Ortiz says suicide will not change handling of cases(bostonherald.com)
bostonherald.com
Ortiz says suicide will not change handling of cases
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/01/ortiz_says_suicide_will_not_change_handling_cases
167 comments
Well, there has been some push from at least one Senator (John Cornyn, R-TX). He does appear to be asking some embarrassing and obvious questions.
http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=InNews&C...
http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=InNews&C...
Yes. However to be really effective the questions need to be coming from both sides of the aisle and from all over the country. That will only happen if you, yes you, reading this; go to your representatives and write, call, and send snail mail.
This is not a partisan issue, it cuts straight to the core of our system of government; when prosecutors misuse their position for political purposes it undermines our system of government and eats at the legitimacy of our institutions.
It's bad when done by Republicans like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leura_Canary and equally bad when done by Democrats like Ms. Ortiz.
This is not a partisan issue, it cuts straight to the core of our system of government; when prosecutors misuse their position for political purposes it undermines our system of government and eats at the legitimacy of our institutions.
It's bad when done by Republicans like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leura_Canary and equally bad when done by Democrats like Ms. Ortiz.
"That will only happen if you, yes you, reading this; go to your representatives and write, call, and send snail mail."
Any role for foreigners? Which body to make a modest monetary donation to?
UK perspective: Trespass + Computer Misuse Act Section 1, so we are talking 6 months/£2000 if it ever went to court, which it probably would not have.
Any role for foreigners? Which body to make a modest monetary donation to?
UK perspective: Trespass + Computer Misuse Act Section 1, so we are talking 6 months/£2000 if it ever went to court, which it probably would not have.
I wish I could give you a single clear answer.
The EFF would be a reasonable recipient of your largesse: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/effs-initial-improveme...
The EFF would be a reasonable recipient of your largesse: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/effs-initial-improveme...
Thanks for the link, and a modest donation will be made.
And a pretty easy way to send your congress critter a post card is http://postcongress.io
That said, one wonders which audience Ms. Ortiz is attempting to court with this stance.
That said, one wonders which audience Ms. Ortiz is attempting to court with this stance.
>>congress critter
I know this isn't Reddit, but this was one of the most hilariously appropriate uses of the word "critter" I've heard lately.
I know this isn't Reddit, but this was one of the most hilariously appropriate uses of the word "critter" I've heard lately.
AFAICT "congress critter" is a fairly well established pejorative term. And nothing particular to do with Reddit (wiktionary cites 1979).
I wasn't aware of the term at all (not a native speaker), and I mentioned Reddit as a way of apologizing for not adding anything other than "funny lol". :)
I'm not American either. But I'm aware they have a long history of robust attitudes to their politicians. And the politicians to deserve it.
Are paper letters still taken more seriously than emails by most congresspeople?
I try not to generalize, I know that my representatives take postal mail more seriously than email (I've asked them) but understand the caveat that what politicians say isn't necessarily a reliable fact :-)
And I have received written responses from postal mail but I don't recall seeing any personalized email.
And I have received written responses from postal mail but I don't recall seeing any personalized email.
Thanks for this info. I'll actually send a handwritten letter to my two Senators and congresswoman today.
(I'm the kind of person who sends hand-written Christmas cards, so this isn't that much of a stretch for me)
(I'm the kind of person who sends hand-written Christmas cards, so this isn't that much of a stretch for me)
This is because writing letters and making phone calls takes (sometimes marginal, but still) more effort than sending an email.
Why does the amount of effort I put into communicating with my elected representatives matter? If my view is worth taking seriously, it should be taken seriously regardless of whether I email or snail mail him.
After all, it's not much effort to vote for his opponent at the next election.
After all, it's not much effort to vote for his opponent at the next election.
This is why men should Fedex engagement rings to their prospective fiancées. After all, it's the thought that counts not whether the act involves a romantic evening culminating in a bent-knee proposal vs. tearing open a delivery box alone in her apartment.
Your example is invalid because the power dynamic is reversed. If someone doesn't like the way you give them an engagement ring, they can ditch you and get another fiance. But in the case of mailing your Congressperson, it's you that can ditch the current Congressperson by electing a new one.
They probably correlate letter writing with voting, or we imagine they do. Writing a letter takes effort, so does voting. Old people write letters more and vote more. Etc.
My point wasn't about the power dynamic but rather the perception of effort/thought/care. Even though the message is the same, whether it's "Will you marry me?" or "Will you consider this political stance?", the perception around the delivery of the message is still taken into account.
Writing a physical letter introduces a barrier of effort which separates a two minute slap-out-an-email rant from a carefully composed and considered letter. Imagine if commenting on YouTube required writing a letter? The quality of comments would increase by many orders of magnitude.
Writing a physical letter introduces a barrier of effort which separates a two minute slap-out-an-email rant from a carefully composed and considered letter. Imagine if commenting on YouTube required writing a letter? The quality of comments would increase by many orders of magnitude.
Because your representatives are old and suspect email isn't a real thing, or that the same person could just email 50 times (and that somehow the same can't be done with the regular post). They are also looking for any excuse to totally ignore your ass so they can get back to abdicating power to special interests.
Yes, as are phone calls.
This is bringing the worst out of HN. In this thread alone, I've read people claiming that it's unequivocal fact that Swartz committed suicide because of his prosecution, because his lawyer said so, but that we can't trust a single word out of Ortiz's mouth... because she's a lawyer.
We have people claiming, in specific terms, that the US Attorneys as a whole have an interest in encouraging defendant's to commit suicide...
This is hardly the first article to demonstrate this, and there are certainly many valid issues to be reviewed and discussed, but many commenters here are demonstrating that we're just as capable of turning into a lynch mob as anyone else.
We have people claiming, in specific terms, that the US Attorneys as a whole have an interest in encouraging defendant's to commit suicide...
This is hardly the first article to demonstrate this, and there are certainly many valid issues to be reviewed and discussed, but many commenters here are demonstrating that we're just as capable of turning into a lynch mob as anyone else.
Most people seem to be asking for her to be fired. I waited for a while to see more evidence appear, but at this point it looks pretty clearly like she abused her power. Asking for her to be fired is perfectly reasonable, not a mob.
I am much more concerned that she had that much power in the first place. I don't think she is any worse than many of the other prosecutors. I think we need to reign in the laws that prosecutors use in these situations.
A recent link also said that she liked to use civil forfeiture laws. I can't say I have much sympathy for her.
I am much more concerned that she had that much power in the first place. I don't think she is any worse than many of the other prosecutors. I think we need to reign in the laws that prosecutors use in these situations.
A recent link also said that she liked to use civil forfeiture laws. I can't say I have much sympathy for her.
"I waited for a while to see more evidence appear, but at this point it looks pretty clearly like she abused her power. Asking for her to be fired is perfectly reasonable"
Would you want your fate to be determined by some people who read things on the Internet or even in the New York Times or on the nightly network news? When you say "evidence" are you privy to something that has been specifically vetted and proven to be a fact?
Would you want your fate to be determined by some people who read things on the Internet or even in the New York Times or on the nightly network news? When you say "evidence" are you privy to something that has been specifically vetted and proven to be a fact?
Sigh. We know that Ortiz asked for disproportionate penalties and piled-on charges to try to force a plea bargain. We know that even if all the Government's assertions are true, the alleged crime was quite minor, causing neither monetary harm nor physical harm to any person or entity, and yet the prosecutor was seeking decades in Federal prison for punishment. (The idea that she was seeking less punishment has no evidence behind it, and if were true, she wouldn't have needed to add nine extra felony charges a few months ago.)
All those things are undisputed fact, and they are enough, in the eyes of many, to represent prosecutorial misconduct.
All those things are undisputed fact, and they are enough, in the eyes of many, to represent prosecutorial misconduct.
>We know that Ortiz asked for disproportionate penalties and piled-on charges to try to force a plea bargain.
That's how every prosecution works. It's not misconduct. It should be, but it's not.
That's how every prosecution works. It's not misconduct. It should be, but it's not.
If it should be misconduct, then it is. And if it is misconduct, it certainly isn't serving justice, which founding principle is "innocent until proven guilty", and not "innocent until threatened enough to admit whatever guilt seems like a lesser evil".
This btw goes for Ortiz et al. too. However, since their pressure in Aaron Schwartz case is pretty well documented, and since they refuse to show the slightest hint of regret, their share of guilt in this tragic suicide is pretty clear. What's more, the continued threat that their twisting of the due process of justice represents must be stopped. And this should be a signal for the DOJ to review its prosecuting policies in depth, and remember justice in general a little more, as opposed to political maneuvering.
This btw goes for Ortiz et al. too. However, since their pressure in Aaron Schwartz case is pretty well documented, and since they refuse to show the slightest hint of regret, their share of guilt in this tragic suicide is pretty clear. What's more, the continued threat that their twisting of the due process of justice represents must be stopped. And this should be a signal for the DOJ to review its prosecuting policies in depth, and remember justice in general a little more, as opposed to political maneuvering.
I don't think there's any reason to single out Ortiz. She's doing what federal prosecutors do. What all federal prosecutors do.
People want to blame prosecutors, but the real problem here is Congress (as usual). Too many things are illegal under federal law. The justice system would take half the budget and we'd all spend half our time on jury duty if we wanted to take every single illegal act to trial. The only way out for the judiciary is to bully people into accepting plea bargains so only a tiny percentage of cases go to trial. If everyone refused to take a plea the entire system would grind to a halt.
Were I in charge plea bargains would be illegal. That would remove the incentive to throw the book at every minor criminal, and if Congress can't allocate enough money to prosecute a crime it's not important enough to be on the books.
People want to blame prosecutors, but the real problem here is Congress (as usual). Too many things are illegal under federal law. The justice system would take half the budget and we'd all spend half our time on jury duty if we wanted to take every single illegal act to trial. The only way out for the judiciary is to bully people into accepting plea bargains so only a tiny percentage of cases go to trial. If everyone refused to take a plea the entire system would grind to a halt.
Were I in charge plea bargains would be illegal. That would remove the incentive to throw the book at every minor criminal, and if Congress can't allocate enough money to prosecute a crime it's not important enough to be on the books.
More important than firing Ortiz is reforming the American justice system. But because that is very hard, maybe firing Ortiz sends a signal that at least accelerates that a little.
> the prosecutor was seeking decades in Federal prison for punishment. (The idea that she was seeking less punishment has no evidence behind it, and if were true, she wouldn't have needed to add nine extra felony charges a few months ago.)
On the contrary, the idea that they were seeking decades in prison has no evidence behind it, and contradicts the statements Ortiz and others have made.
As long as people are still spreading factoids like this, I think larrys comment is spot on.
On the contrary, the idea that they were seeking decades in prison has no evidence behind it, and contradicts the statements Ortiz and others have made.
As long as people are still spreading factoids like this, I think larrys comment is spot on.
"Would you want your fate to be determined by some people who read things on the Internet or even in the New York Times or on the nightly network news? When you say "evidence" are you privy to something that has been specifically vetted and proven to be a fact?"
The problem is that many people have a profound distrust of and disillusionment in the legal system and the government.
Most people who are outraged at Ortiz's handling of the Swartz case, her ass covering, and business as usual attitude after Swartz's suicide have little faith that the very system that put the likes of Ortiz in power in the first place would deal with her abuse of that power properly.
The problem is that many people have a profound distrust of and disillusionment in the legal system and the government.
Most people who are outraged at Ortiz's handling of the Swartz case, her ass covering, and business as usual attitude after Swartz's suicide have little faith that the very system that put the likes of Ortiz in power in the first place would deal with her abuse of that power properly.
The Department of Justice seems to want his fate determined by those same people, does that make it better? Note all the major news stories calling him a "hacker," just add stonewalling and you have mission accomplished.
Excuse me, but I am paying her salary, and granting her immense power. She owes me a better explanation if she wants to keep those things.
Aaron had a right to his freedom until convicted. Ortiz does not have a right to her job.
Sure, maybe I'm jumping to conclusions. Maybe she will clear her name tomorrow. But "business as usual" and "all the other prosecutors do it, too" doesn't cut it any more.
Aaron had a right to his freedom until convicted. Ortiz does not have a right to her job.
Sure, maybe I'm jumping to conclusions. Maybe she will clear her name tomorrow. But "business as usual" and "all the other prosecutors do it, too" doesn't cut it any more.
>>We have people claiming, in specific terms, that the US Attorneys as a whole have an interest in encouraging defendant's to commit suicide...
This is a strawman and nobody here has said it. The actual argument is that prosecutors have very strong incentives to put as much pressure as possible on defendants, and the latter most often cannot defend themselves because the process is so extraordinarily expensive. As a result, the defendant either has to settle for a plea bargain or lose the trial. Unfortunately, many times they take the third option, which is suicide.
Make no mistake: this isn't about Ortiz. This is a systemic problem.
This is a strawman and nobody here has said it. The actual argument is that prosecutors have very strong incentives to put as much pressure as possible on defendants, and the latter most often cannot defend themselves because the process is so extraordinarily expensive. As a result, the defendant either has to settle for a plea bargain or lose the trial. Unfortunately, many times they take the third option, which is suicide.
Make no mistake: this isn't about Ortiz. This is a systemic problem.
>>>>We have people claiming, in specific terms, that the US Attorneys as a whole have an interest in encouraging defendant's to commit suicide...
>>This is a strawman and nobody here has said it.
Well... http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5092900
>>This is a strawman and nobody here has said it.
Well... http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5092900
I think you are taking that comment out of context.
That comment is in its entirety... and is in direct response to this submission. I assume "they" is meant to be "Ortiz's office" aka "US Attorneys". I'm not sure what context makes it so that the commenter is suggesting something other than the US Attorneys encourage suicide.
I interpreted it to mean that the actions of many US attorneys - motivated by incentives to win as many cases as possible - push many defendants to commit suicide. I don't think the poster genuinely meant that prosecutors literally tell the defendant that considering the charges, he/she may as well off himself/herself. THAT would be encouraging suicide.
ok. So I'm not "out of context." We just have different interpretations of the comment. I can live with that.
And the fact that American people tend to reward the most aggressive prosecutor with the most scalps on the belt via elections.
Bobba Fett would have been president if he ran.
Bobba Fett would have been president if he ran.
How else is a citizen supposed to hold an unelected federal prosecutor accountable? Do prosecutors ever screw up? Did they screw up in this case?
Getting her out of office is going to require a big push but it will send a message to every single federal prosecutor in the nation. It's our duty as citizens and as hackers to see justice served here.
As for "valid issues", please enumerate them. What exculpatory facts are there? She's made her statements, twice. She's presented her case in her own words. Zero regret.
Getting her out of office is going to require a big push but it will send a message to every single federal prosecutor in the nation. It's our duty as citizens and as hackers to see justice served here.
As for "valid issues", please enumerate them. What exculpatory facts are there? She's made her statements, twice. She's presented her case in her own words. Zero regret.
> In this thread alone, I've read people claiming that it's unequivocal fact that Swartz committed suicide because of his prosecution, because his lawyer said so,
I was skeptical at first too, but statements from his friends and family as well bear that out.
> but that we can't trust a single word out of Ortiz's mouth... because she's a lawyer.
I did not see such a comment. Why not respond to it instead of a new toplevel statement of how HN sucks?
I was skeptical at first too, but statements from his friends and family as well bear that out.
> but that we can't trust a single word out of Ortiz's mouth... because she's a lawyer.
I did not see such a comment. Why not respond to it instead of a new toplevel statement of how HN sucks?
"I did not see such a comment. Why not respond to it instead of a new toplevel statement of how HN sucks?"
There are some comments linked in my comments page that say as much:
- http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5079410 - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5073420
Please don't misinterpret, but my comment isn't that HN sucks. There has been a huge discussion on here on this issue, a lot of it productive, and admittedly I take more of a skeptical viewpoint, but have tried to contribute. But that doesn't change that there is a not-insignificant portion of comments that have let passion get in the way of reason (though understandably so, in many cases).
There are some comments linked in my comments page that say as much:
- http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5079410 - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5073420
Please don't misinterpret, but my comment isn't that HN sucks. There has been a huge discussion on here on this issue, a lot of it productive, and admittedly I take more of a skeptical viewpoint, but have tried to contribute. But that doesn't change that there is a not-insignificant portion of comments that have let passion get in the way of reason (though understandably so, in many cases).
" But that doesn't change that there is a not-insignificant portion of comments that have let passion get in the way of reason"
Seem to me like you're doing something similar when you, instead of replying to the actual comments you think are wrong, starts a meta discussion on the spirit of the conversation based on your feeling. It's not very constructive, especially since it's hard to differentiate from someone using it as a rhetorical argument.
Seem to me like you're doing something similar when you, instead of replying to the actual comments you think are wrong, starts a meta discussion on the spirit of the conversation based on your feeling. It's not very constructive, especially since it's hard to differentiate from someone using it as a rhetorical argument.
"but many commenters here are demonstrating"
I don't find it surprising at all that people have an immediate emotional reaction to something and perhaps initially will be irrational and jump to conclusions. We all do that occasionally.
What is unfortunate though is that after that immediate perhaps irrational reaction, I would hope that they would then give it some thought and say "ok you are right I haven't heard all the evidence (or may never)". Now if you are friends or family it's possible that emotionally that might never happen. You are to close to the situation.
This happens also with trials. People end up disagreeing with the jury (and I'm not saying juries don't screw up) but at least the jury was privy (if not sleeping or swayed by others) to normally much more information then someone only reading summary reports (keeping in mind that there are people that might watch the trial from gavel to gavel).
I don't find it surprising at all that people have an immediate emotional reaction to something and perhaps initially will be irrational and jump to conclusions. We all do that occasionally.
What is unfortunate though is that after that immediate perhaps irrational reaction, I would hope that they would then give it some thought and say "ok you are right I haven't heard all the evidence (or may never)". Now if you are friends or family it's possible that emotionally that might never happen. You are to close to the situation.
This happens also with trials. People end up disagreeing with the jury (and I'm not saying juries don't screw up) but at least the jury was privy (if not sleeping or swayed by others) to normally much more information then someone only reading summary reports (keeping in mind that there are people that might watch the trial from gavel to gavel).
I don't really care about the cause & effect of his suicide. Everything I read about this case, from the supposed crime to the manner in which the prosecution handled it, is disturbing, both for the fact that they did and for the fact that they do it every single day. The system won't fix itself. I also fear it will get worse before it gets better.
This seems like a good time to turn an old saw over so that the sharp edge faces the other way:
Sometimes "good" people get done wrong in the pursuit of justice. Real life is messy and things don't always work out they way we'd like. But its the system we have. There's room for improvement, sure, but its the best we've got right now. Its no one's fault in particular, sometimes things just turn out badly and the prosecutor loses her job along with her assistants.
Sometimes "good" people get done wrong in the pursuit of justice. Real life is messy and things don't always work out they way we'd like. But its the system we have. There's room for improvement, sure, but its the best we've got right now. Its no one's fault in particular, sometimes things just turn out badly and the prosecutor loses her job along with her assistants.
Yes. What's more this kind of push is only going to increase the antipathy procecutors have towards what they see as "hackers".
I wish more people were pissed off at plea bargaining. Yes, I know people think, the US needs it. But there's plenty of countries without plea bargaining (or at least, with a greatly reduced plea bargaining system). IMO, it should simply result in a reduced sentence, at the discretion of the judge (as evidence of remorse, not a reward for making the court's job easier).
The government doesn't threaten you with a bigger sentence if you refuse to be unconstitutionally searched (if you tell the cops to come back if they get a warrant). You don't get a smaller sentence for waiving your right to a silence, or counsel. But you do get a smaller sentence for waiving a right to a fair trial. I can't really see how this is constitutional, but being forced to waive other rights isn't.
Yes, things would be easier if criminals were coerced (by the threat of a larger sentence) to let the police search them without a warrant, to answer everything the police asked, to not to lawyer up, and to confess their guilt without a trial. But it's not the way a free country works.
And you are punished with stiffer sentences. If criminals are getting off lightly (due to plea bargaining), then politicians will raise sentences. This means people who do nothing more than demand a fair trial will receive stiffer punishments than they deserve.
I can't see how a lack of fair trials serves justice either. It encourages lazy police work. And an unfair process turns people against the system. If people accept plea bargains, do they really see themselves a guilty, or simply persecuted by "the system"?
The government doesn't threaten you with a bigger sentence if you refuse to be unconstitutionally searched (if you tell the cops to come back if they get a warrant). You don't get a smaller sentence for waiving your right to a silence, or counsel. But you do get a smaller sentence for waiving a right to a fair trial. I can't really see how this is constitutional, but being forced to waive other rights isn't.
Yes, things would be easier if criminals were coerced (by the threat of a larger sentence) to let the police search them without a warrant, to answer everything the police asked, to not to lawyer up, and to confess their guilt without a trial. But it's not the way a free country works.
And you are punished with stiffer sentences. If criminals are getting off lightly (due to plea bargaining), then politicians will raise sentences. This means people who do nothing more than demand a fair trial will receive stiffer punishments than they deserve.
I can't see how a lack of fair trials serves justice either. It encourages lazy police work. And an unfair process turns people against the system. If people accept plea bargains, do they really see themselves a guilty, or simply persecuted by "the system"?
I largely agree with you though some sentence reduction for making the court's life easier, avoiding the cost (emotional, time and financial) to witnesses (including the victim) is appropriate it is a question of the magnitude. 10x sentence difference is undue pressure that is enough to make the innocent plead guilty (or worse). An expectation of 30%-50% sentence for pleading early is a significant reduction but not in most cases enough to make an innocent person plead guilty unless it crosses a threshold that allows a suspended sentence or community punishment (in which case the magnitude of any improper conviction is relatively low).
I'm in the UK were there is talk of cautiously introducing some form of plea bargaining. At the moment I think pleading guilty (and how early it is done) is just something taken into by the judge. There may be some deals on the charges brought when there is some discretion but I don't think the opportunities are that great.
I'm in the UK were there is talk of cautiously introducing some form of plea bargaining. At the moment I think pleading guilty (and how early it is done) is just something taken into by the judge. There may be some deals on the charges brought when there is some discretion but I don't think the opportunities are that great.
"It may lead to the U.S. attorney’s office looking at each case on its own merits."
What a concept: prosecuting each case on its own merits.
What a concept: prosecuting each case on its own merits.
With Ortiz's political aspirations this seems like the worst response she could possibly make. It seems to me that the public would respond better to something like "we'll review our practices to ensure we're best serving the public." They could then just sweep it under the rug and wait for the public to forget. If it came up again they could then they could issue a statement along the lines of this one.
I live far away from USA, so I don't know any specifics, but I happen to live in a country where "the public" elected to power a party that openly tried to transform a country into a police state. It's debatable what impact their time in office had overall, but they gained popularity thanks to exactly the same stance Ortiz presents here and maintained it (popularity) for three years thanks to many similar cases. Granted, the victims were chosen much more wisely - a doctor, a politician, a beggar, to name a few - but handling of their cases was even worse, because they were used as a propaganda and displayed in the media from the very beginning, along with a video of breaking door and cuffing said doctor on the ground for example. The politician in question even committed suicide when the police tried to arrest her, and we were told that this was perfectly normal occurrence and that nothing is going to change.
And this is perfectly normal, European country we're talking about...
So no, I don't think this is going to negatively impact Ortiz career, it's possible that she's even saying this in hope of gaining popularity.
I know this seems improbable, but then winning the election by said party seemed improbable too in 2005 and then actually happened. It's easy to look at one's social circle and think it represents "the public". Well, it most often does not.
And this is perfectly normal, European country we're talking about...
So no, I don't think this is going to negatively impact Ortiz career, it's possible that she's even saying this in hope of gaining popularity.
I know this seems improbable, but then winning the election by said party seemed improbable too in 2005 and then actually happened. It's easy to look at one's social circle and think it represents "the public". Well, it most often does not.
[deleted]
I guess Hungary
I guess...Greece?
I guess Norway
My Google-fu leads me to say...Poland.
I just spent half an hour trying to find a conclusive result in google using just the data I included in the post and couldn't. Can you say what queries you used to get to this guess? Were you completely unfamiliar with the matters I described before attempting the search? What did you assume while searching?
I'm not saying you're right (or wrong) but I'm really interested in the process.
I'm not saying you're right (or wrong) but I'm really interested in the process.
I used the name half of the email address in your profile. From there, I looked through the places that had that username. None of them gave very much useful information until I came to http://www.racjonalista.pl/index.php/s,47/k,32138 . From there, I looked up what PL represented, and it's Poland.
Addendum: Also, Googling your HackerNews username, on my second page of Google shows more .pl domains where that username is found.
The Internet can be scary.
Addendum: Also, Googling your HackerNews username, on my second page of Google shows more .pl domains where that username is found.
The Internet can be scary.
Nothing really scary here, I just didn't think of adding data from my profile to the queries :) It's stupid, because if it wasn't my profile and my post I would probably do it the same way. I tried to google the country using only the informations included in the post but I somehow forgot that I'm the author and the fact that I live here was in the post too. Oh well, it happens ;)
Thanks for explanation and for hinting to google results for my username - I haven't tried that one for too long.
Thanks for explanation and for hinting to google results for my username - I haven't tried that one for too long.
Similar to sukuriant, I googled the name half of your email in your profile, clicked on your Trello profile, copy&pasted the text from your first entry (I did not recognize the language) into Google. Google Translate told me it was Polish.
Also, on your twitter account (same username as on Trello), you mention Warsaw a few times.
I was completely unfamiliar with the matters you mentioned in your comment.
Also, on your twitter account (same username as on Trello), you mention Warsaw a few times.
I was completely unfamiliar with the matters you mentioned in your comment.
Ok, this is getting scary - the twitter account I used exactly once during a hackathon a year ago (we were mining geolocation data from tweets...) and since completely forgot. I try to control my online presence but it seems that I need to get more serious with it unless I want such things to float around forever. Thanks for explanation :)
[deleted]
Party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_Justice
Leader: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaros%C5%82aw_Kaczy%C5%84ski
Cases mentioned:
1. Doctor: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprawa_Miros%C5%82awa_G%2E . Police action cryptonim was "Mengele".
2. Politician suicide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Blida
There were many more such cases. Recently other parties want Kaczyński to be brought before State Tribunal.
Leader: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaros%C5%82aw_Kaczy%C5%84ski
Cases mentioned:
1. Doctor: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprawa_Miros%C5%82awa_G%2E . Police action cryptonim was "Mengele".
2. Politician suicide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Blida
There were many more such cases. Recently other parties want Kaczyński to be brought before State Tribunal.
[deleted]
That was my thought process. But she obviously thinks so highly of herself that she can stand up to the American public and defend her position, even though things obviously went sideways.
This is not someone we want in a higher office.
This is not someone we want in a higher office.
Wait, because she stands by principals rather than the whims of the public, we DON'T want her in office?
9/11 happens: people panic and demand action. School shooting happens: people panic and demand action. I want a leader who DOESN'T succumb to the panic.
9/11 happens: people panic and demand action. School shooting happens: people panic and demand action. I want a leader who DOESN'T succumb to the panic.
I think you mean "principles"...
I only say that because, in my view, it is more important to understand what the principles ARE that a person stands for than to support someone for standing by them.
A lot of people have stood on principle. From George Washington to MLK. From Castro to Pinochet. From John Wilkes Booth and Jefferson Davis to Pinkerton and Harriet Tubman. We cannot support them all. As Lincoln said, "...both MAY be, but one MUST be wrong..."
It's the principle that makes a person worthy of your support, not that the person stands by it.
I only say that because, in my view, it is more important to understand what the principles ARE that a person stands for than to support someone for standing by them.
A lot of people have stood on principle. From George Washington to MLK. From Castro to Pinochet. From John Wilkes Booth and Jefferson Davis to Pinkerton and Harriet Tubman. We cannot support them all. As Lincoln said, "...both MAY be, but one MUST be wrong..."
It's the principle that makes a person worthy of your support, not that the person stands by it.
I would argue both are necessary... though I may not agree with someone standing by their principles, I at least have a better chance of respecting the person. I also acknowledge that personal experience can change one's opinion... but those politicians that flop week to week sicken me.
She's not standing by principles, she's self-justifying.
I'll give you 9/11 and Connecticut, but this is different. This woman has ZERO principle or sense of morality. No one is panicking over the death of Aaron Swartz, but many are angry. Angry over overreach that is (finally) getting some attention. The furor over Ortiz is mainly due to her relentless pursuit of a poor boy who was suffering depression and also facing many felony charges that he would be stuck with for the rest of his life. That is why people are angry. The root cause is BECAUSE of the government, not because the government itself failed to act.
The leaders are not succumbing to panic. The "leaders" (whom I should actually call "rulers," because one day they decided they should rule instead of lead) are succumbing to their own mistakes that the American public is now waking up to and demanding action.
The leaders are not succumbing to panic. The "leaders" (whom I should actually call "rulers," because one day they decided they should rule instead of lead) are succumbing to their own mistakes that the American public is now waking up to and demanding action.
I get the core of your argument but we put humans in these positions of power because we believe they are able to use a non-scripted judgement in determining which cases deserve attention.
On a broader note I believe the way the law was written is worse than what Oritz did - but she was in fact trying to hand-chop an apple thief in order to make an example. The decision to go after Swartz and to pursue a high (the maximum?) penalty was clearly wrong and she deserves all the public scrutiny directed at her office.
On a broader note I believe the way the law was written is worse than what Oritz did - but she was in fact trying to hand-chop an apple thief in order to make an example. The decision to go after Swartz and to pursue a high (the maximum?) penalty was clearly wrong and she deserves all the public scrutiny directed at her office.
Prosecutors enjoy a broad array of tools to do their job. It is up to them to use these tools sensibly or risk Congress taking them away.
AG Ortiz needs to go not only for the prosecutorial bullying but also because she was dumb enough to expose how these tools are abused by prosecutors around the country.
Smart politicians will get rid of her soon, they don't want to risk this to grow to the point Congress needs to actually do something about it.
AG Ortiz needs to go not only for the prosecutorial bullying but also because she was dumb enough to expose how these tools are abused by prosecutors around the country.
Smart politicians will get rid of her soon, they don't want to risk this to grow to the point Congress needs to actually do something about it.
In the second case I don't see it so much as people panicking and demanding action; more like people saying "I told you so, now will you do something about this?"
But anyway, yeah I'd like my public officials to recognize when they are wrong and to adjust their behavior. If her principles make her bully defendants and she wont adjust, yeah, I don't want her in office.
But anyway, yeah I'd like my public officials to recognize when they are wrong and to adjust their behavior. If her principles make her bully defendants and she wont adjust, yeah, I don't want her in office.
The people saying "I told you so" are wrong. School shootings hardly ever happen, maybe 3-4 times per year in the whole nation. There's statistically no way to tell if they're going up or down; it's just noise.
The counterargument to that is "3-4 times a year" is 3-4 times too many, that we're not spending enough time and effort to address.
If 3-4 per year are too many, why do we ignore that thousands of gang-related shootings that occur each year? That is not background noise, it is the bulk of homicide in this country and despite a recent reduction, we still see thousands of shootings each year (and tens of thousands of murders with other weapons).
The real problem with the response to the Newtown shooting is not the call for gun control, but that the call focuses almost exclusively on guns that are rarely used in crime: rifles. The Newtown shooter had two handguns, and just a few days before the shooting, a handgun was used to murder a man, in broad daylight, on a New York City street. So on the one hand, you have the exceedingly rare case of a lunatic shooting children using a rifle, and on the other you have the exceedingly (and unfortunately) common case of a criminal shooting someone with a handgun. Which of these sounds like a more urgent issue to you?
For what it's worth, handguns are a target for thieves. After a newspaper published a map of handgun owners in New York, there were at least three cases of houses being burglarized with a clear goal of stealing a handgun. Criminals buy handguns on the black market; they are not buying rifles on the black market, and even when they do buy rifles, they rarely use them because it is too hard to hide such a large weapon. Despite the media's mischaracterization of the Newtown shooter's rifle as a "high-power military-grade weapon," it is the less powerful cartridges like .22lr and 9mm Parabellum that are commonly used to kill.
The panic over, "It looks scary and some lunatic killed people with it," is nothing but a distraction from the real problem we face in America. If we can only muster enough political strength to make stricter regulations on a single class of firearm, we should tighten the restrictions on the handguns, which people strangely find to be less "scary" (nevermind that it is deadly, right?) and bizarrely enough want to distance themselves from regulating (after all, by restricting guns, we don't want to restrict the right to defend one's home with force -- unless you are using a scary-looking gun to do it).
Let's be reasonable about this: we have a real problem, and a not-so-real problem. Let's address the real problem first.
The real problem with the response to the Newtown shooting is not the call for gun control, but that the call focuses almost exclusively on guns that are rarely used in crime: rifles. The Newtown shooter had two handguns, and just a few days before the shooting, a handgun was used to murder a man, in broad daylight, on a New York City street. So on the one hand, you have the exceedingly rare case of a lunatic shooting children using a rifle, and on the other you have the exceedingly (and unfortunately) common case of a criminal shooting someone with a handgun. Which of these sounds like a more urgent issue to you?
For what it's worth, handguns are a target for thieves. After a newspaper published a map of handgun owners in New York, there were at least three cases of houses being burglarized with a clear goal of stealing a handgun. Criminals buy handguns on the black market; they are not buying rifles on the black market, and even when they do buy rifles, they rarely use them because it is too hard to hide such a large weapon. Despite the media's mischaracterization of the Newtown shooter's rifle as a "high-power military-grade weapon," it is the less powerful cartridges like .22lr and 9mm Parabellum that are commonly used to kill.
The panic over, "It looks scary and some lunatic killed people with it," is nothing but a distraction from the real problem we face in America. If we can only muster enough political strength to make stricter regulations on a single class of firearm, we should tighten the restrictions on the handguns, which people strangely find to be less "scary" (nevermind that it is deadly, right?) and bizarrely enough want to distance themselves from regulating (after all, by restricting guns, we don't want to restrict the right to defend one's home with force -- unless you are using a scary-looking gun to do it).
Let's be reasonable about this: we have a real problem, and a not-so-real problem. Let's address the real problem first.
Two questions, which are also applicable to the actual topic of the thread: 1. How much time and effort are you willing to spend to prevent those 3-4 rare incidents? 2. How do you know if the measures you take have any effect? If there is only 1 school shooting in the next year, that's not statistically saying anything. It's equally possible that you just got lucky that year.
How often did school shootings happen 15 years ago? What has changed that makes school shootings 3-4 times per year acceptable?
Almost anything happening 3-4 times per year is acceptable. It's so rare, that almost any other cause of death is more likely. For example, you should be several orders of magnitude more concerned about children dying from the flu than about them getting killed in a school shooting.
You don't want a leader who stands by obviously wrong principles. Unfortunately half the public doesn't care whether the principles are good.
If the status quo is misguided complacency towards flawed conditions, isn't it positive to react to a dramatic and traumatic event that puts a spotlight on how broken the current system is?
Shall I assume you intended to say principles? Or is it a tongue-in-cheek jab at a corrupt hierarchy?
By making herself look so deplorable it will take the attention away from how prosecutors and the judicial system works and instead focus on how SHE worked as a prosecutor in our judicial system.
With as much public outcry as there's been regarding this, I think it's inevitable that she will resign from her role as a prosecutor. By doing this though she may save Stephen Heymann's job and easily be able to land another (probably better paying) job.
With as much public outcry as there's been regarding this, I think it's inevitable that she will resign from her role as a prosecutor. By doing this though she may save Stephen Heymann's job and easily be able to land another (probably better paying) job.
Which is worse? - saying "we'll review" and do nothing, or arrogantly saying "we were never wrong" and still do nothing. In the end though, it looks like nothing is going to change.
It would be nice to have a leader who says "Yes we were wrong, I apologize. Let me fix the system" and actually fix it.
The very least she could do, is stop making more statements.
It would be nice to have a leader who says "Yes we were wrong, I apologize. Let me fix the system" and actually fix it.
The very least she could do, is stop making more statements.
Perhaps she is trying to cater to the far-right, law-and-order types who say things like, "Aaron Swartz was committing a crime and he knew it, so of course he should be prosecuted, just like anyone else!" You see plenty of that attitude on HN.
She is an Obama appointee. In Massachusetts.
Not exactly a recipe for "far right".
Not exactly a recipe for "far right".
Only if you have zoomed in so far that you think the Obama administration is not on the right wing. Let's put it this way: the Obama administration gives hand-outs to corporations as a matter of policy, makes use of drones to kill US citizens without waiting around for a trial, supports and continues to rely on paramilitary law enforcement teams, and generally ignores calls by the American public for meaningful change (but immediately acts when wealthy corporations ask for change). Where on the political spectrum would you say such an administration lies?
None of those have anything in particular to do with "right" or "left" as they are commonly understood, not even the "handout to corporations" part.
[deleted]
CYA is more likely.
Half the public agrees with "might makes right" and Obama is a centrist. I think Ortiz's office will continue to have carte blanche to extort plea bargains using disproportionate threats.
"We thought the case was reasonably handled and we would not have done things differently."
How can a suicide of a 26 year old man under prosecution by your office not warrant some sort of change? How can you not reflect and try for a better outcome. To not change suggests that this was an acceptable outcome... which is the point we are trying to make. Prosecution should not be so severe that suicide is a viable alternative.
How can a suicide of a 26 year old man under prosecution by your office not warrant some sort of change? How can you not reflect and try for a better outcome. To not change suggests that this was an acceptable outcome... which is the point we are trying to make. Prosecution should not be so severe that suicide is a viable alternative.
I have two responses.
The first one is that if someone is suicidal and they commit a crime, you can't decide not to prosecute them simply because they may kill themselves. Our community might be certain that his suicide was a result of the prosecution, and there may or may not be evidence of that, but all things being equal, simply being suicidal cannot be a get-out-of-jail-free card.
The second response is that these people are lawyers. They're not going to openly admit to having done wrong even if it's obvious because it will only make their punishment that much swifter. Statements like the above are publicly made until it becomes clear that an act of contrition will reduce the penalty. That isn't obvious to Ortiz or her department right now, so there's no reason to expect them to attempt to publicly admit wrongdoing.
Note that this would be true even if Ortiz actually were wracked with guilt. These people are lawyers.
The first one is that if someone is suicidal and they commit a crime, you can't decide not to prosecute them simply because they may kill themselves. Our community might be certain that his suicide was a result of the prosecution, and there may or may not be evidence of that, but all things being equal, simply being suicidal cannot be a get-out-of-jail-free card.
The second response is that these people are lawyers. They're not going to openly admit to having done wrong even if it's obvious because it will only make their punishment that much swifter. Statements like the above are publicly made until it becomes clear that an act of contrition will reduce the penalty. That isn't obvious to Ortiz or her department right now, so there's no reason to expect them to attempt to publicly admit wrongdoing.
Note that this would be true even if Ortiz actually were wracked with guilt. These people are lawyers.
> The first one is that if someone is suicidal and they commit a crime, you can't decide not to prosecute them simply because they may kill themselves.
When a suicidal criminal is caught you do need to prosecute them. That means that you need to keep them alive to be able to prosecute them. Justice is not served when suspects kill themselves. We still don't know whether what he did was a crime or not.
When no person is harmed, and there has been no physical damage, (but with some kind of monetary loss due to shutting off a connection) it's absurd to suggest that 35 / 50 years in prison is a suitable punishment. It's absurd to suggest that any time in prison is a suitable punishment. Note that this applies even if the suspect is not suicidal.
Using these kind of plea-bargaining tactics when you know the suspect is suicidal is cruel.
When a suicidal criminal is caught you do need to prosecute them. That means that you need to keep them alive to be able to prosecute them. Justice is not served when suspects kill themselves. We still don't know whether what he did was a crime or not.
When no person is harmed, and there has been no physical damage, (but with some kind of monetary loss due to shutting off a connection) it's absurd to suggest that 35 / 50 years in prison is a suitable punishment. It's absurd to suggest that any time in prison is a suitable punishment. Note that this applies even if the suspect is not suicidal.
Using these kind of plea-bargaining tactics when you know the suspect is suicidal is cruel.
First off, like pretty much every one else here I think Aaron shouldn't have been prosecuted in the first place.
> Using these kind of plea-bargaining tactics when you know the suspect is suicidal is cruel.
If your point is that you should prosecute someone who is suicidal differently from someone who is not, wrt prosecuting them then I'd strongly disagree.
If you do prosecute them less severely then where is the line? What about pregnant women, stress can cause miscarriges. what about old people, stress can cause them to have heart attacks What about overweight people, stress can cause them to die from a heart attack.
What if someone is faking being suicidal? You can never know for sure until they actually die, if they attempt suicide and survive then it might just be a hoax to get out of prosecution.
I think the world is better served when everyone knows they will be treated equally.
> Using these kind of plea-bargaining tactics when you know the suspect is suicidal is cruel.
If your point is that you should prosecute someone who is suicidal differently from someone who is not, wrt prosecuting them then I'd strongly disagree.
If you do prosecute them less severely then where is the line? What about pregnant women, stress can cause miscarriges. what about old people, stress can cause them to have heart attacks What about overweight people, stress can cause them to die from a heart attack.
What if someone is faking being suicidal? You can never know for sure until they actually die, if they attempt suicide and survive then it might just be a hoax to get out of prosecution.
I think the world is better served when everyone knows they will be treated equally.
"If your point is that you should prosecute someone who is suicidal differently from someone who is not, wrt prosecuting them then I'd strongly disagree.
... What about pregnant women, stress can cause miscarriges"
Thinks like this make me think that some is really rotten in this system. Some people think that is justified, fair and right to menace the life of an innocent baby if you got the robber mother in jail?.
There is really a need to say that this idea is a monstrosity?
Should be noted that the system is _obliged_ to care for the life of this baby?
"What if someone is faking being suicidal?"
Absolutely nothing
Is not so easy to fake this for much time... in the end this man or woman will reach the same place in front of a jury, but anyways is a better choice that the other option, that you _help_ to someone to be a suicidal.
Thinks like this make me think that some is really rotten in this system. Some people think that is justified, fair and right to menace the life of an innocent baby if you got the robber mother in jail?.
There is really a need to say that this idea is a monstrosity?
Should be noted that the system is _obliged_ to care for the life of this baby?
"What if someone is faking being suicidal?"
Absolutely nothing
Is not so easy to fake this for much time... in the end this man or woman will reach the same place in front of a jury, but anyways is a better choice that the other option, that you _help_ to someone to be a suicidal.
It really sounds like your trolling me but i'll bite...
> Thinks like this make me think that some is really rotten in this system. Some people think that is justified, fair and right to menace the life of an innocent baby if you got the robber mother in jail?. There is really a need to say that this idea is a monstrosity?
Being pregnant should not, under any circumstances, give you a get out of jail free card.
I can't believe I even have to state this and I have a hard time believing that you actually think this should be the case.
> Is not so easy to fake this for much time... in the end this man or woman will reach the same place in front of a jury, but anyways is a better choice that the other option, that you _help_ to someone to be a suicidal.
I can't parse this into a coherent sentence. I'm guessing english isn't your first language. No harm done, i'll move on.
> Thinks like this make me think that some is really rotten in this system. Some people think that is justified, fair and right to menace the life of an innocent baby if you got the robber mother in jail?. There is really a need to say that this idea is a monstrosity?
Being pregnant should not, under any circumstances, give you a get out of jail free card.
I can't believe I even have to state this and I have a hard time believing that you actually think this should be the case.
> Is not so easy to fake this for much time... in the end this man or woman will reach the same place in front of a jury, but anyways is a better choice that the other option, that you _help_ to someone to be a suicidal.
I can't parse this into a coherent sentence. I'm guessing english isn't your first language. No harm done, i'll move on.
not trolling intended, seriously
> Being pregnant should not, under any circumstances, give you a get out of jail free card.
Of course, but this is not what i'm saying...
You can't wait, let's see,... six months?, eight months? You can't wait a year until the baby is born and someone can care or him? You really need to put this pregnant woman in jail Just Right Now?
Even if the proccess could be so stressful for the mother that the life of the foetus could be in danger?
> Being pregnant should not, under any circumstances, give you a get out of jail free card.
Of course, but this is not what i'm saying...
You can't wait, let's see,... six months?, eight months? You can't wait a year until the baby is born and someone can care or him? You really need to put this pregnant woman in jail Just Right Now?
Even if the proccess could be so stressful for the mother that the life of the foetus could be in danger?
It's not the prosecutor's job to decide if the law is just or if the punishment is commensurate. The prosecutor's job is to prosecute. Unfortunately, a primary tool in that job seems to be plea-bargaining. I hope that some change in the way plea-bargaining is used comes from this tragedy, but it's disingenuous to get upset when that reform fails to arise from the very people who rely on abusing that tool to do their job and who in principle have no particular say in how the law is written or interpreted.
I think the best change in plea-bargaining is if a bargain was offered and rejected, then the prosecutor has to win on all counts, and get the full penalty asked for, or get nothing at all. It is very likely that not all 19 counts would have come back guilty, so in a case like this there would be incentive on the prosecution side to only push as far as is likely to be won. And, I think this has some merit in the same spirit as the double jeopardy section of the 5'th.
No prosecutor would ever offer a plea bargain in that situation. If they were 100% of a full conviction why would they bargain?
Many plea bargains would be offered in those situations. What the parent is suggesting is that the jury has to come back with "fully guilty of all charges" in which case the person gets all the appropriate time, or "not fully guilty of all charges" in which case the person is ACQUITTED OF ALL CHARGES. This would provide a powerful incentive to not stack many multiple charges on solely for intimidation, even if they're completely irrelevant.
> It's not the prosecutor's job to decide if the law is just or if the punishment is commensurate. The prosecutor's job is to prosecute.
> Unfortunately, a primary tool in that job seems to be plea-bargaining.
I cannot reconcile those statements. If a prosecutor's job is to prosecute then they should charge with crimes, and say what the maximum sentences might be, and go to court. But they clearly think that part of their job is to adjust the sentence to be commensurate.
> Unfortunately, a primary tool in that job seems to be plea-bargaining.
I cannot reconcile those statements. If a prosecutor's job is to prosecute then they should charge with crimes, and say what the maximum sentences might be, and go to court. But they clearly think that part of their job is to adjust the sentence to be commensurate.
Plea bargaining is like any other negotiation. It's a poor strategy to admit you're in a bad position when you can instead make it sound like you're taking pity on the other party.
[deleted]
So what you are saying is that she is waiting for the plea bargain?
Ah, so I guess it has been proven that Aaron committed suicide because of the prosecution.
He didn't commit suicide because he was, you know, chronically depressed for years. Obviously, people who are chronically depressed for years but are in great life circumstances never kill themselves(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Foster_Wallace)
He didn't commit suicide because he was, you know, chronically depressed for years. Obviously, people who are chronically depressed for years but are in great life circumstances never kill themselves(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Foster_Wallace)
For the record, DFW wasn't in great life circumstances when he committed suicide. He'd switched his antidepressants that worked but had horrible side effects to another med which didn't work for depression and he fell in deep. When he switched back to the original meds. they no longer worked which left him feeling utterly hopeless in his depression.
I meant that his external circumstances were positive: He was a critically acclaimed author, he had a loving wife, he was financially secure.
The justice department is not in the healthcare business.
Let's not shy too far from the facts here. Aaron knew what he was doing was breaking the law. He participated in an act of civil disobedience, that does not grant freedom from consequences.
Let's not shy too far from the facts here. Aaron knew what he was doing was breaking the law. He participated in an act of civil disobedience, that does not grant freedom from consequences.
"Aaron knew what he was doing was breaking the law. He participated in an act of civil disobedience, that does not grant freedom from consequences."
Yes, it is obvious to anyone downloading academic papers that they are committing 13 crimes and could be imprisoned for the rest of their lives. After all, changing your MAC address, hiding a laptop in a closet, and ignoring JSTOR's TOS clearly add up to 13.
He should have read the law? Have you read the law? Are you sure you haven't committed any felonies today?
I seriously doubt that Aaron really considered the possibility of criminal action for what he did, and certainly not so many charges that he could have been legally imprisoned for the remainder of his adult life. A civil suit by JSTOR would have been a reasonable expectation, and note what Aaron did when faced with a civil suit: he returned a hard drive of files to JSTOR and settled the matter, without any suicidal actions.
Your sort of reasoning -- that he allegedly broke the law, therefore no mercy can be considered and the prosecutor was right to harass him -- is one of the most destructive far-right concepts to have been popularized in America. It is the line of reasoning that leads to teams of soldiers attacking civilian homes to serve a basic search-and-arrest warrant. It is the sort of reasoning that opens the door to the crushing tyranny of overly broad laws and abuses of the justice system. Allowing ourselves to fall victim to the logic that the law is perfect and absolute, that prosecutors have a moral duty to enforce all laws, opens us to a system where nobody is safe from the government.
Yes, it is obvious to anyone downloading academic papers that they are committing 13 crimes and could be imprisoned for the rest of their lives. After all, changing your MAC address, hiding a laptop in a closet, and ignoring JSTOR's TOS clearly add up to 13.
He should have read the law? Have you read the law? Are you sure you haven't committed any felonies today?
I seriously doubt that Aaron really considered the possibility of criminal action for what he did, and certainly not so many charges that he could have been legally imprisoned for the remainder of his adult life. A civil suit by JSTOR would have been a reasonable expectation, and note what Aaron did when faced with a civil suit: he returned a hard drive of files to JSTOR and settled the matter, without any suicidal actions.
Your sort of reasoning -- that he allegedly broke the law, therefore no mercy can be considered and the prosecutor was right to harass him -- is one of the most destructive far-right concepts to have been popularized in America. It is the line of reasoning that leads to teams of soldiers attacking civilian homes to serve a basic search-and-arrest warrant. It is the sort of reasoning that opens the door to the crushing tyranny of overly broad laws and abuses of the justice system. Allowing ourselves to fall victim to the logic that the law is perfect and absolute, that prosecutors have a moral duty to enforce all laws, opens us to a system where nobody is safe from the government.
If he didn't think he was committing a crime why did he attempt to conceal his identity?
If he had been accessing student's personal info, would you still be defending him?
Unauthorized access is unauthorized access.
If he had been accessing student's personal info, would you still be defending him?
Unauthorized access is unauthorized access.
"If he didn't think he was committing a crime why did he attempt to conceal his identity?"
I did not say that he thought he was doing something entirely legal, I said that he probably only expected a civil case for his actions, which is entirely reasonable. If I had to guess, I would say that whatever attempt he made to conceal his identity was done to ensure that he would not face a court order to stop until he had finished what he had set out to do.
If you are saying that concealing one's identity is evidence that a person is doing something criminal, then you are accusing a good friend of mine of being a criminal. He used proxy servers to download large numbers of patents, as part of his masters thesis project, to avoid bandwidth restrictions imposed by servers. In the end, he developed a system that helps locate patents, and could help people avoid violating patents or find prior art. Should he face a 50 year sentence too?
"If he had been accessing student's personal info, would you still be defending him?"
He did nothing even remotely similar to that. His actions were as close to accessing private information as posting to HN.
"Unauthorized access is unauthorized access."
His accessing was not unauthorized. MIT's network is open to the public, and JSTOR's archive is open to anyone on MIT's network. What access was unauthorized in this case?
I did not say that he thought he was doing something entirely legal, I said that he probably only expected a civil case for his actions, which is entirely reasonable. If I had to guess, I would say that whatever attempt he made to conceal his identity was done to ensure that he would not face a court order to stop until he had finished what he had set out to do.
If you are saying that concealing one's identity is evidence that a person is doing something criminal, then you are accusing a good friend of mine of being a criminal. He used proxy servers to download large numbers of patents, as part of his masters thesis project, to avoid bandwidth restrictions imposed by servers. In the end, he developed a system that helps locate patents, and could help people avoid violating patents or find prior art. Should he face a 50 year sentence too?
"If he had been accessing student's personal info, would you still be defending him?"
He did nothing even remotely similar to that. His actions were as close to accessing private information as posting to HN.
"Unauthorized access is unauthorized access."
His accessing was not unauthorized. MIT's network is open to the public, and JSTOR's archive is open to anyone on MIT's network. What access was unauthorized in this case?
From the JSTOR TOS:
(b) except as set forth in Section 2.1(e) and 5 of the Terms and Conditions for Use for Journals, Plants, GIS Data, Select Other Content Types, and Data for Research below, provide and/or authorize access to the Content available through Individual Access, the Publisher Sales Service, or other programs to persons or entities other than Authorized Users;
(d) undertake any activity such as computer programs that automatically download or export Content, commonly known as web robots, spiders, crawlers, wanderers or accelerators that may interfere with, disrupt or otherwise burden the JSTOR server(s) or any third-party server(s) being used or accessed in connection with JSTOR; or
(e) make any use, display, performance, reproduction, or distribution that exceeds or violates these Terms and Conditions of Service and the Content-Specific Terms and Conditions of Use.
(b) except as set forth in Section 2.1(e) and 5 of the Terms and Conditions for Use for Journals, Plants, GIS Data, Select Other Content Types, and Data for Research below, provide and/or authorize access to the Content available through Individual Access, the Publisher Sales Service, or other programs to persons or entities other than Authorized Users;
(d) undertake any activity such as computer programs that automatically download or export Content, commonly known as web robots, spiders, crawlers, wanderers or accelerators that may interfere with, disrupt or otherwise burden the JSTOR server(s) or any third-party server(s) being used or accessed in connection with JSTOR; or
(e) make any use, display, performance, reproduction, or distribution that exceeds or violates these Terms and Conditions of Service and the Content-Specific Terms and Conditions of Use.
Oh, that's interesting, but so what? You must have missed this, which happened before Aaron did anything related to JSTOR:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lori_Drew#Guilty_verdict_set_a...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lori_Drew#Guilty_verdict_set_a...
Is this TOS from the time when Aaron downloaded the articles? I wouldn't be surprised if they updated it after this incident which would invalidate your argument.
Is that the same JSTOR that refused to press charges? You can't really base your argument on his felony charges from the entity that didn't press charges.
>Unauthorized access is unauthorized access.
Do you not comprehend that you've just restated the despicable fallacy that overzealous prosecutors use to rationalize their behavior?
Stealing is stealing, so stealing a tic tac = stealing a cargo ship. Breaking the law is breaking the law, so jaywalking = mass murder.
No, they're not the same. They're comprehensively, fundamentally, entirely different.
Do you not comprehend that you've just restated the despicable fallacy that overzealous prosecutors use to rationalize their behavior?
Stealing is stealing, so stealing a tic tac = stealing a cargo ship. Breaking the law is breaking the law, so jaywalking = mass murder.
No, they're not the same. They're comprehensively, fundamentally, entirely different.
That's like saying that people who block traffic for ten minutes to make a point about nuclear weapons deserved to be charged under the conspiracy statutes with potential life sentences since it was near a federal facility...
There's a certain proportionality that's very definitely lacking in this case.
There's a certain proportionality that's very definitely lacking in this case.
> He participated in an act of civil disobedience, that does not grant freedom from consequences.
Way to intentionally not understand the situation.
Way to intentionally not understand the situation.
9/10
Personally, I'd love for Congress to permit the publication of all correspondence done by the prosecution in this case. I want to know what was written and discussed among the prosecutors (Ortiz, Heynman and others in that office) and everyone else involved with this case (Secret Service). I think the Internet will do a much better job of investigating prosecutorial misconduct than any internal investigation could uncover.
Once someone assumes a public office they should assume they are now a public good working for the betterment of the society that appointed them. One of the rights, we the people, should have, is the ability to provide direct oversight; maybe not in real time, but at least post hoc.
Once someone assumes a public office they should assume they are now a public good working for the betterment of the society that appointed them. One of the rights, we the people, should have, is the ability to provide direct oversight; maybe not in real time, but at least post hoc.
"I'd love for Congress to permit the publication of all correspondence done by the prosecution in this case."
Similar things have happened, although not always with the government's enthusiastic cooperation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Papers#Leak
Similar things have happened, although not always with the government's enthusiastic cooperation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Papers#Leak
I don't think the suicide itself should change how cases are handled, but the revelations about how inherently wrong the prosecution of Swartz was, should change how cases are handled.
You absolutely don't want other cases or issues to be advanced through people killing themselves, or threats of suicide.
You also don't want non-violent civil disobedience hacking to face $1.5mm in legal costs, $1mm in fines, and 13 felony counts and multiple years in prison, particularly when the injured party comes to a successful private resolution with the offender.
Also, the cases in the future should not be handled by USA Ortiz of AUSA Heymann, who should no longer be involved in the practice of law, particularly not as employees and representatives of the people of the United States.
You absolutely don't want other cases or issues to be advanced through people killing themselves, or threats of suicide.
You also don't want non-violent civil disobedience hacking to face $1.5mm in legal costs, $1mm in fines, and 13 felony counts and multiple years in prison, particularly when the injured party comes to a successful private resolution with the offender.
Also, the cases in the future should not be handled by USA Ortiz of AUSA Heymann, who should no longer be involved in the practice of law, particularly not as employees and representatives of the people of the United States.
Well.. Can she say something else? I mean - wouldn't any statement remotely similar to "In light of the recent events we will think about our approach and adapt our methods" basically admit guilt and having been wrong before?
In other words: Is this surprising, in any way?
In other words: Is this surprising, in any way?
We are deeply distraught over the outcome of this case. We will be examining our procedures to ensure that we acted correctly. Our duty to the American people is to uphold justice for defendants as well as accusers. Mr. Swartz's death leaves us having unfulfilled our obligation to both Mr. Swartz and the American people and was not the intention of this office.
Of course not - that would be an admission that they did it wrong.
How can they not admit they are wrong? A MAN DIED. something went wrong.
Chronically depressed people commit suicide frequently. I'd be interested in hearing your evidence that Aaron killed himself because of his prosecution, besides from the mere coincidence of the two events.
What a rediculous thing to say. We're past 1+1=2 now. We've moved on to greater things. Try and keep up please.
Great rebuttal. Filled with reason. A+. Great job keeping up
What you have asked for as been discussed at considerable length already. If you want to read that discussion, use the search field at the bottom to get started. There is no sense in having that same conversation for the hundredth time.
Strange. I've been reading hackernews for years, and I don't remember any kind of evidence ever being presented that Aaron killed himself because of the prosecution, besides for the coincidince of the two events.
If you want to argue over it, you can do so somewhere more relevant, preferably in one of the old threads where it has already been beaten to death. It is clear there that a unanimous consensus is not going to arise on the matter.
I'll bring it up when ever it is relevant. The "Ortiz=Murderer" faction doesn't get a free pass to make their outrageous claims simply because the question has been discussed elsewhere.
It's like you never have seen politician or lawyer in action. Of course they can. That's their job. They can say anything provided it is useful for them - and right now Ortiz feels it is useful for her to not admit any wrongdoing and rely on her superior to cover her. If the public would not put the pressure on those superiors, she very well might be right.
They are lawyers. To them, unlike normal empathetic humans, admitting guilt is not seen as a nice gesture and part of making amends, but rather just something you do if you are foolish.
There is a non-trivial proportion of humanity that simply cannot change their mind, cannot admit when they are wrong. If you think long enough about it and follow a rule-based mindset absent objective feedback (as fields such as law allow), you can justify almost any action taken ad-infinitum, as long as you follow a rule book and pattern you have practiced for years. That said, mentally inagile, cognitive calcified people should be culled from our justice system ruthlessly. We need people who can think through proportion, harm, and justice on a dynamic basis.
I am suddenly understanding the phrase
"Don't make a federal case out of it!"
"Don't make a federal case out of it!"
"Many remark justice is blind; pity those in her sway, shocked to discover she is also deaf."
~DAVID MAMET, Faustus
~DAVID MAMET, Faustus
[deleted]
Of course not. Psychopaths don't care about what happens to others, only to themselves.
She's toast and she knows it. She's trying to save her political career.
It doesn't even matter anymore whether she's right or wrong. Personally I feel that she mishandled this case (and that the whole system is pretty messed up), but the truth is somewhere between the two positions we keep hearing.
It doesn't even matter anymore whether she's right or wrong. Personally I feel that she mishandled this case (and that the whole system is pretty messed up), but the truth is somewhere between the two positions we keep hearing.
Precisely why she, and all prosecutors like her, need to go. They can't change - indeed, they can't find or admit fault with their unjust methods.
Adding insult to injury.
Wow... nice, Department of _Justice_.
Do that apply to justice to the dead to respect their memory?
Not only won't they admit wrong doing, but they will encourage suicides wherever possible.
She should be disbarred for ethics violations.
Whatever you say, "Baghdad" Ortiz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf#During...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf#During...
Congress critter is from MeFi, I Believe.
What is her mission?
Yes, well, if it's one thing that we've learned it's that the American legal system is wholly incapable of learning from its mistakes. It takes the action of the legislative, executive, or higher judicial bodies to actually change things.
Plea bargaining has been here for many years. As bad as it can get, it is the default operating mode. Trumping up accusations in order to scare the defendant is a negotiation tactic that comes in package with it. So what can we do ? Is it a good idea to ban plea bargaining? I read that 90% of law suits end in plea bargaining, so, banning this avenue would DDOS the legal system.
Justice being the best your money can buy - it's a sad reality. They can charge an innocent and he would have to spend all he has to prove he is not guilty. How can we stop that?
Maybe we need more lawyerless law suits, like those from Small Claims Court, to even the playing field.
If only we could get rid of mandatory minimums and put common sense back in the driving chair, it would be much better. Mandatory minimums are one of those thought free zones of US, together with the war on drugs, war on terror and "won't anyone think of the children?". I believe we need more common sense and ethic into our justice and less automatic rubber stamping of convictions.
Justice being the best your money can buy - it's a sad reality. They can charge an innocent and he would have to spend all he has to prove he is not guilty. How can we stop that?
Maybe we need more lawyerless law suits, like those from Small Claims Court, to even the playing field.
If only we could get rid of mandatory minimums and put common sense back in the driving chair, it would be much better. Mandatory minimums are one of those thought free zones of US, together with the war on drugs, war on terror and "won't anyone think of the children?". I believe we need more common sense and ethic into our justice and less automatic rubber stamping of convictions.
> so, banning this avenue would DDOS the legal system.
It is the reverse. If you have too many cases to deal with because of absurd legislation that criminalizes a large portion of your population then you are already DDOS'ing your legal system. The 'lets try to route all requests straight to jail' option is not a solution for this problem.
The DDOS is cause, not effect, and it is the laws that cause the DDOS, not the fact that people have (in theory apparently) a right to a fair trial.
It is the reverse. If you have too many cases to deal with because of absurd legislation that criminalizes a large portion of your population then you are already DDOS'ing your legal system. The 'lets try to route all requests straight to jail' option is not a solution for this problem.
The DDOS is cause, not effect, and it is the laws that cause the DDOS, not the fact that people have (in theory apparently) a right to a fair trial.
Derekp7 came up with a great solution that I will generalize slightly: All cases which go to trial should have to be won entirely by the prosecution (in which case the proper punishment is meted out) or won completely by the defense (in which case no punishment happens). This would strongly encourage prosecutors to only pursue charges which they could actually make stick instead of whatever they can think up that might sorta be tangentially related or have other words in common with the alleged crimes of those they prosecute. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5094293
[deleted]
[deleted]
>I read that 90% of law suits end in plea bargaining
Then you don't understand what a plea bargain is. Plea bargains are used only in criminal cases. You may have heard that 90% of lawsuits are settled before they go to court but that has nothing to do with what a plea bargain is.
>Trumping up accusations in order to scare the defendant is a negotiation tactic that comes in package with it.
No, trumping up accusations is grandstanding. It is neither necessary nor wise if you have a plea bargain system in place. Yes, you can tell the defendant what the possible maximum sentence is, but that doesn't mean you have to grandstand and press conference the result for the rest of the world's consumption.
>They can charge an innocent and he would have to spend all he has to prove he is not guilty. How can we stop that?
Talk to Kevin Mitnick and Bernie S about this...
>If only we could get rid of mandatory minimums and put common sense back in the driving chair, it would be much better.
This I agree with. The entire purpose of having a judge involved in sentencing was to make sure that each case was judged on its own merits. Mandatory minimums castrate the judicial system and give too much control to a legislature that is largely bought and paid for by the military/prison/school/election/industrial complex.
Then you don't understand what a plea bargain is. Plea bargains are used only in criminal cases. You may have heard that 90% of lawsuits are settled before they go to court but that has nothing to do with what a plea bargain is.
>Trumping up accusations in order to scare the defendant is a negotiation tactic that comes in package with it.
No, trumping up accusations is grandstanding. It is neither necessary nor wise if you have a plea bargain system in place. Yes, you can tell the defendant what the possible maximum sentence is, but that doesn't mean you have to grandstand and press conference the result for the rest of the world's consumption.
>They can charge an innocent and he would have to spend all he has to prove he is not guilty. How can we stop that?
Talk to Kevin Mitnick and Bernie S about this...
>If only we could get rid of mandatory minimums and put common sense back in the driving chair, it would be much better.
This I agree with. The entire purpose of having a judge involved in sentencing was to make sure that each case was judged on its own merits. Mandatory minimums castrate the judicial system and give too much control to a legislature that is largely bought and paid for by the military/prison/school/election/industrial complex.
97% of federal criminal cases prosecuted to a conclusion result in plea bargains.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044358930457763...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044358930457763...
And your Senators http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_c...
And ask them why this person is allowed to wield the full might and power of the US Government.
If you want to ensure that this gets attention it's a matter of sustained pressure, and of getting both houses of Congress to ask the embarrassing and obvious questions of the Justice department.