3 ms·
Weird that he name-checks "Reagan" three times, without ever once mentioning that Carmen Ortiz, the publicity-hungry prosecutor who massively overcharged Swartz
by Turing_Machine 5y ago
Weird that he name-checks "Reagan" three times, without ever once mentioning that Carmen Ortiz, the publicity-hungry prosecutor who massively overcharged Swartz, was appointed by Barack Obama, at the request of Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, after having been Eric Holder's intern.
It's like the way that "Reagan" is somehow responsible for the homeless problem in California, despite not having been Governor of California for 45 years.
- bullfightonmars 5y agoRead the whole thread. It’s in the second tweet.
- Turing_Machine 5y agoI did read the whole thread. He mentions Ortiz's name, but does not mention that she was appointed by Obama at the request of Kennedy and Kerry. Just as I said.
- Turing_Machine 5y agoOrtiz has a long history of overcharging controversies, most of which were not in the area of computer crimes. Mentioning Reagan three times while not mentioning the person who was actually responsible for this self-aggrandizing "hanging prosecutor" being in office in the first place (i.e., Obama) is pretty disingenuous. Of course, that's par for the course for Doctorow. P.S. how could I possibly have known that Reagan was mentioned three times without "reading the whole thread"?
- andrei-mircea 5y agoThe author's point is pretty clearly made: CFAA is too vague. If your interpretation was "yeah but what about the democrat appointed prosecutor?", then you're not wrong, what Ortiz did is definitely reprehensible and part of the problem. But you're missing the point: the problem is with the law as it was written under Reagan. And to be honest, this kind of whataboutism feels motivated by partisanship more than anything else, which makes it unlikely that anyone will want to engage with you.