4 ms·

While Cameron Ortiz' actions towards Aaron Swartz were unjust, I think that she is receiving an unduly large share of the ire, and as a result, several other ag

by lmkg 14y ago

While Cameron Ortiz' actions towards Aaron Swartz were unjust, I think that she is receiving an unduly large share of the ire, and as a result, several other agents and factors in this scenario are receiving an unduly small share. While I don't particularly want to defend her, I believe that a) justice is never served well by a lynch mob b) other actors are more deserving of blame, and by focusing on Ortiz we give them a get-out-of-jail-free card that involves throwing her under the bus. Ortiz was prosecuting Aaron for actions that are, in fact, crimes, as defined by US law. That's her job, that's her responsibility, and 95+% of the time she is serving the public interest by performing that task. Creating just laws is not her responsibility, it is someone else's. Specifically, it is Congress' responsibility, and they fucked up big-time. They deserve dragging over the coals as much as she does, as do the interests interests who benefit from restricted access to knowledge who lobbied for the creation of these laws. If our reaction to these events is to remove Ortiz, but leave in place the laws themselves and those responsible for their creation, I would call that a failure on our part to hold responsible those who are responsible. ---- Intentionally separating this part. While I do think that Ortiz is in the wrong for using bullying tactics, I do not place much blame on her for prosecuting according to an unjust law. For better or worse, that (fucking terrible) law was enacted by a democratically-elected government. I expect her to prosecute based on the laws enacted by a fair democratic process, and not based on her personal views. To do otherwise, I would consider an abuse of power. She had faith that the laws given to her to uphold were just. In this respect, she was let down by those she depended on. While I wish she had not chosen to prosecute, I do not consider it a failing of hers that she did so. I pile far more blame on Congress than anyone, because it was their responsibility to make sure that the laws are just and fair. While several parties acted in a fashion I disagree with, they are the ones who had the greatest expectation to do otherwise. Again, that is entirely separate from the bullying tactics she used in prosecution. Those actions are not defensible.

btilly 14y ago
The truth is that every prosecutor faces too many possible cases to actually pursue, and so has to choose which ones to focus on. A prosecutor may try to be neutral, but the basic act of triage forces you to show your biases. In this case Aaron stuck a laptop in an unlocked closet, used curl to download lots of links, and did absolutely nothing to hide his tracks because he did not think he was doing anything wrong. She looked at the facts, and decided to press forward with charges regardless when she had more important things she could have focused on instead, and when the company whose documents were "stolen" (and never distributed) wanted to drop charges. Why?
- wpietri 14y ago
  Yes, this. I'm really angry that bankers get to walk away from billion-dollar crimes against clients and homewoners while a prosecutor goes after easy wins on victimless crimes like this.
- tzs 14y ago
  > In this case Aaron stuck a laptop in an unlocked closet, used curl to download lots of links, and did absolutely nothing to hide his tracks because he did not think he was doing anything wrong Did he think he was doing anything illegal?
- rgbrenner 14y ago
  "did absolutely nothing to hide his tracks" Rewriting history to fit your own narrative helps no one. He did plenty to hide his tracks: 1) when he connected the laptop to MITs network, he used a fake name (Gary Host/Grace Host) 2) when his MAC was banned by MIT, he changed it 3) he used his helmet to hide his face from a camera when he accessed MITs networking closet 4) he hid the laptop in the closet underneath a cardboard box 5) when he retrieved the laptop from the networking closet, he then went to SIPB and hid the laptop underneath a table 6) when police finally found him, he jumped off his bike and ran from police He did all of that.. and you're telling me he did not think anything he was doing was wrong? That's a little far fetched. How about you stop rewriting things, and just tell them how they are? http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N30/swartz.html http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N30/swartz.html
  - shiven 14y ago
    ... and just how or why does all of that justify 35 yrs in jail and 10^6 USD in fines?
    - rgbrenner 14y ago
      I never said it did. We can debate about whether he's innocent or not; what sentence he deserves (if he's guilty); what tactics are ok by the justice dept; whether his activities should be illegal at all; etc, etc, etc. But the things we do know about what happened, that are not an individuals opinion... we don't get to change those just to make it more convenient to create the narrative we want.
arihant 14y ago
Sure, but a DA should understand the law both in word and spirit. The job of the government ultimately is to protect citizens, not prosecute them for benefit.
pdonis 14y ago
other actors are more deserving of blame, and by focusing on Ortiz we give them a get-out-of-jail-free card I disagree. Calling for Ortiz to be removed in no way prevents us from also calling for whatever other actions we think are necessary.
pdonis 14y ago
I expect her to prosecute based on the laws enacted by a fair democratic process, and not based on her personal views. To do otherwise, I would consider an abuse of power. By this criterion, every prosecutor abuses their power. No prosecutor has the time or the resources to prosecute every violation of every law under their jurisdiction. They have to pick and choose, and that means they bear responsibility for how they pick and choose.
rdtsc 14y ago
There are several supposedly built-in safeguards to protect our country's citizens from abuse, inflicted by the government. One is the law. The idea that representatives that people elect will end up creating just laws. If that fucks up, then ... Prosecutors who prosecute on behalf of the state (as in country here, US, not necessarily a specific state) can chose not to prosecute a case. If they have a teenager who smuggled a little pot from Mexico or they have a white collar embezzlement case of $10M, the hope is that they will go after the embezzlement case. If this gets fucked up, (as did in this case), then... It comes to the jury of peers. They jury can choose not to convict. So it is not as mechanistic as "it is the law, the law was broken, therefore in every instance someone should be punished according to that law". And to fix something, the only way to do it is to overturn the law. There are actually multiple places to put the fix in. > I do not place much blame on her for prosecuting according to an unjust law. I do place the blame on her for choosing this case over another case. That is the real issue here. Forget perhaps that as techies many of us personally feel more connected to Aaron. Forget about that for a second. Look at it from the tax payer's point of view. We bank-roll the prosecution of these cases. Is picking this case from the pile and saying "Pedal to the metal with this one. We'll fucking bury this kid" make sense vs picking other cases. But you see, this case was picked. And I want to know why. And I want to know why was the prosecution so keen and so fervent in this case. This kind of passion does _NOT_ come randomly and I also doubt they have a random-spin-the-wheel-next-case-picker. These decisions, ( I am guessing here) are heavily politically motivated. At least as a tax payer I am owed an explanation as to how the process works.
wwweston 14y ago
>Creating just laws is not her responsibility, it is someone else's. She has neither the power nor responsibility to legislate, that's true enough. She definitely has discretion in her office as a prosecutor, though, as executive offices tend to have. That discretion is supposed to be one of the things that makes a system with separated powers more resistant to abuse, and she and every other prosecutor are absolutely obligated to use it responsibly. > by focusing on Ortiz we give them a get-out-of-jail-free card that involves throwing her under the bus. Many prosecutors seem to think that making high profile examples out of someone serves a deterring purpose. Given what's currently known about the prosecution in the case, I can only assume Ortiz and those who worked for her shared that view. To the extent that it's true, I'd say it's more than fair that the careers of those in question could serve as a bright and burning example of that principle. And that's far kinder than they've been: using the powers society granted them, they threatened to effectively end Swartz' life with 50 years in prison, and may have played a direct role in his actual death. The only discussion occurring here is about whether they would continue their careers ... not whether they'd continue to have everyday freedom of not being incarcerated.
droithomme 14y ago
"Ortiz was prosecuting Aaron for actions that are, in fact, crimes, as defined by US law." Violating web site terms of service is a civil issue, not criminal. Ortiz chose to create new law principles that violating not just explicit but implicit terms of service, such as by using an email provider that Ortiz does not approve of, should be considered a serious federal crime and prosecuted as such. The argument that she was just following the law and prosecuting defined crimes is complete bunk.
mbesto 14y ago
> Ortiz was prosecuting Aaron for actions that are, in fact, crimes, as defined by US law. The law is not black and white, and is way more intricate than I believe you and I can fathom. From what I've read this was not a black and white case. So what it does it set a precedent (just as Ortiz did when she decided to push this to the absolute maximum) for others that this behavior is not acceptable.

by lmkg 14y ago

btilly 14y ago

The truth is that every prosecutor faces too many possible cases to actually pursue, and so has to choose which ones to focus on. A prosecutor may try to be neutral, but the basic act of triage forces you to show your biases. In this case Aaron stuck a laptop in an unlocked closet, used curl to download lots of links, and did absolutely nothing to hide his tracks because he did not think he was doing anything wrong. She looked at the facts, and decided to press forward with charges regardless when she had more important things she could have focused on instead, and when the company whose documents were "stolen" (and never distributed) wanted to drop charges. Why?

wpietri 14y ago
Yes, this. I'm really angry that bankers get to walk away from billion-dollar crimes against clients and homewoners while a prosecutor goes after easy wins on victimless crimes like this.
tzs 14y ago
> In this case Aaron stuck a laptop in an unlocked closet, used curl to download lots of links, and did absolutely nothing to hide his tracks because he did not think he was doing anything wrong Did he think he was doing anything illegal?
rgbrenner 14y ago
"did absolutely nothing to hide his tracks" Rewriting history to fit your own narrative helps no one. He did plenty to hide his tracks: 1) when he connected the laptop to MITs network, he used a fake name (Gary Host/Grace Host) 2) when his MAC was banned by MIT, he changed it 3) he used his helmet to hide his face from a camera when he accessed MITs networking closet 4) he hid the laptop in the closet underneath a cardboard box 5) when he retrieved the laptop from the networking closet, he then went to SIPB and hid the laptop underneath a table 6) when police finally found him, he jumped off his bike and ran from police He did all of that.. and you're telling me he did not think anything he was doing was wrong? That's a little far fetched. How about you stop rewriting things, and just tell them how they are? http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N30/swartz.html http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N30/swartz.html
- shiven 14y ago
  ... and just how or why does all of that justify 35 yrs in jail and 10^6 USD in fines?
  - rgbrenner 14y ago
    I never said it did. We can debate about whether he's innocent or not; what sentence he deserves (if he's guilty); what tactics are ok by the justice dept; whether his activities should be illegal at all; etc, etc, etc. But the things we do know about what happened, that are not an individuals opinion... we don't get to change those just to make it more convenient to create the narrative we want.

arihant 14y ago

Sure, but a DA should understand the law both in word and spirit. The job of the government ultimately is to protect citizens, not prosecute them for benefit.

pdonis 14y ago

other actors are more deserving of blame, and by focusing on Ortiz we give them a get-out-of-jail-free card I disagree. Calling for Ortiz to be removed in no way prevents us from also calling for whatever other actions we think are necessary.

pdonis 14y ago

I expect her to prosecute based on the laws enacted by a fair democratic process, and not based on her personal views. To do otherwise, I would consider an abuse of power. By this criterion, every prosecutor abuses their power. No prosecutor has the time or the resources to prosecute every violation of every law under their jurisdiction. They have to pick and choose, and that means they bear responsibility for how they pick and choose.

rdtsc 14y ago

There are several supposedly built-in safeguards to protect our country's citizens from abuse, inflicted by the government. One is the law. The idea that representatives that people elect will end up creating just laws. If that fucks up, then ... Prosecutors who prosecute on behalf of the state (as in country here, US, not necessarily a specific state) can chose not to prosecute a case. If they have a teenager who smuggled a little pot from Mexico or they have a white collar embezzlement case of $10M, the hope is that they will go after the embezzlement case. If this gets fucked up, (as did in this case), then... It comes to the jury of peers. They jury can choose not to convict. So it is not as mechanistic as "it is the law, the law was broken, therefore in every instance someone should be punished according to that law". And to fix something, the only way to do it is to overturn the law. There are actually multiple places to put the fix in. > I do not place much blame on her for prosecuting according to an unjust law. I do place the blame on her for choosing this case over another case. That is the real issue here. Forget perhaps that as techies many of us personally feel more connected to Aaron. Forget about that for a second. Look at it from the tax payer's point of view. We bank-roll the prosecution of these cases. Is picking this case from the pile and saying "Pedal to the metal with this one. We'll fucking bury this kid" make sense vs picking other cases. But you see, this case was picked. And I want to know why. And I want to know why was the prosecution so keen and so fervent in this case. This kind of passion does _NOT_ come randomly and I also doubt they have a random-spin-the-wheel-next-case-picker. These decisions, ( I am guessing here) are heavily politically motivated. At least as a tax payer I am owed an explanation as to how the process works.

wwweston 14y ago

>Creating just laws is not her responsibility, it is someone else's. She has neither the power nor responsibility to legislate, that's true enough. She definitely has discretion in her office as a prosecutor, though, as executive offices tend to have. That discretion is supposed to be one of the things that makes a system with separated powers more resistant to abuse, and she and every other prosecutor are absolutely obligated to use it responsibly. > by focusing on Ortiz we give them a get-out-of-jail-free card that involves throwing her under the bus. Many prosecutors seem to think that making high profile examples out of someone serves a deterring purpose. Given what's currently known about the prosecution in the case, I can only assume Ortiz and those who worked for her shared that view. To the extent that it's true, I'd say it's more than fair that the careers of those in question could serve as a bright and burning example of that principle. And that's far kinder than they've been: using the powers society granted them, they threatened to effectively end Swartz' life with 50 years in prison, and may have played a direct role in his actual death. The only discussion occurring here is about whether they would continue their careers ... not whether they'd continue to have everyday freedom of not being incarcerated.

droithomme 14y ago

"Ortiz was prosecuting Aaron for actions that are, in fact, crimes, as defined by US law." Violating web site terms of service is a civil issue, not criminal. Ortiz chose to create new law principles that violating not just explicit but implicit terms of service, such as by using an email provider that Ortiz does not approve of, should be considered a serious federal crime and prosecuted as such. The argument that she was just following the law and prosecuting defined crimes is complete bunk.

mbesto 14y ago

> Ortiz was prosecuting Aaron for actions that are, in fact, crimes, as defined by US law. The law is not black and white, and is way more intricate than I believe you and I can fathom. From what I've read this was not a black and white case. So what it does it set a precedent (just as Ortiz did when she decided to push this to the absolute maximum) for others that this behavior is not acceptable.