfectly acceptable to compare the public calling for the firing of a public official to a formerly widespread practice of brutally murdering members of underprivileged minorities.
When the comparison is made against governments, that is bad, but it is okay to make such comparisons against the people. Sickening.
The cause of this discrepancy is an unhealthy worship of the law and government that many people seem to have acquired.
When the comparison is made against governments, that is bad, but it is okay to make such comparisons against the people. Sickening.
The cause of this discrepancy is an unhealthy worship of the law and government that many people seem to have acquired.
Examples please.
* "Aaron was just violating TOS"
* "They were pushing for 35/50 years in prison"
* "This is just like using my neighbor's Wifi"
* "They were trumping up charges to make an example of Aaron" (before you downvote, read Kerr's posts).
* "They were aiming for harshest possible sentence"
* There was also the very nice individual who doxxed Ortiz, who I'm sure is a fine representative of all that is right with hacktivism.
And on and on.
And in the meantime there has been very little commentary over the major (not only, but major) cause of this (untreated depression), presumably because that doesn't play into the agenda. Likewise there is little discussion on ways to amend CFAA to make it better-aligned with what we intuitively feel would be appropriate (because in the hacktivist mold the only good change would be to repeal CFAA entirely). Feel free to say I'm seeing it wrong, but I don't think I am.
* "They were pushing for 35/50 years in prison"
* "This is just like using my neighbor's Wifi"
* "They were trumping up charges to make an example of Aaron" (before you downvote, read Kerr's posts).
* "They were aiming for harshest possible sentence"
* There was also the very nice individual who doxxed Ortiz, who I'm sure is a fine representative of all that is right with hacktivism.
And on and on.
And in the meantime there has been very little commentary over the major (not only, but major) cause of this (untreated depression), presumably because that doesn't play into the agenda. Likewise there is little discussion on ways to amend CFAA to make it better-aligned with what we intuitively feel would be appropriate (because in the hacktivist mold the only good change would be to repeal CFAA entirely). Feel free to say I'm seeing it wrong, but I don't think I am.
>> And in the meantime there has been very little commentary over the major (not only, but major) cause of this (untreated depression), presumably because that doesn't play into the agenda. Likewise there is little discussion on ways to amend CFAA to make it better-aligned with what we intuitively feel would be appropriate (because in the hacktivist mold the only good change would be to repeal CFAA entirely). Feel free to say I'm seeing it wrong, but I don't think I am.
Actually it has been discussed. As per his father:
""" Bob Swartz also dismissed the notion that his son had a depressive personality.
"He had never been diagnosed as having depression; he was never on medication for having depression," Swartz said.
Aaron Swartz's mother had been hospitalized in December 2011 after having a bowel obstruction and going into septic shock, Bob Swartz said. She spent several weeks in a coma, four months in intensive care, and two more months in the hospital.
"So the notion, the narrative that people are going to say -- is that he’s somebody who just has depression -- is just wrong. You’d be depressed too if you were under a 13-count federal indictment and you go see your mother, who’s in a coma."
Actually it has been discussed. As per his father:
""" Bob Swartz also dismissed the notion that his son had a depressive personality.
"He had never been diagnosed as having depression; he was never on medication for having depression," Swartz said.
Aaron Swartz's mother had been hospitalized in December 2011 after having a bowel obstruction and going into septic shock, Bob Swartz said. She spent several weeks in a coma, four months in intensive care, and two more months in the hospital.
"So the notion, the narrative that people are going to say -- is that he’s somebody who just has depression -- is just wrong. You’d be depressed too if you were under a 13-count federal indictment and you go see your mother, who’s in a coma."
Seems odd to argue he didn't suffer from depression (despite his fathers words).
Do people who aren't suffering from depression commit suicide? I'd always thought that (attempted) suicide was like the smoking gun for diagnosing depression?
Do people who aren't suffering from depression commit suicide? I'd always thought that (attempted) suicide was like the smoking gun for diagnosing depression?
Given the right circumstances, almost anyone can be made to want and try to commit suicide. Intense, prolonged isolation and other types of torture can cause that, but that does not mean anyone subject to such things has a depressive disorder requiring treatment. Sometimes the situation is the only problem.
I would challenge that... Julian Assange has faced a lot more isolation, much larger potential charges... And still lives...
Not to mention a certain Private First Class currently undergoing court-martial at Ft. Meade, MD...
Julian Assange also already has the martyr thing going. He seems to feel like being persecuted as publicly as he is is just adding to his cause. He may be right, who knows. Point is that Aaron wasn't a martyr until after his death. Assange is different.
I never said it wasn't discussed, I said there has been very little discussion.
And either way, Bob Swartz is not exactly a disinterested party here.
I've lost a child to SIDS. I can guarantee you as a fellow parent who has lost a child that being able to point a finger at some person or persons who are responsible feels much better. You lose a child to something like SIDS or depression and you feel helpless, just utterly helpless. What else do you expect him to say, "oh yeah, he seemed real withdrawn last time we talked but I guess I just didn't notice"?
But looking from the outside, are we really supposed to conclude that someone who killed themself based on a 6 month prison sentence had nothing else going on inside? Do other men never have their parents die or become seriously ill?
And either way, Bob Swartz is not exactly a disinterested party here.
I've lost a child to SIDS. I can guarantee you as a fellow parent who has lost a child that being able to point a finger at some person or persons who are responsible feels much better. You lose a child to something like SIDS or depression and you feel helpless, just utterly helpless. What else do you expect him to say, "oh yeah, he seemed real withdrawn last time we talked but I guess I just didn't notice"?
But looking from the outside, are we really supposed to conclude that someone who killed themself based on a 6 month prison sentence had nothing else going on inside? Do other men never have their parents die or become seriously ill?
Being charged with a felony is a life sentence in the US. You're forever part of an underclass of 'convicted felons', and your opportunities in life are greatly diminished.
I've worked with a 'felon'. Hacker News was co-founded by a 'felon' convicted under CFAA. The first one convicted, in fact, so if anything aaronsw had the advantage of having it proven before he did what he did that it could possibly result in felony charges. If that's really something he didn't want to have as a possibility, if he would really be so ashamed to be convicted of a "bullshit felony" then it makes you wonder why he went about his business the way that he did. If the law is as stupid as Aaron thought it was then he'd be able to wear the felon tag as a badge of pride.
Your quotes are selective, so I hope this doesn't just devolve into people battling their own predilections through their HuffPo/Drudge filters. There's lots to be said for the entire process.
As for depression, the federal case is the only part that is any of our business, and is the only part (that I know of) that provides some commonality of experience and results, as the feds can come after any of us for whatever three felonies a day they choose to do so. The prosecutors were helped by the PATRIOT act, after all, which covers more of us than Aaron's personal historical details and experiences. Aren't we allowed to talk about whether that's a troublesome umbrella to live under, and how it played out in a specific case?
You can't just say "every case is different" when the techniques can be the same between them. Forest for the trees.
As for depression, the federal case is the only part that is any of our business, and is the only part (that I know of) that provides some commonality of experience and results, as the feds can come after any of us for whatever three felonies a day they choose to do so. The prosecutors were helped by the PATRIOT act, after all, which covers more of us than Aaron's personal historical details and experiences. Aren't we allowed to talk about whether that's a troublesome umbrella to live under, and how it played out in a specific case?
You can't just say "every case is different" when the techniques can be the same between them. Forest for the trees.
> As for depression, the federal case is the only part that is any of our business
If by "business" we mean keeping our brightest minds around to drive progress on the difficult issues of our times then we absolutely must take a holistic view.
If by "business" we simply mean advancing the goals of hacktivism then a focus on depression would certainly not help, I agree.
If by "business" we mean keeping our brightest minds around to drive progress on the difficult issues of our times then we absolutely must take a holistic view.
If by "business" we simply mean advancing the goals of hacktivism then a focus on depression would certainly not help, I agree.
3. "business" to refer to a specific human experiencing their own life and the factor(s) that applies to the general case. There were non-case factors, sure, but those are different for everybody, so dragging them into the argument is to strive to compare apples and oranges.
I saw something different. In the end I don't even care about if "hackers were right". I saw the fact that when enough people get upset enough about what their "representatives" are doing ostensibly on their behalf, they can cause real change, even if that change is just removing a single individual from office.
Those in office, even the appointed ones, really do need to care about what the people they represent think. I find that refreshing.
Those in office, even the appointed ones, really do need to care about what the people they represent think. I find that refreshing.
I think this is the hardest part. Ortiz is obviously disgusting, but she's not really different than anyone else in her position. These kinds of tactics are employed every day.
So what do we do? I support the demonization of Ortiz purely on the level of revenge. In a world where we typically have no agency, it's satisfying to make someone like her uncomfortable.
But on another level, it's frustrating that it's impossible to put the system on trial. It's unfortunate that by demonizing Ortiz, we play right into the hands of those who appointed her (and will appoint her successor) by making this out to be the fault of an individual. It makes it easier for them to act shocked, replace her, and be done with it.
So what do we do? I support the demonization of Ortiz purely on the level of revenge. In a world where we typically have no agency, it's satisfying to make someone like her uncomfortable.
But on another level, it's frustrating that it's impossible to put the system on trial. It's unfortunate that by demonizing Ortiz, we play right into the hands of those who appointed her (and will appoint her successor) by making this out to be the fault of an individual. It makes it easier for them to act shocked, replace her, and be done with it.
I get that vengeance can be satisfying, but it means sending a message. And the message that US attorneys are going to hear is "don't fuck with young affluent white hackers with powerful friends".
I never met Swartz, but I'd be surprised if he'd have wanted his legacy to be people that look like him getting a pass while everyone else suffers the same as before.
I never met Swartz, but I'd be surprised if he'd have wanted his legacy to be people that look like him getting a pass while everyone else suffers the same as before.
Most here would prefer that they take home a lesson not to throw the book at people who are trying to make things better.
I think it's been pointed out that he's popular (and thus, has "powerful friends") because they sided with him in trying to do good and improve things. This is a far cry from someone using their celebrity status to flout the law for personal gain, which is the sort of thing one usually condemns.
> I'd be surprised if he'd have wanted his legacy to be people that look like him getting a pass while everyone else suffers the same as before.
Well, that's why Reason magazine (among others) has endorsed Aaron's law to at least fix one part of this. We can't change the system all at once. But we should make whatever progress we can, one law at a time. Perhaps eventually we will go to something like the German system, which dispenses efficient justice without any use of plea bargains. HN was discussing that the other day as well.
I think it's been pointed out that he's popular (and thus, has "powerful friends") because they sided with him in trying to do good and improve things. This is a far cry from someone using their celebrity status to flout the law for personal gain, which is the sort of thing one usually condemns.
> I'd be surprised if he'd have wanted his legacy to be people that look like him getting a pass while everyone else suffers the same as before.
Well, that's why Reason magazine (among others) has endorsed Aaron's law to at least fix one part of this. We can't change the system all at once. But we should make whatever progress we can, one law at a time. Perhaps eventually we will go to something like the German system, which dispenses efficient justice without any use of plea bargains. HN was discussing that the other day as well.
Most here would prefer that they take home a lesson not to throw the book at people who are trying to make things better.
Swartz thought that JSTOR was an illegitimate institution and he thought that justified him doing whatever he wanted to them. Why should prosecutors respect his moral judgments in that regard? He thought the law was wrong...so you think prosecutors should assume that everyone who thinks the law is wrong is "trying to make the world better"?
I get that lots of people here agree with him: they think JSTOR is awful and they think they're entitled to do whatever they want to JSTOR, the laws be damned. But why should prosecutors believe that?
that's why Reason magazine (among others) has endorsed Aaron's law to at least fix one part of this.
I believe that "Aaron's law" wouldn't have made any difference in his case at all.
I've seen people propose minor tweaks, but none that would have made a real difference for Swartz. And I've seen a lot of incredibly vague proposals that boil down to dramatically weakening prosecutors' power in criminal cases. But these are jokes: they're so vague that no one could ever advocate for them or they're politically impossible (Congressman, I write you today to urge you to make it harder for federal prosecutors to offer plea bargains for less than 1/5 the maximum sentence they're seeking).
Swartz thought that JSTOR was an illegitimate institution and he thought that justified him doing whatever he wanted to them. Why should prosecutors respect his moral judgments in that regard? He thought the law was wrong...so you think prosecutors should assume that everyone who thinks the law is wrong is "trying to make the world better"?
I get that lots of people here agree with him: they think JSTOR is awful and they think they're entitled to do whatever they want to JSTOR, the laws be damned. But why should prosecutors believe that?
that's why Reason magazine (among others) has endorsed Aaron's law to at least fix one part of this.
I believe that "Aaron's law" wouldn't have made any difference in his case at all.
I've seen people propose minor tweaks, but none that would have made a real difference for Swartz. And I've seen a lot of incredibly vague proposals that boil down to dramatically weakening prosecutors' power in criminal cases. But these are jokes: they're so vague that no one could ever advocate for them or they're politically impossible (Congressman, I write you today to urge you to make it harder for federal prosecutors to offer plea bargains for less than 1/5 the maximum sentence they're seeking).
A relative of mine embezzled money from her family business, to the tune of high five-figures. If you don't take motivation into account, how should she be sentenced? She was found guilty and sentenced, but before reading further, what do you think should have happened to her?
If we take motivation into account (as the court did), does it change how you think she should have been treated by the court to know that she didn't keep a cent of the money herself, but spent it on giving food and clothes to homeless people, organising it herself rather than through a charity? She wasn't preying on the weak, she was misguided and trying to help society rather than get stuff for herself - and the law is supposed to be about protecting society.
Motivation is an important aspect of any crime, and prosecutors should be looking for appropriate sentences, not the harshest one they can make stick. Besides, his case is a focus point that gives an excellent chance to start looking for reform rather than sweep it under the carpet as 'business as usual' - because prison sentences in the US have exploded ridiculously in the past 20 years.
If we take motivation into account (as the court did), does it change how you think she should have been treated by the court to know that she didn't keep a cent of the money herself, but spent it on giving food and clothes to homeless people, organising it herself rather than through a charity? She wasn't preying on the weak, she was misguided and trying to help society rather than get stuff for herself - and the law is supposed to be about protecting society.
Motivation is an important aspect of any crime, and prosecutors should be looking for appropriate sentences, not the harshest one they can make stick. Besides, his case is a focus point that gives an excellent chance to start looking for reform rather than sweep it under the carpet as 'business as usual' - because prison sentences in the US have exploded ridiculously in the past 20 years.
> Motivation is an important aspect of any crime, and prosecutors should be looking for appropriate sentences, not the harshest one they can make stick.
I don't think the prosecutors here would disagree. That's why sentences are pushed for (on both sides) based on what the motive behind the crime was.
There was a plea bargain on the table for no jail time, which MIT rejected, and then later some number of months in jail. Given that "Swartz faces up to 50 years in prison if convicted on all charges" was the latest maximum sentence it is very hard indeed to argue that the prosecutors were trying to get the harshest sentence.
The thing they were really trying to do was not have the trial, which is something I would expect them to do given the structure of the legal system.
I don't think the prosecutors here would disagree. That's why sentences are pushed for (on both sides) based on what the motive behind the crime was.
There was a plea bargain on the table for no jail time, which MIT rejected, and then later some number of months in jail. Given that "Swartz faces up to 50 years in prison if convicted on all charges" was the latest maximum sentence it is very hard indeed to argue that the prosecutors were trying to get the harshest sentence.
The thing they were really trying to do was not have the trial, which is something I would expect them to do given the structure of the legal system.
But that's part of the problem. US Citizens have a right to a trial by jury. It's one of the basic rights. If the prosecutor is abusing their power to deny that right there is something fundamentally wrong. Trying to throw every possible crime at someone no matter how tenuous in order to extort a plea bargain or get just one to stick to improve your prosecution record is an obvious distortion of the original intent of the system. Also, bankrupting the defendant and/or freezing/seizing assets in cases where the crime is not related to the assets being frozen is also extortionous.
Avoiding trials altogether because of the structure of the legal system is the wrong approach. Improving the expediency by which the legal system can provide justice is the right approach. I can't believe people are willing to sanction and even justify means that avoid justice. The fact that we have one of the greatest rates of incarceration that we have a failed justice system.
Avoiding trials altogether because of the structure of the legal system is the wrong approach. Improving the expediency by which the legal system can provide justice is the right approach. I can't believe people are willing to sanction and even justify means that avoid justice. The fact that we have one of the greatest rates of incarceration that we have a failed justice system.
> Trying to throw every possible crime at someone no matter how tenuous in order to extort a plea bargain or get just one to stick to improve your prosecution record is an obvious distortion of the original intent of the system.
Except that a grand jury has to sustain that the charges are at least "better than tenuous". Once the case is resolved one way or the other the defendant can't be tried for it again (Constitutional 'double jeopardy') so the prosecutors have to bring any charges that can hold up (this is why Federal sentencing is wonky as well).
> Avoiding trials altogether because of the structure of the legal system is the wrong approach. Improving the expediency by which the legal system can provide justice is the right approach.
Uh, plea bargains are the #1 way the system is made more "expedient", you can't have your cake and eat it too. Feel free to continue putting words into my mouth about "sanctioning miscarriage of justice" though.
Except that a grand jury has to sustain that the charges are at least "better than tenuous". Once the case is resolved one way or the other the defendant can't be tried for it again (Constitutional 'double jeopardy') so the prosecutors have to bring any charges that can hold up (this is why Federal sentencing is wonky as well).
> Avoiding trials altogether because of the structure of the legal system is the wrong approach. Improving the expediency by which the legal system can provide justice is the right approach.
Uh, plea bargains are the #1 way the system is made more "expedient", you can't have your cake and eat it too. Feel free to continue putting words into my mouth about "sanctioning miscarriage of justice" though.
> Uh, plea bargains are the #1 way the system is made more "expedient", you can't have your cake and eat it too. Feel free to continue putting words into my mouth about "sanctioning miscarriage of justice" though.
What the heck. Forcing plea bargains on 96% percent of accused is just so we can be "expedient" for the other 4%? How does that make sense? Other countries get by just fine without plea bargains. Maybe we could get expedience by, you know, focusing prosecution effort on serious crimes or ones that actually have victims.
> Feel free to continue putting words into my mouth about "sanctioning miscarriage of justice" though.
You might want to read up on how plea bargaining is viewed in other countries. There are some that are of the opinion that plea bargains are "miscarriage of justice", and you seem to be defending it as a perfectly fine practice.
(edit: not sure what I think on plea bargains generally. But in this particular case it seems pretty ridiculous.)
What the heck. Forcing plea bargains on 96% percent of accused is just so we can be "expedient" for the other 4%? How does that make sense? Other countries get by just fine without plea bargains. Maybe we could get expedience by, you know, focusing prosecution effort on serious crimes or ones that actually have victims.
> Feel free to continue putting words into my mouth about "sanctioning miscarriage of justice" though.
You might want to read up on how plea bargaining is viewed in other countries. There are some that are of the opinion that plea bargains are "miscarriage of justice", and you seem to be defending it as a perfectly fine practice.
(edit: not sure what I think on plea bargains generally. But in this particular case it seems pretty ridiculous.)
What the heck. Forcing plea bargains on 96% percent of accused is just so we can be "expedient" for the other 4%? How does that make sense?
How is the prison industry to lobby for more prison-building if our current prisons aren't filled past capacity? If the accused are allowed their Constitutional right to a trial, we'll have to double the spending on courts just like we've doubled the spending on everything else!
Oh, wait...
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/exptyp.cfm
How is the prison industry to lobby for more prison-building if our current prisons aren't filled past capacity? If the accused are allowed their Constitutional right to a trial, we'll have to double the spending on courts just like we've doubled the spending on everything else!
Oh, wait...
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/exptyp.cfm
> Forcing plea bargains
I'm not sure that we agree on the meaning of the word "forcing".
> Other countries get by just fine without plea bargains.
Yes, I'm often reminded of how pathetic the United States is. But with that in mind those other countries have different concepts of the legal system (the vision of what it accomplishes, the policies, everything). I'm not here to claim that the U.S. legal system is 100% appropriate to the task, but instead that the prosecutors are going to the job with the resources that they have. If Congress significantly reduces the category and criteria of what counts as crimes by getting rid of the stupid stuff then great, but that's not the system the prosecutors are in now.
> Maybe we could get expedience by, you know, focusing prosecution effort on serious crimes or ones that actually have victims.
Do you have any specific cases in mind involving serious crimes or crimes with more deserving victims (since apparently MIT doesn't count) that were not prosecuted due to the resources needed being assigned to the Swartz case?
> You might want to read up on how plea bargaining is viewed in other countries.
Please don't take this the wrong way but I don't operate my life based on opinion polls. If I'm right, then I'm right, and if I'm wrong (which is certainly possible) it won't be because Bjørn and Herr Müller have different opinions about what plea bargaining is and is not, it will be because I'm wrong.
I'm not sure that we agree on the meaning of the word "forcing".
> Other countries get by just fine without plea bargains.
Yes, I'm often reminded of how pathetic the United States is. But with that in mind those other countries have different concepts of the legal system (the vision of what it accomplishes, the policies, everything). I'm not here to claim that the U.S. legal system is 100% appropriate to the task, but instead that the prosecutors are going to the job with the resources that they have. If Congress significantly reduces the category and criteria of what counts as crimes by getting rid of the stupid stuff then great, but that's not the system the prosecutors are in now.
> Maybe we could get expedience by, you know, focusing prosecution effort on serious crimes or ones that actually have victims.
Do you have any specific cases in mind involving serious crimes or crimes with more deserving victims (since apparently MIT doesn't count) that were not prosecuted due to the resources needed being assigned to the Swartz case?
> You might want to read up on how plea bargaining is viewed in other countries.
Please don't take this the wrong way but I don't operate my life based on opinion polls. If I'm right, then I'm right, and if I'm wrong (which is certainly possible) it won't be because Bjørn and Herr Müller have different opinions about what plea bargaining is and is not, it will be because I'm wrong.
It has been said, not quite accurately, that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Grand juries are almost negligible in their power to prevent prosecutorial abuse.
> The thing they were really trying to do was not have the trial, which is something I would expect them to do given the structure of the legal system.
So basically, charge someone with something ridiculous, and then be offer a sweet sweet deal, such as "only 6 months jail time and confess to 15 felonies. Oh and if you want to go trial it will cost you and your family years of drama, all your savings, and risk 50 years in prison". How nice of them! Let's suppose someone offers you this deal. Does it even matter if you're innocent? Your life is going to be messed up either way. Maybe you cave under pressure and take the deal. How is that furthering the cause of justice?
Oh, and in theory, there's this little thing in the US called the Sixth Amendment:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence"
So basically, charge someone with something ridiculous, and then be offer a sweet sweet deal, such as "only 6 months jail time and confess to 15 felonies. Oh and if you want to go trial it will cost you and your family years of drama, all your savings, and risk 50 years in prison". How nice of them! Let's suppose someone offers you this deal. Does it even matter if you're innocent? Your life is going to be messed up either way. Maybe you cave under pressure and take the deal. How is that furthering the cause of justice?
Oh, and in theory, there's this little thing in the US called the Sixth Amendment:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence"
> So basically, charge someone with something ridiculous, and then be offer a sweet sweet deal, such as "only 6 months jail time and confess to 15 felonies. Oh and if you want to go trial it will cost you and your family years of drama, all your savings, and risk 50 years in prison".
The charges weren't ridiculous. If Aaron wanted to avoid the trial he could simply have avoided repeatedly breaking into MIT's open network to access JSTOR. The charges (even the amended ones) were approved by a grand jury. The prosecutors were never pushing for 50 years in prison.
See, this is all part of what I complained about in my other comment about prevarication.
But either way, the point is kind of moot. Aaron chose to be in that situation, they didn't change the legal code just to suit him. Taking the plea would have been the smart thing but he was never under any obligation, as the sentence he would get in a jury trial would be based on the Federal sentencing guidelines (and his expensive attorneys could tell him that too).
Regarding the Sixth Amendment, plea bargaining is one of the tools used to ensure that those who do need jury trials have a chance at getting them expeditiously (or do you really think that Google really has a 5GB hard disk partition sets aside for everyone with a GMail account?).
The charges weren't ridiculous. If Aaron wanted to avoid the trial he could simply have avoided repeatedly breaking into MIT's open network to access JSTOR. The charges (even the amended ones) were approved by a grand jury. The prosecutors were never pushing for 50 years in prison.
See, this is all part of what I complained about in my other comment about prevarication.
But either way, the point is kind of moot. Aaron chose to be in that situation, they didn't change the legal code just to suit him. Taking the plea would have been the smart thing but he was never under any obligation, as the sentence he would get in a jury trial would be based on the Federal sentencing guidelines (and his expensive attorneys could tell him that too).
Regarding the Sixth Amendment, plea bargaining is one of the tools used to ensure that those who do need jury trials have a chance at getting them expeditiously (or do you really think that Google really has a 5GB hard disk partition sets aside for everyone with a GMail account?).
> The charges weren't ridiculous
They were according to a retired federal judge: http://www.wbur.org/2013/01/16/gertner-criticizes-ortiz-swar...
from the article:
"She says she was troubled by much of what she learned and saw from the bench before leaving in 2011. And she says Ortiz should not have prosecuted Swartz." ... When asked if she was referring to the bad judgement of Carmen Ortiz, Gertner responded, “That’s right.”
They were according to a retired federal judge: http://www.wbur.org/2013/01/16/gertner-criticizes-ortiz-swar...
from the article:
"She says she was troubled by much of what she learned and saw from the bench before leaving in 2011. And she says Ortiz should not have prosecuted Swartz." ... When asked if she was referring to the bad judgement of Carmen Ortiz, Gertner responded, “That’s right.”
Oh look, I can find a convenient mouth piece too (one who has defended a famous CFAA case, no less):
http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/
http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-agains...
You might instead argue that the law is ridiculous (e.g. I would agree that Swartz's conduct is not serious enough to warrant a felony conviction).
You might argue that there were certainly other cases which were more deserving of a U.S. prosecuting attorney's time (though I don't know how we would confirm or refute that). But the charges themselves are well supported by the indictment.
http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/14/aaron-swartz-charges/
http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-agains...
You might instead argue that the law is ridiculous (e.g. I would agree that Swartz's conduct is not serious enough to warrant a felony conviction).
You might argue that there were certainly other cases which were more deserving of a U.S. prosecuting attorney's time (though I don't know how we would confirm or refute that). But the charges themselves are well supported by the indictment.
Ad Hominem.
You might try responding to the statements she made. For a retired judge to step into the public arena like this is quite out of the ordinary and it indicates to me that the behavior she witnessed in Ortiz was so egregious that extraordinary measures were called for.
So much for business as usual, happens all the time, nothing to see here, move along, move along..
You might try responding to the statements she made. For a retired judge to step into the public arena like this is quite out of the ordinary and it indicates to me that the behavior she witnessed in Ortiz was so egregious that extraordinary measures were called for.
So much for business as usual, happens all the time, nothing to see here, move along, move along..
Motivation can be used during sentencing but it can also be used to figure out what crime someone's committed. If the police find a guy in my house, he might be trespassing or he might be a burgler: it depends on whether he's freezing and homeless or whether he lockpicks and a receipt indicating I bought a safe.
> I get that lots of people here agree with him: they think JSTOR is awful and they think they're entitled to do whatever they want to JSTOR, the laws be damned. But why should prosecutors believe that?
They might want to believe it because JSTOR declined to press charges. Isn't that a compelling reason?
They might want to believe it because JSTOR declined to press charges. Isn't that a compelling reason?
And the message that US attorneys are going to hear is "don't fuck with young affluent white hackers with powerful friends".
If as I hope this gets the CFAA entirely repealed, then yes, I'm fine with the message being that if a law is abused that the entire law under which they're trying to build careers can be swept out from under them. If Ortiz and Heymann have to work corporate contracts for the rest of their careers, that will be fine with me.
If as I hope this gets the CFAA entirely repealed, then yes, I'm fine with the message being that if a law is abused that the entire law under which they're trying to build careers can be swept out from under them. If Ortiz and Heymann have to work corporate contracts for the rest of their careers, that will be fine with me.
There is no reason to suppose that this will be taken as a reason not to prosecute white people. The specific act and its context are clearly more important.
In international relations, there's a whole literature devoted to signalling: looking at how states send signals to other states. There's a huge amount of evidence showing that the signals received are very often different from the ones transmitted.
The race of the defendant isn't a salient part of this. We don't have to wait for a black Aaron Swartz to act, on the far-fetched premise that the only thing that will be noticed by prosecutors was his color. This is a far-fetched idea.
Federal prosecutors are certainly intelligent enough to understand many of the factors which make this sensitive, including a suicide, internet backing, the specific alleged crime and the open access issue. Without deciding that the whole problem is that you can't prosecute white people. So many white people are prosecuted without fanfare that this would be an impossibly irrational conclusion to draw.
Federal prosecutors are certainly intelligent enough to understand many of the factors which make this sensitive, including a suicide, internet backing, the specific alleged crime and the open access issue. Without deciding that the whole problem is that you can't prosecute white people. So many white people are prosecuted without fanfare that this would be an impossibly irrational conclusion to draw.
Are we really going to pretend that federal prosecutors are colorblind, that aren't significant racial disparities in federal sentencing already?
Did he say anything of the sort?
Ah, but what good is concern trolling if you can't find a way to cram race into the discussion too? If you aren't going to do it properly, you may as well not even bother!
/s
/s
Having grown up in New Mexico, I didn't classify Aaron as "white". I don't know if he did.
What do you mean?
I mean that, since his skin was brown, he didn't fit into my "white" mental category, because in New Mexico, people whose skins are brown typically identify as "Indian", "Hispanic", or "Black", not "White" (aka "Anglo"). Classifying people into separate "races" is pretty much racist bullshit anyway, but the fact that the classification varies so much from place to place makes that even more obvious.
I didn't actually know he was Jewish until last week.
I didn't actually know he was Jewish until last week.
He might have meant that the mental categories he used when classifying Swartz did not include race. If you'd asked me, I'd have acknowledged his race, but I wouldn't have used it as a way to describe him. "Young hacker", not "Young white hacker". Rich, even, but it would not have occurred to me to mention the color of his skin. We have been, after all, discussing the content of his character instead.
I'm going to guess he means "Jewish." Some people don't consider that white.
Wow, well ain't that some shit. And in year 2013, no less.
He probably means "caucasian".
Yeah, my grandma died four years ago - 2009 - and I'm pretty sure she considered Jews kind of a third group, neither white nor "colored". I couldn't swear that my own contemporaries still in Indiana don't think the same, but everybody's wised up to the point that they don't actually come out and state anything explicitly. (This is a good thing; it'll slow down the transmission of that attitude to their own kids.)
America's a weird place.
America's a weird place.
It's odd to lump categorise. Some Jews are white, and some are not.
I've seen this sentiment expressed over and over here this week, and it's really frustrating to read.
Want to stop people speeding on a road? Issue tickets. In some sense, that's not fair -- people still do it and get away with it, why single out one person? But having a non-zero possibility of a negative consequence is a net disincentive to the behavior. Even if it's enforced somewhat randomly.
Hypothetically: let's suppose that our goal is to stop "the system" of prosecutors threatening multiple felonies against citizens for behavior that most other citizens do not consider worthy of a consequence as serious as jail time/felony conviction. Let us also assume that some prosecutors do this to get prestige/promotions. If there are well known examples of positive consequences, and no examples of negative consequences, then the incentives for our hypothetical prosecutor are pretty clear.
It seems fairly obvious that if Ortiz and Heynmann face seriously negative career consequences, it changes the cost/benefit calculation for other prosecutors, even those whose main concern is career advancement.
There aren't many ways to hold public officials accountable besides public outcry.
I do agree that the root problem is the human psyche. We have all kinds of bugs/heuristics (depending on how you look at it) for social behavior. These lead to group behaviors that us abstract thinkers find frustrating. Unfortunately, this isn't going to get fixed until 20+ years, and that's if you're on the optimistic side about transhumanism. So in the meantime we have to use the tools (and brains) that we have.
Want to stop people speeding on a road? Issue tickets. In some sense, that's not fair -- people still do it and get away with it, why single out one person? But having a non-zero possibility of a negative consequence is a net disincentive to the behavior. Even if it's enforced somewhat randomly.
Hypothetically: let's suppose that our goal is to stop "the system" of prosecutors threatening multiple felonies against citizens for behavior that most other citizens do not consider worthy of a consequence as serious as jail time/felony conviction. Let us also assume that some prosecutors do this to get prestige/promotions. If there are well known examples of positive consequences, and no examples of negative consequences, then the incentives for our hypothetical prosecutor are pretty clear.
It seems fairly obvious that if Ortiz and Heynmann face seriously negative career consequences, it changes the cost/benefit calculation for other prosecutors, even those whose main concern is career advancement.
There aren't many ways to hold public officials accountable besides public outcry.
I do agree that the root problem is the human psyche. We have all kinds of bugs/heuristics (depending on how you look at it) for social behavior. These lead to group behaviors that us abstract thinkers find frustrating. Unfortunately, this isn't going to get fixed until 20+ years, and that's if you're on the optimistic side about transhumanism. So in the meantime we have to use the tools (and brains) that we have.
At least we can hope the successor will tread more carefully when it comes to prosecuting somebody that is obviously not a hardened criminal but an activist going too far in their zeal to correct the perceived injustice. Small win, but better than nothing.
I think that making an example out of someone really can work to effect the actions of a larger group. Fight fire with fire.
> I support the demonization of Ortiz purely on the level of revenge.
Yes and unfortunately we (everyone else) are trying to do the same "driving a tack with a sledge hammer". Hopefully, this will draw light to a bad judicial system, but also I hope it brings to light that public funded research papers should be public to everyone, for free. Since we do pay for the electricity, facilities, and salaries.
Yes and unfortunately we (everyone else) are trying to do the same "driving a tack with a sledge hammer". Hopefully, this will draw light to a bad judicial system, but also I hope it brings to light that public funded research papers should be public to everyone, for free. Since we do pay for the electricity, facilities, and salaries.
I had to go make sure that it was you and not me: it was "demonization", not "demonetization".
No I just copy pasted what he said, and it appears he corrected his mistake. So I'll do the same.
Why is Ortiz "obviously disgusting"?
Because she abused her official capacity to hound a much more honorable and talented person than herself to the point of suicide?
Honestly, for all the jaded and cynical people trying to play 'the adult' by defending the corrupt and immoral actions of the justice system and its officials based on legal technicalities--you don't come across as knowledgeable or reasonable, just spineless and enabling.
Hiding behind rules and technicalities to commit evil is the oldest and most cowardly trick in the book.
Honestly, for all the jaded and cynical people trying to play 'the adult' by defending the corrupt and immoral actions of the justice system and its officials based on legal technicalities--you don't come across as knowledgeable or reasonable, just spineless and enabling.
Hiding behind rules and technicalities to commit evil is the oldest and most cowardly trick in the book.
Have you read Orrin Kerr's two posts? They're long, but absolutely worth reading. It is by no means clear that Ortiz is some kind of demon.
Kerr's posts make the case that her actions were legal and conventional, not moral.
I'm not claiming she's a demon. It is very common for otherwise decent people to do evil in their institutional roles. But history shows that it's very very dangerous to permit this as an excuse.
I'm not claiming she's a demon. It is very common for otherwise decent people to do evil in their institutional roles. But history shows that it's very very dangerous to permit this as an excuse.
This is probably the most worrying issue with this article. It places the blame on two individuals who are characterized as out of control instead of a system that is out of control. The entire system needs to be held accountable and corrected and those highlighted as having benefited their careers through this widespread misconduct should be individually held accountable just like individuals were held accountable at Nuremberg. Participation in a corrupt system and going along with the corruption is acceptable for peons, but not for people are high up in the DoJ as Ortiz and Heynmann. They had the power and discretion to correct the course of the out of control prosecutorial train, but instead chose to proceed full steam ahead.
Ortiz specifically has brought other cases that have made me furious. Check out this one where she is trying to seize a family owned budget motel. There is no complaint whatsoever against the owner, but about once every other year the cops bust some low-level drug deal. The motel is paid-off and owned by the son of the founder and is worth 1.5 million, therefore she saw an easy civil forfeiture target. She is out of control and not helping the people of Massachusetts.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011...
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011...
Careful here. Any time you read a story like "government attempts to liquidate real property to fund police department", your first thought should be "that's not the whole story", because (for the most part) that's not how the federal government operates. So, some issues with this story:
* This case is Sonya Rao, not Carmen Ortiz (though once again Ortiz oversees all the cases in her office).
* The hotel is, let's not sugarcoat it, a blighted flophouse. Don't take my word for it; here's TripAdvisor ("ROOMS BY THE HOUR: Hookers, drug addicts, drug dealers, need I say more") complete with picture: http://tinyurl.com/ta-caswell and here's Yelp ("Please don't bring your kids here.") http://tinyurl.com/y-caswell
* The owners of the hotel were warned repeatedly by local law enforcement and an intervention of local hotel owners; specific measures were suggested to minimize the problems at this place and weren't taken; the hotel had no security, and its drug countermeasures consisted of a list of persons not to rent to again.
* The hotel owners made no policy changes after a methamphetamine lab was discovered in one of their rooms.
* The hotel owners made no changes after the dead body of a heroin overdose victim was found in one of their rooms.
* Drug deals weren't simply occurring at the hotel; the Tewskbury PD repeatedly discovered drug dealers operating full-time out of rooms in the hotel.
* The owners of the hotel repeatedly admitted under oath that they had continuing knowledge of drug crimes occurring on their premises, and had no policies to investigate the use of their rooms.
There are places like this all over America and they're all neighborhood blights that need to be shut down (hey, by the way, still think there couldn't possibly be a difference between an apartment and a room up for temporary let on Airbnb?).
If all we're saying is that civil asset forfeiture is the wrong means to shut them down, I'm with you. But this case does not make my blood boil the way it does for you.
* This case is Sonya Rao, not Carmen Ortiz (though once again Ortiz oversees all the cases in her office).
* The hotel is, let's not sugarcoat it, a blighted flophouse. Don't take my word for it; here's TripAdvisor ("ROOMS BY THE HOUR: Hookers, drug addicts, drug dealers, need I say more") complete with picture: http://tinyurl.com/ta-caswell and here's Yelp ("Please don't bring your kids here.") http://tinyurl.com/y-caswell
* The owners of the hotel were warned repeatedly by local law enforcement and an intervention of local hotel owners; specific measures were suggested to minimize the problems at this place and weren't taken; the hotel had no security, and its drug countermeasures consisted of a list of persons not to rent to again.
* The hotel owners made no policy changes after a methamphetamine lab was discovered in one of their rooms.
* The hotel owners made no changes after the dead body of a heroin overdose victim was found in one of their rooms.
* Drug deals weren't simply occurring at the hotel; the Tewskbury PD repeatedly discovered drug dealers operating full-time out of rooms in the hotel.
* The owners of the hotel repeatedly admitted under oath that they had continuing knowledge of drug crimes occurring on their premises, and had no policies to investigate the use of their rooms.
There are places like this all over America and they're all neighborhood blights that need to be shut down (hey, by the way, still think there couldn't possibly be a difference between an apartment and a room up for temporary let on Airbnb?).
If all we're saying is that civil asset forfeiture is the wrong means to shut them down, I'm with you. But this case does not make my blood boil the way it does for you.
You might want to look into how civil forfeiture laws are used in the U.S. Furthermore, if you have such a problem with this property why don't you make an offer to the property owner and buy it? Shutting down someone's business & stealing their property because you don't like it is deeply immoral.
> Furthermore, if you have such a problem with this property why don't you make an offer to the property owner and buy it?
Maybe he pays taxes exactly because he expects that the government would do their job? No one person can buy up every piece-of-shit property and clean it up, that's the whole point of foisting that shit job (and it's certainly a shit job) on the government
Maybe he pays taxes exactly because he expects that the government would do their job? No one person can buy up every piece-of-shit property and clean it up, that's the whole point of foisting that shit job (and it's certainly a shit job) on the government
I find it troubling that it remains acceptable to steal people's property on the premise that it is "blighted". This is nothing more that social engineering. Using violence to do away with something that you don't like is not morally acceptable.
Using violence to do away with something that you don't like is not morally acceptable.
Um...are you arguing that states are fundamentally immoral?
Because I'm fine with using laws (read: state violence) to do away with things I don't think are morally acceptable, like, murder, rape, child abuse, etc. Really, I'm totally 100% fine with it.
Um...are you arguing that states are fundamentally immoral?
Because I'm fine with using laws (read: state violence) to do away with things I don't think are morally acceptable, like, murder, rape, child abuse, etc. Really, I'm totally 100% fine with it.
Since when is it a private business owner's responsibility to play law enforcement?
If the police knows a place to be an epicenter of criminal activities, isn't that a great opportunity to do proper police work, and keep the place under surveillance?
If the police knows a place to be an epicenter of criminal activities, isn't that a great opportunity to do proper police work, and keep the place under surveillance?
>and here's Yelp ("Please don't bring your kids here.")
Despite the possibilty that they may reflect the truth, most of those reviews are obvious snark, written in the style of depilatory creme reviews http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R231U4ZG0YDNHD/ref=cm_cr_dp_t... ie: not to be taken seriously.
Despite the possibilty that they may reflect the truth, most of those reviews are obvious snark, written in the style of depilatory creme reviews http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R231U4ZG0YDNHD/ref=cm_cr_dp_t... ie: not to be taken seriously.
I know that motel. I have friends who live across the street. Those reviews are not snark. The place is an absolute hole, and the owner knows exactly what business he is in. Many locals in town would be pleased to see it shutdown.
I've posted a response and I enjoyed our back-and-forth on this particular topic on the other thread where this case is discussed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5084791
This was written over a year ago. Do you know the resolution of this case?
Hasn't been resolved yet. Trial was in November, no verdict yet - http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_22253534/caswell...
Really not getting the impression that Ortiz was a good soul trappend in a bad system. To the contrary, she seems to be the embodiment of the bad system. To the good souls who are actually trapped alongside her, she's a prime example of the problem they're facing, in that monsters like her are what gets promoted, leaving people who are better than her no choices beyond going along quietly or exiting altogether. I mean, just consider her deputy. When people talk about the bad driving out the good, this is what they mean.
Keep in mind that all federal prosecutors are 100% committed to putting (especially poor and minority) citizens in prison for years for the victimless crimes of drug possession and distribution. This practice has destroyed hundreds of communities and millions of lives. There are no good apples in this barrel. Every federal prosecutor should get some portion of the punishments they're so eager to mete out.
So I take it you have signed affidavits from every federal prosecutor to that effect? And proof that drug possession and distribution are always entirely victimless.
The fact is that I generally support decriminalisation, and that I acknowledge the fact that prosecution tends to treat those of lesser socioeconomic standing (such as the poor and those belonging to minorities) badly. But blanket statements generally don't help. Especially those calling for the blanket punishment of a wide ranging group of people whom are most likely doing that which they feel is right (never attribute to malice what can adequately attributed to ignorance).
Edit: Accidentally a word (The fact that -> The fact is that)
The fact is that I generally support decriminalisation, and that I acknowledge the fact that prosecution tends to treat those of lesser socioeconomic standing (such as the poor and those belonging to minorities) badly. But blanket statements generally don't help. Especially those calling for the blanket punishment of a wide ranging group of people whom are most likely doing that which they feel is right (never attribute to malice what can adequately attributed to ignorance).
Edit: Accidentally a word (The fact that -> The fact is that)
...blanket statements generally don't help.
Okay, so sue me. How would you have phrased that sentence?
Hahaha. I don't agree with the sentiments you've expressed, so I have no eloquence to contribute on their behalf. While the rejoinder you offer to what you term a blanket statement is a series of blanket statements, that is but the first layer of silliness here. The invocation of Hanlon's Razor on behalf of federal prosecutors is if anything more incoherent than the amusing snippet I quoted. Does a prosecutor live today who could utter that maxim with a straight face? The burdens you would impose (affidavits? proof... of a tautology?) function to obfuscate rather than illuminate. If you desire mellifluity I suggest you take a deep look into your soul.
[deleted]
> Participation in a corrupt system and going along with the corruption is acceptable for peons, but not for people are high up in the DoJ as Ortiz and Heynmann.
I agree. They should have everything possible bad happen to them. Both to ruin their lives -- which is what they deserve -- and to make them an example for others.
I agree. They should have everything possible bad happen to them. Both to ruin their lives -- which is what they deserve -- and to make them an example for others.
Mother Theresa once said that when she looked upon the many she could do nothing, but when she focused on the one, she could do something.
The same applies here. Someone needs to be held accountable. Change needs to start somewhere.
The same applies here. Someone needs to be held accountable. Change needs to start somewhere.
I'm not sure Mother Theresa is a good example for anything, but regarding the general argument you are making here:
There is a huge difference between helping one person (decreasing the general suffering by a tiny but attainable amount) and making one person an example (hoping this changes the status quo somehow).
There is a huge difference between helping one person (decreasing the general suffering by a tiny but attainable amount) and making one person an example (hoping this changes the status quo somehow).
I don't think anyone wants to make Ortiz an "example".
Ortiz literally did not do her job. She over-prosecuted a case, apparently for personal advancement and DoJ-vendetta seeking, that was worth no more than a misdemeanor at best.
Sure, it's a problem that "the system" allowed her to do so. But it's also a problem that she abused the system, destroyed a life, shows no remorse, and will likely continue to abuse the system if not removed from office.
Ortiz literally did not do her job. She over-prosecuted a case, apparently for personal advancement and DoJ-vendetta seeking, that was worth no more than a misdemeanor at best.
Sure, it's a problem that "the system" allowed her to do so. But it's also a problem that she abused the system, destroyed a life, shows no remorse, and will likely continue to abuse the system if not removed from office.
Totally agree. At the very least, she should fired, but definitely not in the name of revenge and not to make an example, but because she didn't do her job. Making an example of someone implies over prosecuting someone in order to discourage others. In some industries, certain acts bar you from working in that industry again forever. Lawyers can be disbarred. Doctors and other licensed professionals can lose their license to practice. The same should happen to any and every prosecutor that abuses their power for personal gain. Removing people for violating the responsibilities entrusted to them isn't "making an example", but simply removing any and all that shouldn't be practicing in a certain professional area because they don't adhere to the ethical standards of their position.
However, an investigation is merited to determine if Ortiz and Heynmann were willfully negligant in applying their tactics. The same way we hold other individuals accountable for harm caused by bullying, she may merit the same. My gut tells me that an investigation and possible trial would exonerate her of any criminal wrongdoing (unless some other over-zealous prosecutor treated her as she treated Aaron), but would leave her open to a civil lawsuit, which she probably deserves
However, an investigation is merited to determine if Ortiz and Heynmann were willfully negligant in applying their tactics. The same way we hold other individuals accountable for harm caused by bullying, she may merit the same. My gut tells me that an investigation and possible trial would exonerate her of any criminal wrongdoing (unless some other over-zealous prosecutor treated her as she treated Aaron), but would leave her open to a civil lawsuit, which she probably deserves
The system didn't just allow her to do it, it encouraged her to do it. And not just her, but probably many others in positions like hers.
apparently for personal advancement and DoJ-vendetta seeking
What's the evidence for that?
What's the evidence for that?
I was referring to her strategy, and how she learned to make positive change.
Mother Theresa let people die slow, horrible and unnecessary deaths. You should never use that person as a good example for anything really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Criticism
> Mother Theresa let people die slow, horrible and unnecessary deaths
Instead to, err... dispacht them quick and efficiently?
Instead to, err... dispacht them quick and efficiently?
Instead of treating their illness and making them not die.
Of course, well, but we are missing the point here.
To care for all indian citizens and to treat its health problems (if possible) was not the duty of this woman.
It is the duty of the indian government. The duty of the Republic of India and of all the hindi people.
Yes, I agree that having a team of volunteers "cleaning the streets" and hiding ugly pictures is very "convenient" and is not solving the real problem here: that this man, woman or child will die in a street and the government will not cares about this, probably because this human is tagged as "low chast" and "less human than me".
To charge a single NGO with the whole health system of more than a 1,2 millions of people seems not fair. Even if this NGO receives money for trying to help poor people.
I don't want to speak for this NGO, but I think that the game here is probably more about educate the hindi people that this situation is not right, than to save today a relatively few lives just to see how they die tomorrow victims of a unfair structure that tags people as first class, second class,... disposable. And, yes, you need some money to maintain this structure. The Mother Teresa NGO don't need to open hospitals, the Red Cross do this, Medicus mundi do this.
We should not blame a single woman for not doing the work of a system that rejects to treat and save a human people that can be saved. We should blame either the indian government, or if you prefer, the whole (lack of) humanity for this.
To care for all indian citizens and to treat its health problems (if possible) was not the duty of this woman.
It is the duty of the indian government. The duty of the Republic of India and of all the hindi people.
Yes, I agree that having a team of volunteers "cleaning the streets" and hiding ugly pictures is very "convenient" and is not solving the real problem here: that this man, woman or child will die in a street and the government will not cares about this, probably because this human is tagged as "low chast" and "less human than me".
To charge a single NGO with the whole health system of more than a 1,2 millions of people seems not fair. Even if this NGO receives money for trying to help poor people.
I don't want to speak for this NGO, but I think that the game here is probably more about educate the hindi people that this situation is not right, than to save today a relatively few lives just to see how they die tomorrow victims of a unfair structure that tags people as first class, second class,... disposable. And, yes, you need some money to maintain this structure. The Mother Teresa NGO don't need to open hospitals, the Red Cross do this, Medicus mundi do this.
We should not blame a single woman for not doing the work of a system that rejects to treat and save a human people that can be saved. We should blame either the indian government, or if you prefer, the whole (lack of) humanity for this.
Huh... That seems to have been removed!
Link to a random version that has it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mother_Teresa&... and then the 5th paragraph onwards.
Someone needs to be held accountable. Ortiz is someone. Therefore...
What, you have someone else in mind? Or maybe she's just an innocent victim here, a well-meaning prosecutor working for justice, who just had the bad luck to lay charges against a popular but suicidal trouble maker and is now being scapegoated?
Oritz is not just someone. Oritz is who had control over the matters and held the decision power in the matter. She's not a random bystander.
Accountable for what exactly?
"Little to no commercial value?"
This is one thing is was absolutely correct: those articles had almost no chance of being sold at $20 a piece. In fact, the commercial value has little to do with the articles themselves, since JSTOR and journal publishers make the bulk of their money from subscriptions, which libraries will pay for regardless of the availability of articles by other means, and by offering search services, which Aaron was not preparing to offer. The claim that Aaron's plan would have caused any measurable harm to JSTOR or any of the publishers it contracts is dubious.
It is also worth noting that the government is not supposed to be in the business of indiscriminately protecting commercial interests. Even if we assume that sharing these articles via BitTorrent would have damaged JSTOR's business, so what? The purpose of academic publishers in our society is to make knowledge available on a widespread basis, and if BitTorrent does a better job we should have switched to BitTorrent long ago. Academic publishers are not like the RIAA or MPAA; where the music and movie businesses can claim that their profits pay for the entertainment they release, journal publishers cannot make such a claim, because the research they publish is paid for by someone else, the peer review process is voluntary, and many journals even have volunteer editors.
I agree that the characterization of Aaron's behavior as a "college prank" is unrealistic; a better characterization would have been "heroic."
This is one thing is was absolutely correct: those articles had almost no chance of being sold at $20 a piece. In fact, the commercial value has little to do with the articles themselves, since JSTOR and journal publishers make the bulk of their money from subscriptions, which libraries will pay for regardless of the availability of articles by other means, and by offering search services, which Aaron was not preparing to offer. The claim that Aaron's plan would have caused any measurable harm to JSTOR or any of the publishers it contracts is dubious.
It is also worth noting that the government is not supposed to be in the business of indiscriminately protecting commercial interests. Even if we assume that sharing these articles via BitTorrent would have damaged JSTOR's business, so what? The purpose of academic publishers in our society is to make knowledge available on a widespread basis, and if BitTorrent does a better job we should have switched to BitTorrent long ago. Academic publishers are not like the RIAA or MPAA; where the music and movie businesses can claim that their profits pay for the entertainment they release, journal publishers cannot make such a claim, because the research they publish is paid for by someone else, the peer review process is voluntary, and many journals even have volunteer editors.
I agree that the characterization of Aaron's behavior as a "college prank" is unrealistic; a better characterization would have been "heroic."
I agree that the lionization of Aaron is maybe getting a little out of hand. He was an accomplished and notable young person, few would deny this, but let's keep it realistic.
The easiest way to be born a genius is to become rich or die.
Which statements, specifically, do you see as being unrealistic?
Edit: I'd like to know what the downvoter is thinking, too, but I wonder if I'll get any answers.
Edit: I'd like to know what the downvoter is thinking, too, but I wonder if I'll get any answers.
Greatest prodigy of his generation is one such example of hyperbole.
Do you have any other candidates in mind for that title? The inventor of the Web called Aaron his mentor.
The article says "one of the greatest" which isn't inaccurate; we're all among the greatest 7 billion people on the planet.
He authored the RSS spec at age 14. He may not be the greatest prodigy, but as far as I can tell he's one of the greater prodigies. I do not think it is a hyperbole at all to label him the 'greatest prodigy' of our generation.
He made great contributions in the effort of making information free, with his work on the commons and all. That is a profoundly big endeavor that pushes humanity forword, do not be so quick to look past that.
He made great contributions in the effort of making information free, with his work on the commons and all. That is a profoundly big endeavor that pushes humanity forword, do not be so quick to look past that.
Authoring the RSS spec may be an exaggeration. A history of RSS can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS
Basically, it seems like the original RSS spec (RSS 0.9) was authored by two guys at Netscape, and released in March 1999, followed by RSS 0.91 in July 1999.
At this point, it looks like Netscape lost interest in RSS, and the project was forked into two competing versions, one lead by Dave Winer, and the other by the RSS-DEV Working Group. Dave Winer published the specs RSS 0.91 (different to Netscape's), 0.92, 0.93, .94 and then 2.0 between 2000-2002.
In August 2000, a competing fork was started by Rael Dornfest, who posted a draft of RSS 1.0, which appears to have been written by himself. He asked for interested parties to join a working group, of which Aaron became a member. This group became known as the RSS-DEV Working Group, and 1.0 was published in December 2000.
It's hard to say how much involvement Aaron had in this working group (I haven't read through the archives), but RSS had certainly existed for some time before Aaron became involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS
Basically, it seems like the original RSS spec (RSS 0.9) was authored by two guys at Netscape, and released in March 1999, followed by RSS 0.91 in July 1999.
At this point, it looks like Netscape lost interest in RSS, and the project was forked into two competing versions, one lead by Dave Winer, and the other by the RSS-DEV Working Group. Dave Winer published the specs RSS 0.91 (different to Netscape's), 0.92, 0.93, .94 and then 2.0 between 2000-2002.
In August 2000, a competing fork was started by Rael Dornfest, who posted a draft of RSS 1.0, which appears to have been written by himself. He asked for interested parties to join a working group, of which Aaron became a member. This group became known as the RSS-DEV Working Group, and 1.0 was published in December 2000.
It's hard to say how much involvement Aaron had in this working group (I haven't read through the archives), but RSS had certainly existed for some time before Aaron became involved.
I think the broader point is that lionizing Swartz and demonizing Ortiz turns the whole episode into a morality play in which we want to see Ortiz lynched because Jesus was crucified. The issues raised are systemic issues and require systemic solutions, in the long term. Focusing on the individuals involved obscures that. If all that happens is that Ortiz is scapegoated by the DOJ, then we'll have failed to capitalize on the moment to enact real, useful change.
> Little to no commercial value?
Have you ever tried to sell a diamon, err, scholarly article?
Have you ever tried to sell a diamon, err, scholarly article?
JSTOR sells access to its archive for $50K/year. That seems pretty damn valuable.
I think that if Swartz successfully released the JSTOR archive, their entire business would have withered and died. Once you can buy a DVD on the street for $3 that held the entire thing, it gets harder and harder for university libraries to justify paying $50K/year. Their customer base wouldn't dry up overnight but over a few years, you'd see library departments squeezed for cash (and they all are) killing their subscriptions. With JSTOR access drying up, grad students and professors would make do by torrenting or copying DVDs; it would be an open secret, a technically illegal but universally accepted practice.
I don't think Swartz could have profited from this scheme, but he could have destroyed a large amount of financial value; JSTOR's a $50million/year organization.
I think that if Swartz successfully released the JSTOR archive, their entire business would have withered and died. Once you can buy a DVD on the street for $3 that held the entire thing, it gets harder and harder for university libraries to justify paying $50K/year. Their customer base wouldn't dry up overnight but over a few years, you'd see library departments squeezed for cash (and they all are) killing their subscriptions. With JSTOR access drying up, grad students and professors would make do by torrenting or copying DVDs; it would be an open secret, a technically illegal but universally accepted practice.
I don't think Swartz could have profited from this scheme, but he could have destroyed a large amount of financial value; JSTOR's a $50million/year organization.
This is absolute bullshit.
There is no way in hell any university in a developed nation would drop their subscription to JSTOR. JSTOR keeps them on the right side of copyright law, keeps itself up to date, and provides infrastructure that the vast majority of university users find essential.
Individuals not affiliated with universities may find such a pirated collection useful, but such individuals currently make up a fraction of one percent of JSTOR's revenue.
There is no way in hell any university in a developed nation would drop their subscription to JSTOR. JSTOR keeps them on the right side of copyright law, keeps itself up to date, and provides infrastructure that the vast majority of university users find essential.
Individuals not affiliated with universities may find such a pirated collection useful, but such individuals currently make up a fraction of one percent of JSTOR's revenue.
Journals in the library + interlibrary loan keep them on the right side of copyright law. And many more expensive subscriptions provide universities with access to parts of the JSTOR archive. What's more, there are no university copyright investigations to fear: no one is going to force grad students to prove that they legally obtained every paper they ever read (how could that even work?), but even if they did, grad students have a perfectly legal explanation: they can just say they read/acquired their documents from the library and no one can prove otherwise.
Universities aren't stupid; they know there's no threat from dropping JSTOR and they can count to $50,000 all too well.
Universities aren't stupid; they know there's no threat from dropping JSTOR and they can count to $50,000 all too well.
Unless the university library it itself providing a unified accessible system to access a torrented (and somehow constantly up to date?) archive of JSTOR, then JSTOR will not be dropped. You are having serious tunnel vision if you think all grad students and professors want to spend their time fucking around with that, or even know how to do that.
I know that every university, there are multiple servers where students share terabytes of pirated movies, TV shows and music.
And every university already has a unified accessible non-JSTOR system for reading old journal articles: its called the journal stacks in the library basement + interlibrary loan. Everyone already knows how to deal with that: its just less convenient.
And every university already has a unified accessible non-JSTOR system for reading old journal articles: its called the journal stacks in the library basement + interlibrary loan. Everyone already knows how to deal with that: its just less convenient.
A university officially providing a pirated archive of JSTOR would be opening itself up to legal liability itself worth more than 50k. Add to that the cost of maintaining a digital archive comparable to JSTOR, the cost of training, and the cost of keeping it up to date, and you have to be absolutely insane or intellectually dishonest if you claim even a struggling school with limited resources would go with that.
> I know that every university, there are multiple servers where students share terabytes of pirated movies, TV shows and music.
You are being delusional if you think such a system is at all comparable to what it would take to replace JSTOR for all but a fraction of university JSTOR users.
I was a technically inclined CS guy with far to much free time while in university and I would be royally pissed if my university had dropped JSTOR for some sort of ghetto fileshare with an aging torrent. Anyone a less ideal user than I would be crippled by that.
> I know that every university, there are multiple servers where students share terabytes of pirated movies, TV shows and music.
You are being delusional if you think such a system is at all comparable to what it would take to replace JSTOR for all but a fraction of university JSTOR users.
I was a technically inclined CS guy with far to much free time while in university and I would be royally pissed if my university had dropped JSTOR for some sort of ghetto fileshare with an aging torrent. Anyone a less ideal user than I would be crippled by that.
As I wrote earlier, I don't think universities would ever provide a pirated archive. They wouldn't need to. Grad students talk. They pass around USB drives. And pretty soon, everyone has the archive on their laptop.
Such a system would never replace a subscription to JSTOR. You have massive tunnel vision if you honestly think it could.
It could cause them financial harm. Libraries have a fixed budget and choose wisely which subscriptions to take. If people at a department already know where to get the stuff that JSTOR offers for free, that will make the JSTOR subscription less valuable and other subscriptions more valuable to them.
Academics are quite used to being creative in acquiring articles. It's not untypical to ask colleagues and friends at other universities to scan and email articles that they can't get access to through their own library. Before the advent of the Internet this was done with letters. Downloading a torrent is a minor inconvenience in comparison.
A large majority of people I have talked to have at some point acquired scans of at least on book online (be it to give it to students because the library has only one copy, for convenience during travelling or because the local library has no copies and an interlibrary loan would take some time while they need the book now).
Academics are quite used to being creative in acquiring articles. It's not untypical to ask colleagues and friends at other universities to scan and email articles that they can't get access to through their own library. Before the advent of the Internet this was done with letters. Downloading a torrent is a minor inconvenience in comparison.
A large majority of people I have talked to have at some point acquired scans of at least on book online (be it to give it to students because the library has only one copy, for convenience during travelling or because the local library has no copies and an interlibrary loan would take some time while they need the book now).
umm. That may have been true in the latter half of the '90s and the first half of the 'noughties but it is certainly not true today. Most universities have an extensive copyright policing function in their network operations center, designed to shield them from liability.
Not to say that pirate servers aren't hanging out on Uni nets these days, but they are stealthed, and deniable.
Not to say that pirate servers aren't hanging out on Uni nets these days, but they are stealthed, and deniable.
"no one is going to force grad students to prove that they legally obtained every paper they ever read"
Nor would anyone hesitate to prosecute one of us (yes, I am a grad student) if we were to share an archive on BitTorrent.
"Universities aren't stupid"
Really? Part of my introduction to grad school was an annoying quiz about complying with copyrights and a bunch of reminders about the penalties I would face if I dared to infringe. Yes, really, my school takes copyrights that seriously, and guess what? My alma mater also subjected me to that sort of treatment during my undergrad orientation.
Do you really think universities are prepared to stand up to the copyright system? Do you think any mainstream university is going to suggest that people download an illegal archive of scholarly publications? I can tell you this: I would be shocked if any respected university official endorsed the use of an illegal archive of scholarly articles, textbooks, or anything containing even the tiniest amount of human knowledge.
Nor would anyone hesitate to prosecute one of us (yes, I am a grad student) if we were to share an archive on BitTorrent.
"Universities aren't stupid"
Really? Part of my introduction to grad school was an annoying quiz about complying with copyrights and a bunch of reminders about the penalties I would face if I dared to infringe. Yes, really, my school takes copyrights that seriously, and guess what? My alma mater also subjected me to that sort of treatment during my undergrad orientation.
Do you really think universities are prepared to stand up to the copyright system? Do you think any mainstream university is going to suggest that people download an illegal archive of scholarly publications? I can tell you this: I would be shocked if any respected university official endorsed the use of an illegal archive of scholarly articles, textbooks, or anything containing even the tiniest amount of human knowledge.
1. There is no reason to think that any university or organization would have given up its JSTOR subscription because an archive was made available on BitTorrent. At the very least, universities would want up-to-date articles, and so anything published after the archive was amassed (which would be a large number in just a year's time) would still motivate a subscription. There is also JSTOR's search service, and the general support universities have for the copyright system (to the point of abandoning their own academic mission when copyrights force such a thing).
2. Why should we care if JSTOR goes out of business because an archive is published? If JSTOR's only value is in their ability to enforce other publishers' copyrights, then they should go out of business because human knowledge should not be restricted by copyrights. Copyrights only made sense for academic publications when we needed the publishing industry to make scholarly writing available on a widespread basis; in 2013, we have this thing called the Internet (perhaps you've heard of it) that is vastly more efficient and costs far less.
So if JSTOR's search service is valuable, great, let's keep them around. If it is not, or if we can get the same thing without JSTOR (I suspect we could if we really tried), then we should let them and all the leeches whose publications they sell subscriptions to die quickly. Considering that a typical scientific journal publisher will not pay the authors of its articles, nor the reviewers, and often not even the editors, what exactly can they claim to be contributing to human knowledge to the point of justifying the continued restrictions on access to that knowledge that copyrights the publishers that hold them are imposing?
2. Why should we care if JSTOR goes out of business because an archive is published? If JSTOR's only value is in their ability to enforce other publishers' copyrights, then they should go out of business because human knowledge should not be restricted by copyrights. Copyrights only made sense for academic publications when we needed the publishing industry to make scholarly writing available on a widespread basis; in 2013, we have this thing called the Internet (perhaps you've heard of it) that is vastly more efficient and costs far less.
So if JSTOR's search service is valuable, great, let's keep them around. If it is not, or if we can get the same thing without JSTOR (I suspect we could if we really tried), then we should let them and all the leeches whose publications they sell subscriptions to die quickly. Considering that a typical scientific journal publisher will not pay the authors of its articles, nor the reviewers, and often not even the editors, what exactly can they claim to be contributing to human knowledge to the point of justifying the continued restrictions on access to that knowledge that copyrights the publishers that hold them are imposing?
anything published after the archive was amassed would still motivate a subscription
For many journals, JSTOR doesn't have recent content available anyway; Universities typically subscribe to publishers to get electronic access to recent content while relying on JSTOR for access to older content.
Why should we care if JSTOR goes out of business because an archive is published?
It doesn't matter whether you care or not. But the law cares. Prosecutors care. Judges care.
human knowledge should not be restricted by copyrights.
You've decided that? Good for you! Do prosecutors and judges have to agree with that statement? What happens when they don't?
Copyright is the law. You don't like that. I get it. But prosecutors and judges have to enforce the law as it is, not the law as some hackers on HN fervently wish it were.
we have this thing called the Internet that is vastly more efficient and costs far less.
This internet thing, that I've never heard of before (thanks for telling me about it!), does it make scanning and digitzing old paper journals free also? Does it make it so that data entry techs typing in metadata describing old paper journals don't have to paid?
we should let them and all the leeches whose publications they sell subscriptions to die quickly
How are we going to do that exactly? By not enforcing copyright laws or the CFAA, just for them? So, copyright laws will be enforced when it comes to stealing proprietary source code, but not for old journals?
what exactly can they claim to be contributing to human knowledge
I'm not sure I get your argument here. Is it that copyright law shouldn't be enforced because you've decided journal publishers are rapacious parasites (I think they are too actually)? Or that copyright law should only get enforced for entities that contribute something to human knowledge?
For many journals, JSTOR doesn't have recent content available anyway; Universities typically subscribe to publishers to get electronic access to recent content while relying on JSTOR for access to older content.
Why should we care if JSTOR goes out of business because an archive is published?
It doesn't matter whether you care or not. But the law cares. Prosecutors care. Judges care.
human knowledge should not be restricted by copyrights.
You've decided that? Good for you! Do prosecutors and judges have to agree with that statement? What happens when they don't?
Copyright is the law. You don't like that. I get it. But prosecutors and judges have to enforce the law as it is, not the law as some hackers on HN fervently wish it were.
we have this thing called the Internet that is vastly more efficient and costs far less.
This internet thing, that I've never heard of before (thanks for telling me about it!), does it make scanning and digitzing old paper journals free also? Does it make it so that data entry techs typing in metadata describing old paper journals don't have to paid?
we should let them and all the leeches whose publications they sell subscriptions to die quickly
How are we going to do that exactly? By not enforcing copyright laws or the CFAA, just for them? So, copyright laws will be enforced when it comes to stealing proprietary source code, but not for old journals?
what exactly can they claim to be contributing to human knowledge
I'm not sure I get your argument here. Is it that copyright law shouldn't be enforced because you've decided journal publishers are rapacious parasites (I think they are too actually)? Or that copyright law should only get enforced for entities that contribute something to human knowledge?
"the law cares"
...and the law is wrong. It is wrong, because it is no longer serving the interests of the people governed by it. The entire basis for the US legal system is that laws serve the interest of the people, not that laws are handed down from above or that the law itself has any moral or ethical justification. If society's interests are no longer served by a law -- and it is hard to argue that in the case of academic publishing, copyrights actually serve society's interests -- then the law should repealed.
"Do prosecutors and judges have to agree with that statement? What happens when they don't?"
They become the targets of congressional investigations, which is what is happening to Carmen Ortiz right now. It is horrifying that it took the death of a man with a bright future to bring this issue to the public's attention, but now that everyone is looking it is good to see Congress doing something that helps people for a change. Minute as the response from Congress has been, it is at least a step in the right direction.
"prosecutors and judges have to enforce the law as it is"
No they don't. Prosecutors have to serve the interests of the public and are expected to decline prosecution in cases where they are asked to prosecute someone whose actions were potentially illegal but both benefited the public and were neither harmful nor dangerous. Judges are expected to strike down laws that violate the constitution, and to give light or suspended sentences to people who are guilty of violating the law but whose imprisonment or punishment would do nothing to benefit society. The idea that prosecutors and judges have some kind of obligation to enforce laws that are clearly misguided is on the level of the fallacy that juries have a duty to convict if the evidence shows a defendant is guilty (jury nullification is an important check on laws that the public disagrees with).
"does it make scanning and digitzing old paper journals free also? Does it make it so that data entry techs typing in metadata describing old paper journals don't have to paid?"
That is an organizational problem, not a technology or legal issue. Universities could do this via their library system, or we could set up a system where people who voluntarily scan articles or write metadata get preferential treatment when they search or download (think of BitTorrent trackers that give preferential treatment to users with higher seed ratios). For that matter, why should we have to rely on a single organization or system? Maybe you are better than I am when it comes to entering metadata; maybe other people would rather trust your metadata over mine. Maybe we could set up something like a web of trust.
It is not like this could not be done; it is more like the law stops it in order to protect an obsolete business model.
"How are we going to do that exactly?"
Here's a suggestion: exclude scientific articles from copyright restrictions. If you want a compromise, how about this: exclude those articles for which the research was paid for with tax dollars from copyright. As a first step, that would not be so bad. Let the copyright battle be exclusive to entertainment and software, and leave human knowledge out of it.
We are already questioning the CFAA as a result of this case. Why not question copyrights as well?
"So, copyright laws will be enforced when it comes to stealing proprietary source code, but not for old journals?"
That would at least be a step in the right direction.
"Is it that copyright law shouldn't be enforced because you've decided journal publishers are rapacious parasites (I think they are too actually)? Or that copyright law should only get enforced for entities that contribute something to human knowledge?"
It is that copyright law was meant to ensure our access to the knowledge that journal publishers publish, but that in today's world it is actually making that knowledge harder to access. The copyright system was never meant to ensure that the authors of scholarly articles would be paid; it was meant to ensure that the publishing system would be monetized. At the time, the publishing industry was the best way to make enough copies of scientific journals to satisfy society's need, and the publishing system is expensive and must be paid for. Everything other than the distribution of articles is irrelevant to copyrights, because everything else is done by volunteers (writing, reviewing, and editing) and would continue to be done regardless of money.
We no longer need that system, because we have a distribution system that is substantially more efficient and less costly. Copyright is no longer promoting the best system for distributing scholarly articles; it is now preventing the use of that system and promoting an anachronistic system that by today's standards is shockingly inefficient. It seems reasonable to conclude that copyrights should simply not be applied to academic publishing, at least as copyrights currently exist, and that a new legal framework that promotes the use of the Internet should be enacted.
Sure, there are hurdles. Publishers serve as archives, they pay people to insert metadata, and sometimes they even scan older articles for us. I fail to see how these activities could not be accomplished with the publishing industry. Universities already have more than enough computer capacity to act as archives (I know a professor who took the time to scan his entire library, thousands of textbooks -- it fits on a couple of external hard drives sitting on his desk, with room to spare for storing all patents ever granted in all countries). Metadata is something that could be done as a community, perhaps via some sort of system as I had mentioned above, or it could be done by the universities themselves as a one-time cost for old articles (metadata for new articles could be inserted automatically when those articles are published). Scanners are not hard to find -- my school's library makes many available to patrons, I have one on my desk, and my department has many as well (and of course, I know someone who scanned thousands of books on his own); again, we could create a system that incentivizes scanning as a community effort, or rely on universities to do it. If we actually cared about the original goal of copyrights as related to academic publishing, we would be investing some time in finding better ways to do things now that we have the technology to do so.
You could summarize the argument like this: the law is standing in the way of the sort of progress that society is desperately in need of; therefore, changing the law is imperative.
...and the law is wrong. It is wrong, because it is no longer serving the interests of the people governed by it. The entire basis for the US legal system is that laws serve the interest of the people, not that laws are handed down from above or that the law itself has any moral or ethical justification. If society's interests are no longer served by a law -- and it is hard to argue that in the case of academic publishing, copyrights actually serve society's interests -- then the law should repealed.
"Do prosecutors and judges have to agree with that statement? What happens when they don't?"
They become the targets of congressional investigations, which is what is happening to Carmen Ortiz right now. It is horrifying that it took the death of a man with a bright future to bring this issue to the public's attention, but now that everyone is looking it is good to see Congress doing something that helps people for a change. Minute as the response from Congress has been, it is at least a step in the right direction.
"prosecutors and judges have to enforce the law as it is"
No they don't. Prosecutors have to serve the interests of the public and are expected to decline prosecution in cases where they are asked to prosecute someone whose actions were potentially illegal but both benefited the public and were neither harmful nor dangerous. Judges are expected to strike down laws that violate the constitution, and to give light or suspended sentences to people who are guilty of violating the law but whose imprisonment or punishment would do nothing to benefit society. The idea that prosecutors and judges have some kind of obligation to enforce laws that are clearly misguided is on the level of the fallacy that juries have a duty to convict if the evidence shows a defendant is guilty (jury nullification is an important check on laws that the public disagrees with).
"does it make scanning and digitzing old paper journals free also? Does it make it so that data entry techs typing in metadata describing old paper journals don't have to paid?"
That is an organizational problem, not a technology or legal issue. Universities could do this via their library system, or we could set up a system where people who voluntarily scan articles or write metadata get preferential treatment when they search or download (think of BitTorrent trackers that give preferential treatment to users with higher seed ratios). For that matter, why should we have to rely on a single organization or system? Maybe you are better than I am when it comes to entering metadata; maybe other people would rather trust your metadata over mine. Maybe we could set up something like a web of trust.
It is not like this could not be done; it is more like the law stops it in order to protect an obsolete business model.
"How are we going to do that exactly?"
Here's a suggestion: exclude scientific articles from copyright restrictions. If you want a compromise, how about this: exclude those articles for which the research was paid for with tax dollars from copyright. As a first step, that would not be so bad. Let the copyright battle be exclusive to entertainment and software, and leave human knowledge out of it.
We are already questioning the CFAA as a result of this case. Why not question copyrights as well?
"So, copyright laws will be enforced when it comes to stealing proprietary source code, but not for old journals?"
That would at least be a step in the right direction.
"Is it that copyright law shouldn't be enforced because you've decided journal publishers are rapacious parasites (I think they are too actually)? Or that copyright law should only get enforced for entities that contribute something to human knowledge?"
It is that copyright law was meant to ensure our access to the knowledge that journal publishers publish, but that in today's world it is actually making that knowledge harder to access. The copyright system was never meant to ensure that the authors of scholarly articles would be paid; it was meant to ensure that the publishing system would be monetized. At the time, the publishing industry was the best way to make enough copies of scientific journals to satisfy society's need, and the publishing system is expensive and must be paid for. Everything other than the distribution of articles is irrelevant to copyrights, because everything else is done by volunteers (writing, reviewing, and editing) and would continue to be done regardless of money.
We no longer need that system, because we have a distribution system that is substantially more efficient and less costly. Copyright is no longer promoting the best system for distributing scholarly articles; it is now preventing the use of that system and promoting an anachronistic system that by today's standards is shockingly inefficient. It seems reasonable to conclude that copyrights should simply not be applied to academic publishing, at least as copyrights currently exist, and that a new legal framework that promotes the use of the Internet should be enacted.
Sure, there are hurdles. Publishers serve as archives, they pay people to insert metadata, and sometimes they even scan older articles for us. I fail to see how these activities could not be accomplished with the publishing industry. Universities already have more than enough computer capacity to act as archives (I know a professor who took the time to scan his entire library, thousands of textbooks -- it fits on a couple of external hard drives sitting on his desk, with room to spare for storing all patents ever granted in all countries). Metadata is something that could be done as a community, perhaps via some sort of system as I had mentioned above, or it could be done by the universities themselves as a one-time cost for old articles (metadata for new articles could be inserted automatically when those articles are published). Scanners are not hard to find -- my school's library makes many available to patrons, I have one on my desk, and my department has many as well (and of course, I know someone who scanned thousands of books on his own); again, we could create a system that incentivizes scanning as a community effort, or rely on universities to do it. If we actually cared about the original goal of copyrights as related to academic publishing, we would be investing some time in finding better ways to do things now that we have the technology to do so.
You could summarize the argument like this: the law is standing in the way of the sort of progress that society is desperately in need of; therefore, changing the law is imperative.
Here's a suggestion: exclude scientific articles from copyright restrictions.
Your proposal is unconstitutional. "Takings" must be compensated or you run into 5th amendment issues.
If you want a compromise, how about this: exclude those articles for which the research was paid for with tax dollars from copyright.
At my school, I owned the copyright to anything I published unless I used school resources. Even if I published while being funded by an DARPA grant. Moreover, school funding was split evenly between tuition, federal government grants, and private grants. How can you justify forcing people to give up copyright when the public only paid for one third of the research?
They become the targets of congressional investigations
But that doesn't change the law. In fact, none of the proposals we've seen in response to Swartz's suicide involve copyright changes. Copyright law isn't going to change at all.
Your proposal is unconstitutional. "Takings" must be compensated or you run into 5th amendment issues.
If you want a compromise, how about this: exclude those articles for which the research was paid for with tax dollars from copyright.
At my school, I owned the copyright to anything I published unless I used school resources. Even if I published while being funded by an DARPA grant. Moreover, school funding was split evenly between tuition, federal government grants, and private grants. How can you justify forcing people to give up copyright when the public only paid for one third of the research?
They become the targets of congressional investigations
But that doesn't change the law. In fact, none of the proposals we've seen in response to Swartz's suicide involve copyright changes. Copyright law isn't going to change at all.
"Your proposal is unconstitutional. "Takings" must be compensated or you run into 5th amendment issues."
Copyrights can only be granted for a limited time according to the constitution. The fifth amendment only applies to property and despite the use of the term "intellectual property" by lawyers and those who profit from copyrights, copyright is not actually a form of property. What is unconstitutional is copyrights that last forever, which is why Congress periodically extends copyright terms as an end-run around the constitution.
"How can you justify forcing people to give up copyright when the public only paid for one third of the research?"
Simple: the entire point of copyright is to ensure that American society will have access to creative work. It is not meant to be a form of property, it was never meant as a form of property, and researchers' copyrights on their work are doing nothing to ensure public access to those works.
Further, it is not at all out of line for researchers to give up their copyrights. I cannot speak for your field, but in my field, we routinely assign copyrights to journals and give up any copyright claims thereafter. The entire point of publishing researcher is for other people to read it, cite it, and build on it. Researchers gain nothing by restricting access to their published work, and researchers benefit from their work being made more widely available.
Don't swallow the propaganda that the copyright lobby has been shoving down our throats. Copyright is not about ensuring that authors can control who reads their work or how many copies exist in the world. Copyright is about monetizing the production and distribution of creative work. In the case of research, copyright has nothing to do with monetizing the work, because it is paid for regardless of copyright, and so the only point of copyrights on published research is to monetize the publishing system. We forgot the point of copyright long ago, thanks to decades of lobbying effort by the people who profit from the copyright system.
Why are you publishing your research, exactly? Is it not so that other people can read it, and if that is the reason, why would you care about receiving copyrights on that work? I cannot speak for you, but when I publish my work, I do so with the intention of other people reading it -- something that copyright does nothing to encourage these days.
Copyrights can only be granted for a limited time according to the constitution. The fifth amendment only applies to property and despite the use of the term "intellectual property" by lawyers and those who profit from copyrights, copyright is not actually a form of property. What is unconstitutional is copyrights that last forever, which is why Congress periodically extends copyright terms as an end-run around the constitution.
"How can you justify forcing people to give up copyright when the public only paid for one third of the research?"
Simple: the entire point of copyright is to ensure that American society will have access to creative work. It is not meant to be a form of property, it was never meant as a form of property, and researchers' copyrights on their work are doing nothing to ensure public access to those works.
Further, it is not at all out of line for researchers to give up their copyrights. I cannot speak for your field, but in my field, we routinely assign copyrights to journals and give up any copyright claims thereafter. The entire point of publishing researcher is for other people to read it, cite it, and build on it. Researchers gain nothing by restricting access to their published work, and researchers benefit from their work being made more widely available.
Don't swallow the propaganda that the copyright lobby has been shoving down our throats. Copyright is not about ensuring that authors can control who reads their work or how many copies exist in the world. Copyright is about monetizing the production and distribution of creative work. In the case of research, copyright has nothing to do with monetizing the work, because it is paid for regardless of copyright, and so the only point of copyrights on published research is to monetize the publishing system. We forgot the point of copyright long ago, thanks to decades of lobbying effort by the people who profit from the copyright system.
Why are you publishing your research, exactly? Is it not so that other people can read it, and if that is the reason, why would you care about receiving copyrights on that work? I cannot speak for you, but when I publish my work, I do so with the intention of other people reading it -- something that copyright does nothing to encourage these days.
"Takings" must be compensated or you run into 5th amendment issues.
Two words: civil forfeiture
Running into constitutional issues isn't even a speed bump to the government at this point. That ship sailed long ago.
Two words: civil forfeiture
Running into constitutional issues isn't even a speed bump to the government at this point. That ship sailed long ago.
> JSTOR sells access to its archive for $50K/year. That seems pretty damn valuable...I think that if Swartz successfully released the JSTOR archive, their entire business would have withered and died.
JSTOR who declined to press charges is probably in the best position to value the damages Swartz inflicted.
JSTOR who declined to press charges is probably in the best position to value the damages Swartz inflicted.
You NEED access to journals and conferences if you are silly enough to become a research student (like I did) or even sillier and become a professional researcher.
Also, there is no way on earth you can pay for it on a researcher's salary or stipend. Hence, the Universities and Laboratories are BLACKMAILED into paying for it on the researchers' behalf. (So the 50K/year thing applies to MIT, Harvard and a couple of other "customers".)
However, outside of that context, J. Random Hacker might quite like to read a paper - his taxes paid for it after all, and there are like 3 good papers in existence. But JRH would never pay 50K for it. He probably CAN'T; JRH might need to take out a mortgage to pay that much.
So if you want to pretend that the 50K multiplies by the potential readership as "loss due to copyright theft", you are committing a basic economic fallacy, which is normally debunked in Econ101.
So I advise you to drop the whole 50K/year argument.
Also, there is no way on earth you can pay for it on a researcher's salary or stipend. Hence, the Universities and Laboratories are BLACKMAILED into paying for it on the researchers' behalf. (So the 50K/year thing applies to MIT, Harvard and a couple of other "customers".)
However, outside of that context, J. Random Hacker might quite like to read a paper - his taxes paid for it after all, and there are like 3 good papers in existence. But JRH would never pay 50K for it. He probably CAN'T; JRH might need to take out a mortgage to pay that much.
So if you want to pretend that the 50K multiplies by the potential readership as "loss due to copyright theft", you are committing a basic economic fallacy, which is normally debunked in Econ101.
So I advise you to drop the whole 50K/year argument.
You NEED access to journals and conferences
And you have them, in dead tree form at every big university. Universities functioned long before JSTOR.
BLACKMAILED
If you think this is blackmail, you don't know much.
if you want to pretend that the 50K multiplies by the potential readership as "loss due to copyright theft"
I don't believe that at all. My point was just that the archive has serious commercial value. If you can license access to an archive for $50K/year, then saying it has "little or no commercial value" is obviously wrong, right?
J. Random Hacker might quite like to read a paper
He can always go to his nearest university library and go spelunking in the archival stacks looking for it.
his taxes paid for it after all
His taxes paid for JSTOR to dig up the paper journal, scan the articles, and pay data entry folk to type in metadata? Really? I don't think so.
But JRH would never pay 50K for it.
$50K/year is not the only price point being offered. You could always pay for individual paper downloads or you can get them free now.
And you have them, in dead tree form at every big university. Universities functioned long before JSTOR.
BLACKMAILED
If you think this is blackmail, you don't know much.
if you want to pretend that the 50K multiplies by the potential readership as "loss due to copyright theft"
I don't believe that at all. My point was just that the archive has serious commercial value. If you can license access to an archive for $50K/year, then saying it has "little or no commercial value" is obviously wrong, right?
J. Random Hacker might quite like to read a paper
He can always go to his nearest university library and go spelunking in the archival stacks looking for it.
his taxes paid for it after all
His taxes paid for JSTOR to dig up the paper journal, scan the articles, and pay data entry folk to type in metadata? Really? I don't think so.
But JRH would never pay 50K for it.
$50K/year is not the only price point being offered. You could always pay for individual paper downloads or you can get them free now.
Swartz's actions would have been an "attack" on a research archive, which the article classifies as having "little" commercial value (and Swartz wasn't profiting, it was civil disobedience).
The Reuters news for yesterday lists the LIBOR scandal, which was an "attack" on financial data. The fine alone, for UBS alone, was $1.5Billion. Now that's what I call "serious commercial value". JSTOR, not so much.
Do you want to keep arguing the point or do you feel silly enough already?
The Reuters news for yesterday lists the LIBOR scandal, which was an "attack" on financial data. The fine alone, for UBS alone, was $1.5Billion. Now that's what I call "serious commercial value". JSTOR, not so much.
Do you want to keep arguing the point or do you feel silly enough already?
Swartz wasn't profiting, it was civil disobedience
As I've explained above, I don't think Swartz was trying to profit from this scheme. But I do think he was trying to destroy significant financial value (yes $50million/year is significant for me). And from a legal perspective, that's extremely serious.
Now that's what I call "serious commercial value". JSTOR, not so much.
So if I rob a bank and steal $30 million, that's not a crime with serious commercial value? Interesting.
Of course JSTOR was small potatoes compared to LIBOR. So what? 99% of all crimes are small potatoes compared to LIBOR. That argument proves way, way too much.
As I've explained above, I don't think Swartz was trying to profit from this scheme. But I do think he was trying to destroy significant financial value (yes $50million/year is significant for me). And from a legal perspective, that's extremely serious.
Now that's what I call "serious commercial value". JSTOR, not so much.
So if I rob a bank and steal $30 million, that's not a crime with serious commercial value? Interesting.
Of course JSTOR was small potatoes compared to LIBOR. So what? 99% of all crimes are small potatoes compared to LIBOR. That argument proves way, way too much.
"But I do think he was trying to destroy significant financial value"
Lock me up then, because I have been pushing people to abandon the academic publishing industry and share knowledge more freely for a while now. Since when should any of us care about what happens to those leeches?
Is JSTOR's archive valuable for society? Not anymore because we have a much better way to spread human knowledge: peer to peer networking on the Internet. We do not need a centralized service that charges money for access in an age of widely available high-speed connections. JSTOR's search service may be valuable, but Aaron did nothing to threaten that service and I suspect that it would take a half dozen HN readers a few weeks to develop something just as useful that every university could run on its own servers or anyone else who wished to do so. We could probably make a distributed search system if we really put our minds to it; what holds us back is the copyright system itself and the publishers who will only allow JSTOR to access the articles at grossly inflated prices.
We are not talking about something debatable, like whether or not the RIAA and MPAA should continue to have their business models protected by copyright. Journal publishers and JSTOR could vanish and research would continue to happen, scholarly articles would continue to be written, and human knowledge would be more accessible than ever before. Journal publishers do nothing at all to continue the expansion of human knowledge: they do not pay the authors of articles, they do not pay the reviewers, and many do not even pay the editors of the journals. We stopped needing them when the world wide web was invented (and probably even before that -- once global computer networks became a real thing, academic publishing became obsolete, and it has been propped up by the copyright system ever since).
Rather than being charged with a crime, Aaron Swartz should have been asked to advise the President on how to improve our access to education and to knowledge in general.
Lock me up then, because I have been pushing people to abandon the academic publishing industry and share knowledge more freely for a while now. Since when should any of us care about what happens to those leeches?
Is JSTOR's archive valuable for society? Not anymore because we have a much better way to spread human knowledge: peer to peer networking on the Internet. We do not need a centralized service that charges money for access in an age of widely available high-speed connections. JSTOR's search service may be valuable, but Aaron did nothing to threaten that service and I suspect that it would take a half dozen HN readers a few weeks to develop something just as useful that every university could run on its own servers or anyone else who wished to do so. We could probably make a distributed search system if we really put our minds to it; what holds us back is the copyright system itself and the publishers who will only allow JSTOR to access the articles at grossly inflated prices.
We are not talking about something debatable, like whether or not the RIAA and MPAA should continue to have their business models protected by copyright. Journal publishers and JSTOR could vanish and research would continue to happen, scholarly articles would continue to be written, and human knowledge would be more accessible than ever before. Journal publishers do nothing at all to continue the expansion of human knowledge: they do not pay the authors of articles, they do not pay the reviewers, and many do not even pay the editors of the journals. We stopped needing them when the world wide web was invented (and probably even before that -- once global computer networks became a real thing, academic publishing became obsolete, and it has been propped up by the copyright system ever since).
Rather than being charged with a crime, Aaron Swartz should have been asked to advise the President on how to improve our access to education and to knowledge in general.
Since when should any of us care about what happens to those leeches?
Can you give me a list of entities for which copyright law no longer applies? Or do you think copyright law no longer applies for everyone?
Better yet, just give me a list of laws that I can now break with impunity, because you said so.
Can you give me a list of entities for which copyright law no longer applies? Or do you think copyright law no longer applies for everyone?
Better yet, just give me a list of laws that I can now break with impunity, because you said so.
My point was that the law is out-of-sync with the needs of society, and has come to serve only the interests of an anachronistic industry that has long been obsolete. Breaking bad laws to bring attention to them -- and hopefully to get our representatives to fix things -- is a civic duty, a form of civil disobedience without which we would never move forward.
It seems to me you are arguing four separate points:
1. JSTOR has a commercial value of $50mil/yr.
This is a fair point, if that is indeed JSTOR's revenue (though "commercial" isn't exactly the right word to describe a non-profit organization's activities).
2. Aaron's intention was to destroy JSTOR.
Unless you have another source beside the Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto[0] and the recent summaries posted online by those close to the case, I don't believe this at all. Aaron's intent, as expressed by the manifesto, was to increase access to knowledge. I also do not consider a federal indictment to be a reliable source for determining the frame of mind of the indicted.
3. Aaron's archive would have been a substitute for JSTOR access, and thus capable of destroying JSTOR.
The other responses to your comments have disproven this claim fairly effectively. JSTOR provides legitimacy to university libraries, it provides an active, searchable index, full text search, online viewing, and a continually updated collection. Aaron's collection of PDFs would provide none of that.
Furthermore, the original purpose of JSTOR was to free up space used by archived print journals, so your claim that print journals in the library stacks would substitute for JSTOR is demonstrably false.
4. Destroying a business model (of a non-profit organization, no less) is equivalent to stealing (e.g. your "if I rob a bank" analogy).
Despite arguing against the idea that Aaron wanted to or was even capable of destroying JSTOR's business model, I will briefly address this point.
Making a particular business model obsolete is not in itself criminal. This has been argued to death online, so just search for "buggy whip manufacturers."
[0] http://pastebin.com/cefxMVAy
1. JSTOR has a commercial value of $50mil/yr.
This is a fair point, if that is indeed JSTOR's revenue (though "commercial" isn't exactly the right word to describe a non-profit organization's activities).
2. Aaron's intention was to destroy JSTOR.
Unless you have another source beside the Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto[0] and the recent summaries posted online by those close to the case, I don't believe this at all. Aaron's intent, as expressed by the manifesto, was to increase access to knowledge. I also do not consider a federal indictment to be a reliable source for determining the frame of mind of the indicted.
3. Aaron's archive would have been a substitute for JSTOR access, and thus capable of destroying JSTOR.
The other responses to your comments have disproven this claim fairly effectively. JSTOR provides legitimacy to university libraries, it provides an active, searchable index, full text search, online viewing, and a continually updated collection. Aaron's collection of PDFs would provide none of that.
Furthermore, the original purpose of JSTOR was to free up space used by archived print journals, so your claim that print journals in the library stacks would substitute for JSTOR is demonstrably false.
4. Destroying a business model (of a non-profit organization, no less) is equivalent to stealing (e.g. your "if I rob a bank" analogy).
Despite arguing against the idea that Aaron wanted to or was even capable of destroying JSTOR's business model, I will briefly address this point.
Making a particular business model obsolete is not in itself criminal. This has been argued to death online, so just search for "buggy whip manufacturers."
[0] http://pastebin.com/cefxMVAy
There's a nice two step shuffle here. On the one hand, people say "JSTOR is keeping this vitally important knowledge away from THE PEOPLE!" and imply that Swartz was going to rectify that by releasing the JSTOR archive. Then, when I point out that releasing the JSTOR archive would completely undermine JSTOR's viability as a going concern, the same people argue that "there's no way that the JSTOR archive Swartz was going to release could possibly substitute for the service JSTOR provides now!".
Well, if that's true, then I can't see how Swartz's actions were going to help anyone. After all, if the archive torrented is completely inferior to the JSTOR service, then no one would find it valuable. It wouldn't help anyone. So why exactly was Swartz interested in it?
Aaron's intent, as expressed by the manifesto, was to increase access to knowledge.
I doubt he particularly cared about destroying JSTOR one way or another. But he did care about making it so that everyone on earth could have completely free access to every single JSTOR article. If he had achieved that goal, there's no way JSTOR could function as a going concern now. I mean, maybe JSTOR could continue as an company charging $1/month for a search index, but it wouldn't be scanning in new material like crazy right now.
Making a particular business model obsolete is not in itself criminal.
Of course not. But violating the CFAA is. Copyright infringement, on a large enough scale certainly is.
Well, if that's true, then I can't see how Swartz's actions were going to help anyone. After all, if the archive torrented is completely inferior to the JSTOR service, then no one would find it valuable. It wouldn't help anyone. So why exactly was Swartz interested in it?
Aaron's intent, as expressed by the manifesto, was to increase access to knowledge.
I doubt he particularly cared about destroying JSTOR one way or another. But he did care about making it so that everyone on earth could have completely free access to every single JSTOR article. If he had achieved that goal, there's no way JSTOR could function as a going concern now. I mean, maybe JSTOR could continue as an company charging $1/month for a search index, but it wouldn't be scanning in new material like crazy right now.
Making a particular business model obsolete is not in itself criminal.
Of course not. But violating the CFAA is. Copyright infringement, on a large enough scale certainly is.
After all, if the archive torrented is completely inferior to the JSTOR service, then no one would find it valuable. It wouldn't help anyone.
An analogy: margarine is inferior in taste to butter. To those who can afford butter (universities), margarine is undesirable. To those who cannot (laypeople, journalists), margarine may be an acceptable substitute.
Inferior does not mean valueless, nor does it mean the value of the superior product is diminished.
Of course not. But violating the CFAA is. Copyright infringement, on a large enough scale certainly is.
This is a completely separate debate, and addressed elsewhere. Summarized, it is debatable whether Aaron's actions (changing MAC address) do or should constitute Wire Fraud or CFAA violations. It is also debatable whether any nonviolent crime should ever have a penalty larger than any violent crime. I will not address any of these points further in this thread.
An analogy: margarine is inferior in taste to butter. To those who can afford butter (universities), margarine is undesirable. To those who cannot (laypeople, journalists), margarine may be an acceptable substitute.
Inferior does not mean valueless, nor does it mean the value of the superior product is diminished.
Of course not. But violating the CFAA is. Copyright infringement, on a large enough scale certainly is.
This is a completely separate debate, and addressed elsewhere. Summarized, it is debatable whether Aaron's actions (changing MAC address) do or should constitute Wire Fraud or CFAA violations. It is also debatable whether any nonviolent crime should ever have a penalty larger than any violent crime. I will not address any of these points further in this thread.
The 2-step shuffle is yours.
If Swartz's material had been released, J Random Hacker, who simply wouldn't have read any of the JSTOR papers before, would now read them. MIT, on the other hand, would still pay for them. Though I can see how Podunk Community College in ThirdWorldistan might not pay for it.
The same way that you can get pirate Windows now, and some 15 year old kid in Thailand does. But Goldman Sachs still pays for a license. But some dodgy outfit in Beijing might not.
The principle here is not a legal principle, it is an economic principle. It is called loss of earnings. Look it up.
Instead of whinging that Swartz was going to destroy a $50 Million business, admit that the loss of earnings he would have caused would have been ZERO.
More disturbing than your ignorance of Econ101 is how you are fixating on the cost of Swartz's "crime", excluding the wider social aspects including the deadweight loss imposed on society as a result of copyright lobbying.
It's like a hobbit-sized version of somebody complaining about how the cotton industry would shrink - the horrors! - if we were to stop slavery.
If Swartz's material had been released, J Random Hacker, who simply wouldn't have read any of the JSTOR papers before, would now read them. MIT, on the other hand, would still pay for them. Though I can see how Podunk Community College in ThirdWorldistan might not pay for it.
The same way that you can get pirate Windows now, and some 15 year old kid in Thailand does. But Goldman Sachs still pays for a license. But some dodgy outfit in Beijing might not.
The principle here is not a legal principle, it is an economic principle. It is called loss of earnings. Look it up.
Instead of whinging that Swartz was going to destroy a $50 Million business, admit that the loss of earnings he would have caused would have been ZERO.
More disturbing than your ignorance of Econ101 is how you are fixating on the cost of Swartz's "crime", excluding the wider social aspects including the deadweight loss imposed on society as a result of copyright lobbying.
It's like a hobbit-sized version of somebody complaining about how the cotton industry would shrink - the horrors! - if we were to stop slavery.
What on earth does this non-profit spend $50M/yr doing? I've come up with the following:
- scan old articles (this really shouldn't be accounted as
a business expense: once you've scanned an article you
never need to scan it again and there are a finite
number of articles in existence, thus this is that rare
sort of capital spending that can be depreciated over
an essentially infinite period)
- serve saved content and related services online (the
price of this activity is dropping all the time)
- sales, accounting, legal (these activities would be much
less costly for a free service like arXiv.org)
- license payments (hard to get around this without some
[justified IMO] changes to the law, but I'm sure JSTOR
is also marking up these charges and besides most
education institutions already make equivalent payments
to extant journals)
"99% of all crimes are small potatoes compared to LIBOR"
I doubt that you can show me that Swartz's "crime" was somehow doing more damage than 99% of all crimes.
I doubt that you can show me that it was doing more damage than 51% of all crimes.
In fact, I doubt you can show me that it was significant at all in the grand scheme of things.
What Swartz allegedly wanted to do is something similar to sticking a Windows ISO on BitTorrent.
If you think that's "extremely serious" or worth comparing to a bank robbery, this conversation is over.
I doubt that you can show me that Swartz's "crime" was somehow doing more damage than 99% of all crimes.
I doubt that you can show me that it was doing more damage than 51% of all crimes.
In fact, I doubt you can show me that it was significant at all in the grand scheme of things.
What Swartz allegedly wanted to do is something similar to sticking a Windows ISO on BitTorrent.
If you think that's "extremely serious" or worth comparing to a bank robbery, this conversation is over.
Elsevier et al have done very well selling articles bundled as journal subscriptions. Claiming articles have no commercial value while at the same time railing against publishers is cognitive dissonance at its finest.
His point is that the scholarly articles (like diamonds) can be easily tracked, and therefore determined if illegally sold or not. Since legitimate buyers - University professors, etc - want to be sure they are on the up and up, the won't purchase illegally obtained goods. Therefore, there would have been no buyers for the articles "stolen".
Exactly. I can't believe that Aaron would have been able to sell them, even if he had intended to. And I can't seriously believe that he ever intended to, or that the prosecutors could have truly believed that he intended to.
Yes, they are doing that themselves. But hopefully not for much longer if the internet has anything to say about that. I applaud all of the scientists who are working hard to make their research more open.
Yes, they are doing that themselves. But hopefully not for much longer if the internet has anything to say about that. I applaud all of the scientists who are working hard to make their research more open.
That doesn't make sense.
Imagine a world where Swartz managed to destroy JSTOR. A professor asks his grad students to read an article. They can either dig it out of the archival stacks and read it there or wait for interlibrary loan or...use a torrented copy or illegal DVD they bought on the street at their last academic conference. There is no way to track which one they did. No one will ever know. And no one will care: all the prof cares about is whether his students read the damn article; he doesn't care how they got it. He's completely focused on getting his research done, writing grant proposals, etc.
Imagine a world where Swartz managed to destroy JSTOR. A professor asks his grad students to read an article. They can either dig it out of the archival stacks and read it there or wait for interlibrary loan or...use a torrented copy or illegal DVD they bought on the street at their last academic conference. There is no way to track which one they did. No one will ever know. And no one will care: all the prof cares about is whether his students read the damn article; he doesn't care how they got it. He's completely focused on getting his research done, writing grant proposals, etc.
Swartz never intended to destroy JSTOR. He wanted to provide access to the articles (many of them, I'm sure, public financed and should be publicly accessible anyway) to people that do not have 50K/year to pay to JSTOR. That would by no way destroy JSTOR, but if the access to the storage could be provided much cheaper - in theory, if it would be possible to do all the functions of JSTOR without JSTOR - I see no reason why JSTOR should be sacred.
> if it would be possible to do all the functions of JSTOR without JSTOR
And spoilers: it's not. In order to make it would you would have to recreate everything JSTOR currently does, which would result in a JSTOR not called JSTOR. One with legal liability at that.
And spoilers: it's not. In order to make it would you would have to recreate everything JSTOR currently does, which would result in a JSTOR not called JSTOR. One with legal liability at that.
It may very well be so, then the project of copying JSTOR would be marginal and would descend into oblivion without any external intervention.
With respect, the fact that he wrote the Guerilla Open Access Manifesto suggests that he did want to destroy JSTOR as a going concern. Now, maybe he didn't think releasing their archive would be enough, but he was clearly gunning for them.
He wanted to provide access to the articles to people that do not have 50K/year to pay to JSTOR. That would by no way destroy JSTOR
JSTOR prorates its fees so that poor institutions pay much less than rich institutions. And all of Africa gets JSTOR for free. Now, even individuals can get capped free articles from JSTOR.
If the JSTOR archive was released to the world, why would journal owners continue licensing their content to JSTOR?
Finally, do you understand that most of what JSTOR charges pays for either licensing the journal content (JSTOR doesn't own copyright for the journals it includes) or for scanning/digitizing new content? The costs that JSTOR charges pay for a hell of a lot more than a few web sites pushing PDFs to clients.
He wanted to provide access to the articles to people that do not have 50K/year to pay to JSTOR. That would by no way destroy JSTOR
JSTOR prorates its fees so that poor institutions pay much less than rich institutions. And all of Africa gets JSTOR for free. Now, even individuals can get capped free articles from JSTOR.
If the JSTOR archive was released to the world, why would journal owners continue licensing their content to JSTOR?
Finally, do you understand that most of what JSTOR charges pays for either licensing the journal content (JSTOR doesn't own copyright for the journals it includes) or for scanning/digitizing new content? The costs that JSTOR charges pay for a hell of a lot more than a few web sites pushing PDFs to clients.
>>>> If the JSTOR archive was released to the world, why would journal owners continue licensing their content to JSTOR?
I'm not sure how this question makes sense. If the content that is accessible via JSTOR would be also accessible otherwise, which journal owners would withhold permission from JSTOR to publish their content? That's like saying if the book is available in the library, nobody would ever buy it. Obviously, it is not so.
Also, surprisingly, in September 2011 JSTOR made public domain content available to everybody and shortly after that instituted free individual access programs - which they didn't do before, and which by your words should be impossible due to high costs that can not be supported in any other way but by charging for any access. Somehow it turned out to be possible still, and JSTOR did not collapse.
I'm not sure how this question makes sense. If the content that is accessible via JSTOR would be also accessible otherwise, which journal owners would withhold permission from JSTOR to publish their content? That's like saying if the book is available in the library, nobody would ever buy it. Obviously, it is not so.
Also, surprisingly, in September 2011 JSTOR made public domain content available to everybody and shortly after that instituted free individual access programs - which they didn't do before, and which by your words should be impossible due to high costs that can not be supported in any other way but by charging for any access. Somehow it turned out to be possible still, and JSTOR did not collapse.
Wow, downvoters really don't want anyone to know about how JSTOR is free for institutions in Africa or prorates its costs for poorer institutions the world over!
I wonder if Swartz, who was very concerned about information access in the global south (according to his manifesto), knew about that.
I wonder if Swartz, who was very concerned about information access in the global south (according to his manifesto), knew about that.
Rightly or wrongly, Elsevier makes a pretty decent business out of it.
As far as the prosecution goes, here's some interesting explorations:
http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/19/the-fishing-expedition-...
http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/19/the-fishing-expedition-...
That is a fascinating account of some events related to the "investigation" of Aaron. I'm not sure whether they amount to attempted revenge and harassment or are the result of incompetence on the part of those leading the attack. Either way, the net effect appears to be an abuse of power that would have tormented anyone.
Related: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/14/what-kind-of-fishing-tr...
And: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/19/the-six-week-delay-in-t...
Related: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/14/what-kind-of-fishing-tr...
And: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/19/the-six-week-delay-in-t...
You're misrepresenting the article. It explicitly states:
> The process was fundamentally corrupt and shameful. But observers of the American criminal-justice
> system also know that it was a common one.
This is a very intelligent, informed summary of the mounting case against the prosecutors. The author minces no words when describing Ortiz' and Heymann's strategy of charging Swartz with a battery of preposterous charges with the express intent of making any action except accepting a plea bargain (and thereby pleading guilty to all charges) the only reasonable approach: "[T]hey assumed that the risk of their success even on bogus charges would be enough to pressure Swartz into accepting a guilty plea on all the counts in exchange for a reduced sentence — which is what they offered him."
But what raises the deepest concern when I read this article is that the author continues on to describe Swartz's case not as a particularly bad example of prosecutorial oppression but rather as an exemplar of justice in the United States: "The process was fundamentally corrupt and shameful. But observers of the American criminal-justice system also know that it was a common one."
What can we do about this?
But what raises the deepest concern when I read this article is that the author continues on to describe Swartz's case not as a particularly bad example of prosecutorial oppression but rather as an exemplar of justice in the United States: "The process was fundamentally corrupt and shameful. But observers of the American criminal-justice system also know that it was a common one."
What can we do about this?
"The process was fundamentally corrupt and shameful. But observers of the American criminal-justice system also know that it was a common one."
And it seems to be pretty common,
This is another example, a marine biologist bullied and with her life destroyed for "feed the whales". The history and treatment of this girl by another "Ortiz" really sucks.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083331/Marine-biolo...
"Ms Black could receive a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a half million dollars in fines. Each of the feeding charges carries a maximum penalty of a year in prison and a $100,000 fine."
And it seems to be pretty common,
This is another example, a marine biologist bullied and with her life destroyed for "feed the whales". The history and treatment of this girl by another "Ortiz" really sucks.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083331/Marine-biolo...
"Ms Black could receive a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a half million dollars in fines. Each of the feeding charges carries a maximum penalty of a year in prison and a $100,000 fine."
After six long years of accusations and demands that Nancy plead guilty to crimes she did not commit, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) out of Washington, D.C., went before a secret grand jury. Without any opportunity for Nancy or her attorneys to present evidence or cross-examine the prosecutor's witnesses, the DOJ attorneys obtained on January 4, 2012 an indictment charging Nancy with two felonies and two misdemeanors in the process of doing her research on orcas and operating a whale-watching boat.
You apparently don't know very much about how the criminal justice system in this country works: All indictments come from "secret" grand juries where only the prosecutor presents a case.
Adding to twoodfin's comment: Grand Jury sessions are not meant to be trials, and do not consider whether a felony allegation can be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt." Instead they address whether there is "probable cause" that a felony has occurred.
I'm not familiarised with the laws in your country, but I CAN see from here how the history sucks in large ammounts
I copy here a few more notes written about this case:
"Note that after six years of investigation and who knows how many taxpayer dollars down the hole, the DOJ is neither charging Nancy with harassing any whale on October 12, 2005, or any date since then. The indictment does not even allege that Nancy harassed any whale" (http://www.nancyblacklegaldefense.org/charges.htm)
Uh oh, "Ortiz boy/girl" in charge, you are shorting of ideas, think quickly...
Thanks god, whe have the 1001!
"When federal prosecutors can't muster enough evidence to bring charges against a person suspected of a crime, they can still use a controversial law to get a conviction anyway: They charge the person with lying.
The law against lying--known in legal circles simply as "1001"--makes it a crime to knowingly make a material false statement in matters of federal jurisdiction. Critics across the political spectrum argue that 1001, a widely used statute in the federal criminal code, is open to abuse. It is charged hundreds of times a year..."
...Nancy Black, a marine biologist and operator of whale-watching boats, recently became ensnared by 1001. When one of her boat captains whistled at a humpback whale that approached the boat a few years ago, regulators investigated whether the incident constituted harassment of a whale, which is illegal.
This past January (2012), Ms. Black was charged in the case--not with whale harassment, but with lying about the incident. She also faces a charge of illegally altering a video of the whale encounter, as well as unrelated allegations involving whale blubber. Together, the charges carry up to 20 years in prison. She denies all wrongdoing, including lying..."
This is is taken from an article in the Wall Street Journal about the aplication of 1001 to targets like Nancy when all other charges failed... ("For feds lying is a handy charge, Emshwiller and Fields)".
I strongly recommend its complete lecture to all interested in the Aaron's case. It is terrifying.
"...the law is so vague that harmless misstatements can be turned into federal felonies."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230329960457732...
link to the PDF (in case the other link fails) http://www.nancyblacklegaldefense.org/For%20Feds,%20%27Lying...
In short:
This IS a shame, to ask 20 years for "edit a video" is indecent, abusive and ridiculous, and somebody had to say it.
I hope never, ever, to have a law like this in my own country. To me, It's like a sort of legal torture to crush a target and force a confession, even from innocent people, and must be stopped.
I copy here a few more notes written about this case:
"Note that after six years of investigation and who knows how many taxpayer dollars down the hole, the DOJ is neither charging Nancy with harassing any whale on October 12, 2005, or any date since then. The indictment does not even allege that Nancy harassed any whale" (http://www.nancyblacklegaldefense.org/charges.htm)
Uh oh, "Ortiz boy/girl" in charge, you are shorting of ideas, think quickly...
Thanks god, whe have the 1001!
"When federal prosecutors can't muster enough evidence to bring charges against a person suspected of a crime, they can still use a controversial law to get a conviction anyway: They charge the person with lying.
The law against lying--known in legal circles simply as "1001"--makes it a crime to knowingly make a material false statement in matters of federal jurisdiction. Critics across the political spectrum argue that 1001, a widely used statute in the federal criminal code, is open to abuse. It is charged hundreds of times a year..."
...Nancy Black, a marine biologist and operator of whale-watching boats, recently became ensnared by 1001. When one of her boat captains whistled at a humpback whale that approached the boat a few years ago, regulators investigated whether the incident constituted harassment of a whale, which is illegal.
This past January (2012), Ms. Black was charged in the case--not with whale harassment, but with lying about the incident. She also faces a charge of illegally altering a video of the whale encounter, as well as unrelated allegations involving whale blubber. Together, the charges carry up to 20 years in prison. She denies all wrongdoing, including lying..."
This is is taken from an article in the Wall Street Journal about the aplication of 1001 to targets like Nancy when all other charges failed... ("For feds lying is a handy charge, Emshwiller and Fields)".
I strongly recommend its complete lecture to all interested in the Aaron's case. It is terrifying.
"...the law is so vague that harmless misstatements can be turned into federal felonies."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230329960457732...
link to the PDF (in case the other link fails) http://www.nancyblacklegaldefense.org/For%20Feds,%20%27Lying...
In short:
This IS a shame, to ask 20 years for "edit a video" is indecent, abusive and ridiculous, and somebody had to say it.
I hope never, ever, to have a law like this in my own country. To me, It's like a sort of legal torture to crush a target and force a confession, even from innocent people, and must be stopped.
This.
While Ortiz will be the convenient (and rightful, I suppose) scapegoat in this instance, she's a symptom of the problem and not the cause. There are far more fundamental problems with the DoJ, and until they're addressed (time and cost of mounting a defence, overly aggressive prosecutions, lack of oversight and discretion), nothing will change.
While Ortiz will be the convenient (and rightful, I suppose) scapegoat in this instance, she's a symptom of the problem and not the cause. There are far more fundamental problems with the DoJ, and until they're addressed (time and cost of mounting a defence, overly aggressive prosecutions, lack of oversight and discretion), nothing will change.
I know that "don't treat the symptoms! treat the root cause!" is a common, almost unassailable sentiment, but lately I've been thinking there are problems with it.
In order for it to be completely ineffective to "treat the symptom", it rests on the assumption that successfully treating the symptom will have zero effect on the cause behind it.
A good example of that is taking pain meds to mask the pain of a knee injury. So then you go and run on it, and it makes the knee injury worse. You treated the symptom, and nothing changed.
But there are definitely examples where treating the symptom does help. For instance, someone is temporarily depressed because of a unresolved situation in their lives. And yet, they cannot address the situation because the depression is in the way. So, they take an anti-depressant, and then maybe they can resolve their root cause, and then maybe they can go off the anti-depressant.
Someone like an Ortiz, yes, is a symptom of a deeper problem. But I'm not convinced it is like the pain in a knee, where treating it will make zero difference. A bum knee isn't exacerbated by the pain. But the system may be exacerbated by Ortiz. A bum knee doesn't become a bit less bum from witnessing the taking of a pain med. But if the system recognizes an Ortiz downfall and receives a data point of what "going to far" is, then maybe that would have an effect.
Probably not a sufficient effect, probably not enough, but I'm just pointing out that the fact that Ortiz is a symptom, is not, by itself, sufficient reason to believe that "nothing will change". Also not sufficient reason to believe that the symptom should not be treated.
In order for it to be completely ineffective to "treat the symptom", it rests on the assumption that successfully treating the symptom will have zero effect on the cause behind it.
A good example of that is taking pain meds to mask the pain of a knee injury. So then you go and run on it, and it makes the knee injury worse. You treated the symptom, and nothing changed.
But there are definitely examples where treating the symptom does help. For instance, someone is temporarily depressed because of a unresolved situation in their lives. And yet, they cannot address the situation because the depression is in the way. So, they take an anti-depressant, and then maybe they can resolve their root cause, and then maybe they can go off the anti-depressant.
Someone like an Ortiz, yes, is a symptom of a deeper problem. But I'm not convinced it is like the pain in a knee, where treating it will make zero difference. A bum knee isn't exacerbated by the pain. But the system may be exacerbated by Ortiz. A bum knee doesn't become a bit less bum from witnessing the taking of a pain med. But if the system recognizes an Ortiz downfall and receives a data point of what "going to far" is, then maybe that would have an effect.
Probably not a sufficient effect, probably not enough, but I'm just pointing out that the fact that Ortiz is a symptom, is not, by itself, sufficient reason to believe that "nothing will change". Also not sufficient reason to believe that the symptom should not be treated.
I agree with your point, but treating the symptom must be done in such a way that the problem is still seen to be a problem. Another case in point was when the banking collapse hit, 'leaders' blamed things like 'excess greed' and so on, and dodged the real problem (IMHO).
I'm afraid of throwing Ortiz to the wolves, washing our hands and saying, "Well, that's that."
I'm afraid of throwing Ortiz to the wolves, washing our hands and saying, "Well, that's that."
This could have a somewhat chilling effect on other prosecutors although obviously only in cases against people who are somewhat popular or at least have the potential to become so. Poor people without outspoken friends would still get screwed. And the incentives for the prosecutors to "score big" would still remain.
What was 'the real problem' with the collapse, in your view?
People smarter than I will have to figure that out. I'm talking about fairly soon after, before any investigation, we had politicians (McCain, for one) blaming "excess greed." I think this is a straw-man. The people in that job get paid to be greedy. You can't blame that, you have at least recognize that a system (regulations and work flow) is broken if it is so obtuse that people can't even know what decisions are in their own best interest.
I actually sort of see this as a real-life tragedy of the commons situation, although you kind of have to squint your eyes and wave your hands a bit to make it fit.
The "common resource" is the client opportunity. The Nash equilibrium is every employee maximizing their own bonuses. The group optimum is the health of the company. It turned out that the individual self-interest did not align to what was good for the health of the companies. And in fact, that if they had cooperated and worked for the health of the companies, the employees may have ended up with higher individual payouts. This is exactly what the tragedy of the commons is about, and it's what apparently shook Greenspan to his core. So basically, it was the (predicted (over and over again)) failure of Objectivism.
The "common resource" is the client opportunity. The Nash equilibrium is every employee maximizing their own bonuses. The group optimum is the health of the company. It turned out that the individual self-interest did not align to what was good for the health of the companies. And in fact, that if they had cooperated and worked for the health of the companies, the employees may have ended up with higher individual payouts. This is exactly what the tragedy of the commons is about, and it's what apparently shook Greenspan to his core. So basically, it was the (predicted (over and over again)) failure of Objectivism.
That's an interesting take. I always thought that they didn't know that their actions would result in such disaster.
I worry about the same non-effect with the gun-law blitz we're seeing after Sandy Hook. I worry that we're not attacking the problem- which may have more to do with mental health issues than gun laws.
I worry about the same non-effect with the gun-law blitz we're seeing after Sandy Hook. I worry that we're not attacking the problem- which may have more to do with mental health issues than gun laws.
I only partially agree.
My personal belief is that when prosecutors know that there is a chance of cases blowing up and destroying their careers, as is happening here, they have an incentive to be careful. And likely will be more careful for some time. This is a good thing - even if it helps much less than fixing the system.
That is why in many, many corporate cultures there is an effective policy of responding to problems by publicly identifying a scapegoat and throwing the book at them. It is an easy action that makes a marginal difference for a short time.
So this is better than nothing. Unfortunately it is not very good. First of all the deterrent effect is only temporary. Secondly you get two-tiered justice where defendants who seem likely to have the potential to raise such a firestorm of protest are more protected than defendants who don't. Thirdly the identification of a scapegoat relieves pressure to come up with a better fix.
Therefore I am modestly in support of the current corrective process. I would like to see something better. I will encourage better things. I know the shortcomings of scapegoating. However it is better than nothing. If this is all that this case is likely to achieve, it was still a somewhat useful response.
My personal belief is that when prosecutors know that there is a chance of cases blowing up and destroying their careers, as is happening here, they have an incentive to be careful. And likely will be more careful for some time. This is a good thing - even if it helps much less than fixing the system.
That is why in many, many corporate cultures there is an effective policy of responding to problems by publicly identifying a scapegoat and throwing the book at them. It is an easy action that makes a marginal difference for a short time.
So this is better than nothing. Unfortunately it is not very good. First of all the deterrent effect is only temporary. Secondly you get two-tiered justice where defendants who seem likely to have the potential to raise such a firestorm of protest are more protected than defendants who don't. Thirdly the identification of a scapegoat relieves pressure to come up with a better fix.
Therefore I am modestly in support of the current corrective process. I would like to see something better. I will encourage better things. I know the shortcomings of scapegoating. However it is better than nothing. If this is all that this case is likely to achieve, it was still a somewhat useful response.
Urge your congressperson to support Lofgren's law as it stands. That would do one thing, which is defang the law they were using to bully Swartz.
Important part:
Prosecutors Ortiz and Stephen Heymann turned to a standard trick while pursuing the case, mounting a total of thirteen felony counts against Swartz and arguing that his college prank aimed at “liberating” a collection of academic articles with little commercial value was a serious crime. Although each of these counts bordered on the preposterous, Ortiz and Heymann clearly reckoned that at least one or two would stick during the jury-room bargaining process. More to the point, they assumed that the risk of their success even on bogus charges would be enough to pressure Swartz into accepting a guilty plea on all the counts in exchange for a reduced sentence — which is what they offered him. The process was fundamentally corrupt and shameful. But observers of the American criminal-justice system also know that it was a common one.
Prosecutors Ortiz and Stephen Heymann turned to a standard trick while pursuing the case, mounting a total of thirteen felony counts against Swartz and arguing that his college prank aimed at “liberating” a collection of academic articles with little commercial value was a serious crime. Although each of these counts bordered on the preposterous, Ortiz and Heymann clearly reckoned that at least one or two would stick during the jury-room bargaining process. More to the point, they assumed that the risk of their success even on bogus charges would be enough to pressure Swartz into accepting a guilty plea on all the counts in exchange for a reduced sentence — which is what they offered him. The process was fundamentally corrupt and shameful. But observers of the American criminal-justice system also know that it was a common one.
Thanks for highlighting that; I read the article and felt that this paragraph stood out for the right reasons.
I've read some negative comments about the article, which surprised me; as this paragraph proves, the article isn't painting Ortiz as a rogue exception to the rule.
I've read some negative comments about the article, which surprised me; as this paragraph proves, the article isn't painting Ortiz as a rogue exception to the rule.
> Heymann responded by saying “Fine, we’ll lock him up.”
Cruel and barbaric. This comment is horrifying.
Many people commit suicide in prison. Being under suicide watch reduces, but does not eliminate, the risk. (I know someone who was under "level 2 observation" (a member of staff within arms reach at all times) in a MH hospital. They managed to self harm so severely they needed to be transported to a general hospital for several surgeries.)
America sends many people to prison. America has awful mental health care. The care for people with mental health problems is so awful that prisons are often the largest providers of mental health treatment.
"Prisons are the largest providers of mental health treatment" should be a statement that we should only read in dystopian science fiction.
Cruel and barbaric. This comment is horrifying.
Many people commit suicide in prison. Being under suicide watch reduces, but does not eliminate, the risk. (I know someone who was under "level 2 observation" (a member of staff within arms reach at all times) in a MH hospital. They managed to self harm so severely they needed to be transported to a general hospital for several surgeries.)
America sends many people to prison. America has awful mental health care. The care for people with mental health problems is so awful that prisons are often the largest providers of mental health treatment.
"Prisons are the largest providers of mental health treatment" should be a statement that we should only read in dystopian science fiction.
On the other hand, if saying "my client is suicidal" got defense attorneys anywhere, the only result would be that suddenly every criminal is suicidal.
Ideally you'd have mental health hospitals with a variety of security levels. Some of those hospitals are for people who pose no risk to others and who have never been involved in offending behaviour. Other hospitals are forensic, are part of the criminal justice system, and take people who are mentally disordered offenders. You have different levels or different wards - wards for people who pose a serious risk of harm to others; wards for people who pose little risk of harm to others but who are really ill and who would otherwise be in jail.
In the UK prisoners have a sentence. They serve the sentence, and then are released. A prisoner who develops a severe mental health problem is transferred to a secure[1] mental health unit (a forensic unit). They stop being a prisoner and become a patient. They get returned to jail when they are well. Some criminals are ill at the time of the offending behaviour, and get sent straight to secure hospitals. These people do not have a sentence. They just have to convince people that they're well. And once they've done that they get returned to jail to continue serving their sentence. So being a patient means things like forced medication, and a lack of information about when you're going to be released or what you need to do to get out.
I take your point though. I hope I haven't suggested that people can use mental ill health as an excuse for offending behaviour.
[1] Secure is a jargon word here, meaning units for people with some police involvement. There are plenty of locked wards, but they don't get called secure units. And there are 'section 136 places of safety' which used to be police cells (still are in many places) but which should really be somewhere therapeutic / clinical. (Section 136 is used by police to take people who are 'mad in public' to a place of safety to be assessed by a doctor.)
EDIT: Wow, wall of text. Sorry.
In the UK prisoners have a sentence. They serve the sentence, and then are released. A prisoner who develops a severe mental health problem is transferred to a secure[1] mental health unit (a forensic unit). They stop being a prisoner and become a patient. They get returned to jail when they are well. Some criminals are ill at the time of the offending behaviour, and get sent straight to secure hospitals. These people do not have a sentence. They just have to convince people that they're well. And once they've done that they get returned to jail to continue serving their sentence. So being a patient means things like forced medication, and a lack of information about when you're going to be released or what you need to do to get out.
I take your point though. I hope I haven't suggested that people can use mental ill health as an excuse for offending behaviour.
[1] Secure is a jargon word here, meaning units for people with some police involvement. There are plenty of locked wards, but they don't get called secure units. And there are 'section 136 places of safety' which used to be police cells (still are in many places) but which should really be somewhere therapeutic / clinical. (Section 136 is used by police to take people who are 'mad in public' to a place of safety to be assessed by a doctor.)
EDIT: Wow, wall of text. Sorry.
This column is a little over the top in places, but it links to this interesting article on a retired federal judge who is familiar with Ortiz & co. commenting on the case.
http://www.wbur.org/2013/01/16/gertner-criticizes-ortiz-swar...
http://www.wbur.org/2013/01/16/gertner-criticizes-ortiz-swar...
It may be unfair to single out Ms. Ortiz, she is after all only one of many federal prosecutors; but reforming the american justice system is an urgent priority, and we must start somewhere. A society where justice is widely perceived to be available only to the most powerful and well-connected is one that is primed to fall prey to any number of severe and most likely violent pathologies.
The legitimacy of the legal system is the result of centuries of work by jurists, judges, legal scholars, politicians and others; each of whom added their effort to making it so that not only they believed the law had dealt fairly with those who came before it but also that it had appeared to be fair to the rest of society. When that legitimacy is eroded, for personal benefit, for career aspirations, to please those whose favor is sought, for any reason; it takes much less effort. But the damage is subtle, people give lip service to institutions long after they have become hollow shells of their former glory.
In this country, at this time; the law is an instrument of social control, of thievery ( read the literature on civil forfeiture, if that statement bothers you ), of vengeance, and only rarely and incidentally of justice. Most of us know this. But it is one of the truths that cannot be spoken in polite society.
At this time, most of us know but are unwilling to acknowledge, that the law is an outrageously powerful instrument that acts randomly and capriciously. If you happen to be of the wrong color, speak the wrong language, or practice the wrong religion in the wrong place at the wrong time; you can be given a status equivalent to Orwell's formulation of an 'unperson'. If you happen to cross the path of someone who has access to the controls of this fearsome legal apparatus, your guilt or innocence, your rightness or wrongness; is irrelevant. All that matters is whether they decide to take an interest in your case; if you are deemed a target, all that matters is what crime can be made to fit your situation.
It would seem axiomatic, that this is an untenable situation; that once this state obtains, it will not be long before the law becomes a disreputable joke, a sad reminder of former greatness, and a jungle in which everyone is a predator and fears becoming prey.
That is why the reform of our justice system is such an urgent matter. We have eroded the legitimacy of our courts to a degree that their proclaimed fairness is a dismal jest to anyone who has been in prolonged contact with them.
We have allowed our legal system to be infected with concepts of intrinsic guilt, of theft under color of law, of monarchical privilege, of illegal truths; all of which are antithetical to a functional and free society.
The legitimacy of the legal system is the result of centuries of work by jurists, judges, legal scholars, politicians and others; each of whom added their effort to making it so that not only they believed the law had dealt fairly with those who came before it but also that it had appeared to be fair to the rest of society. When that legitimacy is eroded, for personal benefit, for career aspirations, to please those whose favor is sought, for any reason; it takes much less effort. But the damage is subtle, people give lip service to institutions long after they have become hollow shells of their former glory.
In this country, at this time; the law is an instrument of social control, of thievery ( read the literature on civil forfeiture, if that statement bothers you ), of vengeance, and only rarely and incidentally of justice. Most of us know this. But it is one of the truths that cannot be spoken in polite society.
At this time, most of us know but are unwilling to acknowledge, that the law is an outrageously powerful instrument that acts randomly and capriciously. If you happen to be of the wrong color, speak the wrong language, or practice the wrong religion in the wrong place at the wrong time; you can be given a status equivalent to Orwell's formulation of an 'unperson'. If you happen to cross the path of someone who has access to the controls of this fearsome legal apparatus, your guilt or innocence, your rightness or wrongness; is irrelevant. All that matters is whether they decide to take an interest in your case; if you are deemed a target, all that matters is what crime can be made to fit your situation.
It would seem axiomatic, that this is an untenable situation; that once this state obtains, it will not be long before the law becomes a disreputable joke, a sad reminder of former greatness, and a jungle in which everyone is a predator and fears becoming prey.
That is why the reform of our justice system is such an urgent matter. We have eroded the legitimacy of our courts to a degree that their proclaimed fairness is a dismal jest to anyone who has been in prolonged contact with them.
We have allowed our legal system to be infected with concepts of intrinsic guilt, of theft under color of law, of monarchical privilege, of illegal truths; all of which are antithetical to a functional and free society.
Change happens behind a single event. That event becomes "the cause".
You can't change society by starting from an abstract concept like "justice".
We didnt get the civil rights movements from the concept of "slavery". We got it from a bus incident in which the conductor acted like every other bus conductor in the nation.
You can't change society by starting from an abstract concept like "justice".
We didnt get the civil rights movements from the concept of "slavery". We got it from a bus incident in which the conductor acted like every other bus conductor in the nation.
[deleted]
Interesting note -- the WSJ editorial report (a Fox show I doubt most HN folk regularly catch) had a segment on the Swartz case. One editor (Joseph Rago) came out strongly in his favor, speaking out against Ortiz and prosecutorial overreach.
I think it was Sun Tzu who said, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It's important to realize there is still a strong strain of libertarian thought on the right, that is supportive of civil liberties and is concerned about the ever-increasing power and overreach of the government.
I think it was Sun Tzu who said, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It's important to realize there is still a strong strain of libertarian thought on the right, that is supportive of civil liberties and is concerned about the ever-increasing power and overreach of the government.
I think that aside from a few very specific issues, no one supports civil liberties per se. They support civil liberties when their side doesn't have the presidency and oppose them when their side does have it. The real issue is executive powers, and you're obviously going to support more executive powers when your side controls the executive branch while opposing it when the other side would benefit from them.
This is why the exceptions tend to be cases where restraining civil liberties doesn't really help the President do as he pleases. For instance, the American left supports regulating and prohibiting gun ownership even under a Democratic president, while the right opposes it even under a Republican president. The same is true, in reverse, for abortion or gay marriage, with both sides split on marijuana. But when it comes to drones, wiretapping, Guantanamo, or federal law enforcement and prosecution, it's not a question of principle anymore but a question of empowering or disempowering the President and his Attorney General. Hence, conservatives will be angry at Janet Reno, but will stay mum about Ashcroft and Gonzales for eight years, or even be supportive, before coming out against Holder. Meanwhile, the actual civil libertarians haven't liked a single one of them!
This is why the exceptions tend to be cases where restraining civil liberties doesn't really help the President do as he pleases. For instance, the American left supports regulating and prohibiting gun ownership even under a Democratic president, while the right opposes it even under a Republican president. The same is true, in reverse, for abortion or gay marriage, with both sides split on marijuana. But when it comes to drones, wiretapping, Guantanamo, or federal law enforcement and prosecution, it's not a question of principle anymore but a question of empowering or disempowering the President and his Attorney General. Hence, conservatives will be angry at Janet Reno, but will stay mum about Ashcroft and Gonzales for eight years, or even be supportive, before coming out against Holder. Meanwhile, the actual civil libertarians haven't liked a single one of them!
I agree that each side is apparently blind to the civil liberties abuses of their own proponents. If a president named Bush were doing what Obama is doing wrt drones, wiretapping, Justice dept overreach, deportations, and zealous prosecution of Marijuana laws (even when states have clearly taken a different path), I can only guess how many HuffPo articles a week would be foaming at the mouth.
What the Left fails to seem to realize is while they may love Obama to death, the Presidency is not any one person, it is an office. Obama's extension of executive powers is inherited by the next Republican president just like Bush and Cheney's were inherited by Obama.
This is probably another downside of the hyper-partisan tone of today's politics. Obama supporters stay quiet about his abuses for fear of weakening him in his zero-sum fight with the Tea Party. But this ends-justifies-means selective outrage is not a principled stance, and in the end the next Romney type who gets in there will reap the benefit of our collective silence.
What the Left fails to seem to realize is while they may love Obama to death, the Presidency is not any one person, it is an office. Obama's extension of executive powers is inherited by the next Republican president just like Bush and Cheney's were inherited by Obama.
This is probably another downside of the hyper-partisan tone of today's politics. Obama supporters stay quiet about his abuses for fear of weakening him in his zero-sum fight with the Tea Party. But this ends-justifies-means selective outrage is not a principled stance, and in the end the next Romney type who gets in there will reap the benefit of our collective silence.
It's already happened--Clinton, not Bush, was the originator of "extraordinary rendition".
I've rarely read a more sensational and one-sided piece. At this point, the bending of facts to serve the idealization of Swartz and the demonization of Ortiz starts to seem like nothing more than throwing gasoline into the fire of an enraged lynch mob.
Enraged lynch mobs are why you have democracy and justice systems and human rights rather than the Diktat of the King, which is what we used to have before enraged lynch mobs.
It is a fallacy to assume that just because some lynch mobs took part in an effort with ultimately positive outcome (it took much more than a mob to establish democracy or justice systems), all, or even most, of them are positive.
A vendetta against a prosecutor, carried by hugely one-sided, unreflected and self-reinforcing blog-posts does not even come close.
A vendetta against a prosecutor, carried by hugely one-sided, unreflected and self-reinforcing blog-posts does not even come close.
But a vendetta against a prosecutor because people are fed up with plea bargain abuse DOES.
So you propose an overzealous and exaggerated prosecution of one individual based on doubtful accusations just to drive a point home and serve as deterrent to others?
Sounds awfully like the thing you claim to be protesting.
Sounds awfully like the thing you claim to be protesting.
Not many lynch mobs care about human rights. Sheesh.
Why do they call it a prank? My impression is what was nothing of the sort.
Because it's a ridiculously sensational article.
> ...Swartz and arguing that his college prank aimed at “liberating” a collection of academic articles with little commercial value was a serious crime.
> ...Swartz and arguing that his college prank aimed at “liberating” a collection of academic articles with little commercial value was a serious crime.
No-one got hurt. No damage was done. If I have to chose between "prank" or "federal crime" I'm going with prank.
'Pranks' have a history in political activism - see La Barbe or Pussy Riot or others.
'Pranks' have a history in political activism - see La Barbe or Pussy Riot or others.
> No-one got hurt. No damage was done.
If a burglar is sneaking out of a house with a sack of stolen goods, and the police catch him and return everything to the owner, you'd still consider that a crime, right?
If so, then you agree that situations where nobody is hurt and no permanent damage done can still be crimes.
If a burglar is sneaking out of a house with a sack of stolen goods, and the police catch him and return everything to the owner, you'd still consider that a crime, right?
If so, then you agree that situations where nobody is hurt and no permanent damage done can still be crimes.
If a user gets caught leaving a library with photocopies of public, published documents, would you consider that a crime too?
No, but I don't see how that's relevant to my point.. which was merely that it's possible for a person to commit a crime without harming anyone or doing damage.
Were you making that point in the abstract, or were you, I don't know, in a thread of comments on an article about Aaron Swartz?
He was responding to a comment making the argument that something cannot be a crime if no damage is done and no one is hurt. He even quoted the as much of the comment he was replying to.
Please, please, please, pay attention to context before accusing someone of ignoring context. It makes it very difficult for people to have nuanced debates about complex events if nobody is allowed to isolate a part of the problem independent of others.
Please, please, please, pay attention to context before accusing someone of ignoring context. It makes it very difficult for people to have nuanced debates about complex events if nobody is allowed to isolate a part of the problem independent of others.
> It makes it very difficult for people to have nuanced debates about complex events
Yes! Thank you, I was trying to put in words why the initial downvote wave on my comment really bothered me, and this is exactly it.
Yes! Thank you, I was trying to put in words why the initial downvote wave on my comment really bothered me, and this is exactly it.
> cannot be a crime
I don't think I said that! I did say that if I had to chose between "federal crime" or prank that I'd chose prank. But if you extended the list to include misdemeanour or somesuch I guess I could see that.
I don't think I said that! I did say that if I had to chose between "federal crime" or prank that I'd chose prank. But if you extended the list to include misdemeanour or somesuch I guess I could see that.
> I did say that if I had to chose between "federal crime" or prank that I'd chose prank.
Sure, but that's a false dichotomy. The author was under no such constraint, so it was sensationalist and misleading for him to keep referring to it as a prank.
And when I say that, I'm not casting judgement here. The Boston Tea Party and the Rosa Parks protest weren't pranks either.
Sure, but that's a false dichotomy. The author was under no such constraint, so it was sensationalist and misleading for him to keep referring to it as a prank.
And when I say that, I'm not casting judgement here. The Boston Tea Party and the Rosa Parks protest weren't pranks either.
If they downloaded a copy of my car and didn't physically touch my car, then no. What were you thinking?
No.
A private residence is not an institution. There for there is no parallel.
So many holes with your analogy. Rather than wasting my time explaining to you why it is wrong, I rather just tell you that you are showing extreme stupidity.
Rather than wasting my time explaining to you why it is wrong...
As a matter of fact, explaining why someone is wrong is generally less of a waste of time than insulting them.
Consider the benefits: they might learn things they didn't know, you will have a better understanding of your own feelings, and you may both get some insight into a different point of view than your own. These are, in my opinion, more valuable things than the fleeting satisfaction one gets from telling someone off.
Suppose it takes five times as long to write a decent comment as it would an insult. Would you rather look back at some point in the future and say "I wrote 50 insults", or "I wrote 10 good comments"?
As a matter of fact, explaining why someone is wrong is generally less of a waste of time than insulting them.
Consider the benefits: they might learn things they didn't know, you will have a better understanding of your own feelings, and you may both get some insight into a different point of view than your own. These are, in my opinion, more valuable things than the fleeting satisfaction one gets from telling someone off.
Suppose it takes five times as long to write a decent comment as it would an insult. Would you rather look back at some point in the future and say "I wrote 50 insults", or "I wrote 10 good comments"?
Wouldn't MIT losing all JSTOR access for several days count as damage done? Given MIT's research focus and its size, it is hard to imagine how that could not have disrupted the work of a lot of researchers.
There's also the potential for harder-to-measure future damage. For example, when an organization like JSTOR approaches a publisher and tries to work out a deal that will allow university patrons access to one of their collections, a major factor in whether the publisher agrees is whether their data will be safe from scraping. When someone does scrape a large portion of it through just one of these arrangements, the publishers get spooked and less likely to make them in the future, and the end result is that the general public ends up with less access to knowledge than they had at the start.
I think it still has the wrong connotations. I think it's reasonable for a reader unfamiliar with the case to interpret "prank" to mean that there was no political motivation behind it. That it is better than "federal crime" is a false dichotomy.
It's true that it didn't have the same intent as a prank. However, purely in terms of his actions, I can easily imagine students doing much more intrusive and ToS breaking things than Aaron did on an university network to execute a prank.
Downloading from a network in a manner that violates the network's ToS would make for a particularly tame prank.
Downloading from a network in a manner that violates the network's ToS would make for a particularly tame prank.
Alternatively, to avoid labeling the JSTOR downloads as a hack, which has different connotations for Harpers' readers and the public in general as it does here.
> Although each of these counts bordered on the preposterous, Ortiz and Heymann clearly reckoned that at least one or two would stick during the jury-room bargaining process. ... Prosecutors were also revealed to have offered a reduced sentence, but only if Swartz pleaded guilty to every charge
This is what really hit home for me. They weren't just filing court documents in a legal strategy to get a conviction. They were telling a man to his face that they expected him to plead guilty to patently insane trumped-up charges.
This is what really hit home for me. They weren't just filing court documents in a legal strategy to get a conviction. They were telling a man to his face that they expected him to plead guilty to patently insane trumped-up charges.
It is now taken as an article of truth that Ortiz drove him to suicide. Is there any direct evidence that he did it because of the prosecution or is it only assumed?
Not sure what the purpose of that question is as it seems fairly obvious that without Aaron around it would be impossible to prove with 100% certainty that the suicide was due to the prosecution.
However, I am sure you agree that it is highly-likely due to the aggressive nature of the prosecution and voiced opinions by his family and friends that this was having a very negative affect on his emotional well-being. That might be conjecture but it's better conjecture than believing he committed suicide for no new reason.
edit; I noticed you just down-voted me; I understand it's difficult to deal with being called out online. That said, I would like to point out that your implication that the burden of proof should be on proving Ortiz has some responsibility for his suicide in your insinuation that ”It's now taken as an article of truth that Ortiz drove [Aaron] to suicide” is false. There has been a lot more evidence that there the prosecution was over-reaching and that Swartz was affected negatively by this than there has been otherwise. Obviously your intention by asking that question was to create an easily discredited strawman and perhaps it's a shame I gave you the benefit of doubt when I responded...
However, I am sure you agree that it is highly-likely due to the aggressive nature of the prosecution and voiced opinions by his family and friends that this was having a very negative affect on his emotional well-being. That might be conjecture but it's better conjecture than believing he committed suicide for no new reason.
edit; I noticed you just down-voted me; I understand it's difficult to deal with being called out online. That said, I would like to point out that your implication that the burden of proof should be on proving Ortiz has some responsibility for his suicide in your insinuation that ”It's now taken as an article of truth that Ortiz drove [Aaron] to suicide” is false. There has been a lot more evidence that there the prosecution was over-reaching and that Swartz was affected negatively by this than there has been otherwise. Obviously your intention by asking that question was to create an easily discredited strawman and perhaps it's a shame I gave you the benefit of doubt when I responded...
I'm glad the coverage of Aaron's death continues to deepen.
Damage limitation action stations:
1) Protect and support Ortiz
2) If the going gets tough, throw Ortiz to the wolves
3) In either case, 'problem' solved, resume business as usual
#2 Most likely. Ortiz isn't important enough to the status quo to risk significant damage. By "unfriending" her, the state will appease the wolves, at least until the next victim appears - and they repeat the process.
4) Shred documents.
It makes me sad how reactionary government is. Oritz was overreaching before Swartz killed himself. Why wasn't something done before someone got the death penalty for downloading a few free journal articles?
I'm happy to see the change and the backlash against Oritz, but I wish this happened sooner.
I'm happy to see the change and the backlash against Oritz, but I wish this happened sooner.
Yes. We all wish that Aaron had not reached that conclusion. We don't know what he was thinking at that moment, and whether anyone could have said something to change his mind.
My personal view is that suicidal impulses are similar to septic fever; the causes are understood, the consequences are terrible, and both prophylaxis and treatment are effective.
But, it is not always possible to reach victims when they need help.
Beng the target of an unjust and overreaching prosecution is the sort of stressor that could provoke even a strongminded person to suicide.
My personal view is that suicidal impulses are similar to septic fever; the causes are understood, the consequences are terrible, and both prophylaxis and treatment are effective.
But, it is not always possible to reach victims when they need help.
Beng the target of an unjust and overreaching prosecution is the sort of stressor that could provoke even a strongminded person to suicide.
If only it didn't take a suicide to reach this point where there is finally a conversation and criticism of prosecutorial overreach and looking at the human side of the equation.
Wondering if anybody else is scared this is going to set a precedent for people who feel like they cannot endure a federal trial and simply opt for suicide instead.
Over the past several weeks, I've been completely numbed by all the outrage and media this event is generating. If I was a well known hacktivist and saw what has transpired here, it makes it look like being a martyr for your cause is considerably more beneficial than simply lawyering up and going through a trial.
Over the past several weeks, I've been completely numbed by all the outrage and media this event is generating. If I was a well known hacktivist and saw what has transpired here, it makes it look like being a martyr for your cause is considerably more beneficial than simply lawyering up and going through a trial.
If someone feels strongly enough about an issue to give his or her life to advance it, I'm not going to contradict that sentiment. On the scale of things, the media exaggerates far worse things (e.g. they'd have you believe that violent crime in the USA hasn't been dropping precipitously over the last two decades). Also, giving one's life for a cause is a much more ethical action than taking others' lives for that reason, but it seems quite a bit rarer.
(I know that Swartz is said to have suffered from depression which could be considered another factor in his suicide, but I'm specifically addressing this point which is unrelated to mental illness.)
(I know that Swartz is said to have suffered from depression which could be considered another factor in his suicide, but I'm specifically addressing this point which is unrelated to mental illness.)
I'm 100% behind changing the laws and punishing the overzealous prosecutor. Don't get me wrong.
But I'd like to see the millions of poor black kids whose lives are destroyed by the justice system every day get this kind of response, and not just when it's a handsome rich white kid like Aaron.
But I'd like to see the millions of poor black kids whose lives are destroyed by the justice system every day get this kind of response, and not just when it's a handsome rich white kid like Aaron.
It's easier to take on a specific cause than address every systemic ill at once.
"But I'd like to see the millions of poor black kids whose lives are destroyed by the justice system every day get this kind of response"
People are taking on the war on drugs, what else is clear-cut and concise enough to address? "Poverty" and "racism" are wayyyyyyyyyyy too complex for anyone to easily identify around it, and the conditions and systems built around both are evasive enough for politicians and lawmakers to blame the systems on "a few bad eggs".
"But I'd like to see the millions of poor black kids whose lives are destroyed by the justice system every day get this kind of response"
People are taking on the war on drugs, what else is clear-cut and concise enough to address? "Poverty" and "racism" are wayyyyyyyyyyy too complex for anyone to easily identify around it, and the conditions and systems built around both are evasive enough for politicians and lawmakers to blame the systems on "a few bad eggs".
Sure. I agree, it's a hard problem. Doesn't mean it shouldn't get attention.
Getting attention doesn't always identify easily addressable factors, there's a lot to un-knot. Granted, I don't think the slactivism and internet petitionry is going to do a heck of a lot with Aaron's case either.
Ortiz will answer for her actions, perhaps not as a matter of law, but certainly as a matter of common sense and decency.
No one should be exempt from behaving like a decent human being, and one does not need to break the law in order to be fired for executing poor judgment.
No one should be exempt from behaving like a decent human being, and one does not need to break the law in order to be fired for executing poor judgment.
It reads like a parody of journalism.
So serious question, what prevents Aaron's family from suing the pants off of the DOJ parties responsible?
A rule (called prosecutorial immunity) without which it would be almost impossible for the criminal law to function. Would you prosecute Bernie Madoff knowing he could tie you up in court, personally, with millions of dollars' worth of lawyers?
Even without that rule, a tort law claim against Ortiz or Heymann would probably not succeed, absent some proof that their intent was to torment him emotionally. Lessig and bizarre bloggers like Danah Boyd seem to occasionally accuse them of that, but it all seems rather groundless.
Even without that rule, a tort law claim against Ortiz or Heymann would probably not succeed, absent some proof that their intent was to torment him emotionally. Lessig and bizarre bloggers like Danah Boyd seem to occasionally accuse them of that, but it all seems rather groundless.
I hope this does not lead to another suicide. Really - this is becoming a grilling contest.
What is going after one person going to achieve ? The problem is with the system.
"Her prospects look grim. Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.)"...
And that's when everyone should stop reading. Issa is a tea party loon.
And that's when everyone should stop reading. Issa is a tea party loon.
It's all too easy to dismiss someone completely based on their politics, but this(and government overreach in general) is one of the issues that the left and right should be able to come together on.
Remember, Issa was one of the leading voices in Congress against SOPA.
Remember, Issa was one of the leading voices in Congress against SOPA.
You can't deny the Tea Partiers know how to work a bandwagon, though. Plus Issa is far, far older than the Tea Party and he'll be in office after they're measuring the dustbin for the new curtains.
Issa is corrupt as hell. I mean, he has a business empire that he runs from a different part of the floor on which he has his CA office. Even by the shady standards of Congress, this is pushing it. But he was on the right side of SOPA/PIPA, and he was there before it was the safe, obvious place to be. He's got brass and he's very aggressive. If I were Ortiz, I'd take him seriously.
Is corrupt the right word here? Doesn't corruption have to be linked to bribery in some form?
No.
No to what? That corruption is the right word or that it has to be linked to some kind of bribery?
The latter. Consider embezzlement, for instance. That's a case in which a person abuses their position for personal gain without expecting payment from another. Abuse that festers in the wake of successful attempts to frustrate legitimate competition or oversight is also properly regarded as corrupt, since the system intended to prevent it has been (that's right) corrupted.
Yes, but it looks like he is seriously going after her.
[deleted]
Not to mention it makes it sound like Ortiz was cooking this all up behind closed doors and everyone else was shocked! shocked! to realize how the "prosecutorial misconduct" had gotten out of control, when this is the way DoJ does everything it touches and everybody knows it.