10 ms·

Why Did The Secret Service Take Over Aaron Swartz's Case?

133 points by honzzz 14y ago

mpyne 14y ago
http://www.secretservice.gov/ectf.shtml http://www.secretservice.gov/ectf.shtml "Significant impact" is a clause wide enough to drive a truck through just by itself. If anyone has ever read The Cuckoo's Egg by Cliff Stoll it gives some insight as to why the government might want to have an organization with the remit to "bring together not only federal, state and local law enforcement, but also prosecutors, private industry and academia."
- rhizome 14y ago
  I think it speaks more to the fear Obama et al have of information exploits such as those embarked upon by Manning and Swartz. The government has a lot of classified information they'd like to keep that way, and computers are a technology that civilians currently have more practical power over than governments. Compare civilian vs. governmental computer skills to, say, ballistic firepower. This is a fact, regardless of where your personal preferences are for the line to be drawn for government privacy, classification, etc.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    It has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama, or Bush, or even Clinton. It's an arrangement that has existed for decades. Read "The Hacker Crackdown" by Bruce Sterling for the background on this: http://www.mit.edu/hacker/hacker.html http://www.mit.edu/hacker/hacker.html
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - dfc 14y ago
      "The United States Secret Service is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the nation's financial infrastructure and payment systems. As a part of this mission, the Secret Service constantly implements and evaluates prevention and response measures to guard against electronic crimes as well as other computer related fraud. The Secret Service derives its authority to investigate specified criminal violations from Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 3056." The scope of this is enormous, the SS webpage gives the following examples: "Criminal investigations can be international in scope. These investigations include: counterfeiting of U.S. currency (to include coins); counterfeiting of foreign currency (occurring domestically); identity crimes such as access device fraud, identity theft, false identification fraud, bank fraud and check fraud; telemarketing fraud; telecommunications fraud (cellular and hard wire); computer fraud; fraud targeting automated payment systems and teller machines; direct deposit fraud; investigations of forgery, uttering, alterations, false impersonations or false claims involving U.S. Treasury Checks, U.S. Saving Bonds, U.S. Treasury Notes, Bonds and Bills; electronic funds transfer (EFT) including Treasury disbursements and fraud within the Treasury payment systems; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation investigations; Farm Credit Administration violations; and fictitious or fraudulent commercial instruments and foreign securities. " From: http://www.secretservice.gov/criminal.shtml http://www.secretservice.gov/criminal.shtml
      - mpyne 14y ago
        > The scope of this is enormous, the SS webpage gives the following examples If this wasn't assigned to USSS to investigate it would simply be assigned to some other component of the DOJ. You might claim instead that the government shouldn't have the purview to investigate "computer crime" at all, but computers have become far too important for that to be realistic. It might be better instead to explicitly disclaim some areas as barred from Federal investigation due to the risk to civil liberties, but even that would be a hard slog in today's America I think.
        dfc 14y ago
        Is there any precedent to bar certain types of criminal investigations due to civil liberty concerns? I can imagine implementing stricter requirements but I'm at a loss completely barring certain investigations.
- millerc 14y ago
  Using the "Significant economic or community impact" clause, one could easily have enlisted the secret services into that investigation, saying the downloaded material represents thousands of man-years of work from the nation's top researchers. That statement is entirely true, however it has nothing to do with the zero-sum game it leads the uneducated eye to believe. The secret services should have been apt enough to figure out from the start that the reported "crime" was no worse than having a kid loose in the library of Congress taking pictures of every public documents. They should never have equated it to stealing - removing - the material.
rhizome 14y ago
It's the mark of a talentless publication to piggyback on real reporters' work, and is especially distasteful for this topic, of which a site with the word "tech" in it should have their own angle on already. Go to the original, Techdirt adds nothing: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/13/two-days-before-cambridge-cops-arrested-aaron-swartz-secret-service-took-over-the-investigation/ http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/13/two-days-before-cambrid...
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  Actually its the mark of talentless publication to piggyback on a very real tragedy with a senseless link-baitey story that they could have answered for themselves in a completely non-conspiratorial way if they noted that every case involving CFAA is investigated by and/or handled by the Secret Service. Didn't stop emptywheel though, nor Techdirt. They got what ever the paranoid equivalent of rage views is.
tptacek 14y ago
In Techdirtland, the reason is clearly because Swartz opposed Obama's kill lists, and the administration needed to find a plausible way to have him killed. In reality, it's because the Secret Service is for historical reasons the federal law enforcement agency most responsible for handling computer crimes. It's been this way since at least the 1980s, when the Secret Service was at the heart of the Sun-Devil Raids. As anyone who's ever watched Law & Order can inform you: "two separate but equally important groups, the police and the district attorneys". In federal computer crimes, you can often substitute "Secret Service" for "police", and "US Attorney" for "district attorney". As I understand it, the Secret Services' role in computer crimes investigations work is less central today than it was 2 decades ago, but they're still an important repository of investigatory talent for these kinds of cases. Understanding that the Secret Service's involvement in the case was legitimate in no way means that you approve of the way the US Attorney's coordinating group for computer crimes led by Stephen Heymann handled the prosecution. That's a disclaimer I shouldn't have to write, but since this story is being voted rapidly to the top of the site, it's clear that I do need to write it.
- elemeno 14y ago
  The Secret Service also has jurisdiction over various types fraud - including telecommunications fraud and computer fraud. Given that the primary charge against Swartz was for Wire Fraud, it would certainly seem like something that could fall under their jurisdiction, or at the very least something that they'd be interested in enough to check if it should fall under them or should be left to another branch of law enforcement.
  - tibbon 14y ago
    Do you know anything about the legislative and constitutional history of this? Why them and not the FBI or something? Seems very odd, but maybe just one of those weird government quirks.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      The short of it is, USSS was, as "the Treasury police", responsible for counterfeiting investigations, and so inherited wire fraud. In the '80s, authority over wire fraud became authority over computer crime; as you can see, even in 2012, computer crime charges are often connected to wire fraud charges.
fleitz 14y ago
They didn't take it over 2 days before his death, they took it over 2 YEARS before his death.
- gpvos 14y ago
  which is two days before his arrest.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    I'm guessing Techdirt had a breathless headline typo, since fixed.
jmvoodoo 14y ago
This isn't all that out of the ordinary. Back in 1995 I had the SS visit my family's home due to some of my childish behavior at the time. No fun, and luckily nothing ever came of it, but the SS was involved from the very beginning as far as I know. I never heard from any other law enforcement about the issue.
- omarchowdhury 14y ago
  What did you do?
  - jmvoodoo 14y ago
    I accessed a network without permission from its owner, and my actions interrupted the normal operation of the network. That's about all I really want to talk about. I was very young and stupid at the time, and have since learned better :)
gregcohn 14y ago
I thought the most interesting item in this story was not about the secret service, but rather the MIT counsel's decision to turn over evidence without a warrant or subpoena, in contravention of its policy. (Though it's possible they had a warrant and court order preventing its disclosure.) I am sure the truth will come out.
- josephlord 14y ago
  There is one thing only revealing information about your legitimate users under warrant or court order. It is another to restrict yourself from providing information in the event that you have been attacked by someone who is not a member of your organisation. Note that this does not mean that judgement should not have changed their behaviour in this case but that a rules based prohibition on voluntary cooperation seems like the wrong argument to me.
  - gregcohn 14y ago
    very good point. it seems like it would hinge on whether the act was defensive (MIT asking for help) or in reaction to an FBI request.
mrbill 14y ago
I had to laugh at "without a warrant or subpoena". Didn't need one. It's MIT's private network, and this was unauthorized access and intrusion. MIT can legally do whatever they want with the traffic dumps, packet traces, etc.
nessus42 14y ago
Perhaps for the same reason that the Secret Service raided (and nearly put out of business) Steve Jackson Games in 1990 because the author of their GURPS FRP module called "Cyberpunk" was a known "hacker". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._United_States_Secret_Service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._Un...

133 points by honzzz 14y ago

mpyne 14y ago

http://www.secretservice.gov/ectf.shtml http://www.secretservice.gov/ectf.shtml "Significant impact" is a clause wide enough to drive a truck through just by itself. If anyone has ever read The Cuckoo's Egg by Cliff Stoll it gives some insight as to why the government might want to have an organization with the remit to "bring together not only federal, state and local law enforcement, but also prosecutors, private industry and academia."

rhizome 14y ago
I think it speaks more to the fear Obama et al have of information exploits such as those embarked upon by Manning and Swartz. The government has a lot of classified information they'd like to keep that way, and computers are a technology that civilians currently have more practical power over than governments. Compare civilian vs. governmental computer skills to, say, ballistic firepower. This is a fact, regardless of where your personal preferences are for the line to be drawn for government privacy, classification, etc.
- tptacek 14y ago
  It has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama, or Bush, or even Clinton. It's an arrangement that has existed for decades. Read "The Hacker Crackdown" by Bruce Sterling for the background on this: http://www.mit.edu/hacker/hacker.html http://www.mit.edu/hacker/hacker.html
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - dfc 14y ago
    "The United States Secret Service is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the nation's financial infrastructure and payment systems. As a part of this mission, the Secret Service constantly implements and evaluates prevention and response measures to guard against electronic crimes as well as other computer related fraud. The Secret Service derives its authority to investigate specified criminal violations from Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 3056." The scope of this is enormous, the SS webpage gives the following examples: "Criminal investigations can be international in scope. These investigations include: counterfeiting of U.S. currency (to include coins); counterfeiting of foreign currency (occurring domestically); identity crimes such as access device fraud, identity theft, false identification fraud, bank fraud and check fraud; telemarketing fraud; telecommunications fraud (cellular and hard wire); computer fraud; fraud targeting automated payment systems and teller machines; direct deposit fraud; investigations of forgery, uttering, alterations, false impersonations or false claims involving U.S. Treasury Checks, U.S. Saving Bonds, U.S. Treasury Notes, Bonds and Bills; electronic funds transfer (EFT) including Treasury disbursements and fraud within the Treasury payment systems; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation investigations; Farm Credit Administration violations; and fictitious or fraudulent commercial instruments and foreign securities. " From: http://www.secretservice.gov/criminal.shtml http://www.secretservice.gov/criminal.shtml
    - mpyne 14y ago
      > The scope of this is enormous, the SS webpage gives the following examples If this wasn't assigned to USSS to investigate it would simply be assigned to some other component of the DOJ. You might claim instead that the government shouldn't have the purview to investigate "computer crime" at all, but computers have become far too important for that to be realistic. It might be better instead to explicitly disclaim some areas as barred from Federal investigation due to the risk to civil liberties, but even that would be a hard slog in today's America I think.
      - dfc 14y ago
        Is there any precedent to bar certain types of criminal investigations due to civil liberty concerns? I can imagine implementing stricter requirements but I'm at a loss completely barring certain investigations.
millerc 14y ago
Using the "Significant economic or community impact" clause, one could easily have enlisted the secret services into that investigation, saying the downloaded material represents thousands of man-years of work from the nation's top researchers. That statement is entirely true, however it has nothing to do with the zero-sum game it leads the uneducated eye to believe. The secret services should have been apt enough to figure out from the start that the reported "crime" was no worse than having a kid loose in the library of Congress taking pictures of every public documents. They should never have equated it to stealing - removing - the material.

rhizome 14y ago

It's the mark of a talentless publication to piggyback on real reporters' work, and is especially distasteful for this topic, of which a site with the word "tech" in it should have their own angle on already. Go to the original, Techdirt adds nothing: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/13/two-days-before-cambridge-cops-arrested-aaron-swartz-secret-service-took-over-the-investigation/ http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/01/13/two-days-before-cambrid...

ChuckMcM 14y ago
Actually its the mark of talentless publication to piggyback on a very real tragedy with a senseless link-baitey story that they could have answered for themselves in a completely non-conspiratorial way if they noted that every case involving CFAA is investigated by and/or handled by the Secret Service. Didn't stop emptywheel though, nor Techdirt. They got what ever the paranoid equivalent of rage views is.

tptacek 14y ago

In Techdirtland, the reason is clearly because Swartz opposed Obama's kill lists, and the administration needed to find a plausible way to have him killed. In reality, it's because the Secret Service is for historical reasons the federal law enforcement agency most responsible for handling computer crimes. It's been this way since at least the 1980s, when the Secret Service was at the heart of the Sun-Devil Raids. As anyone who's ever watched Law & Order can inform you: "two separate but equally important groups, the police and the district attorneys". In federal computer crimes, you can often substitute "Secret Service" for "police", and "US Attorney" for "district attorney". As I understand it, the Secret Services' role in computer crimes investigations work is less central today than it was 2 decades ago, but they're still an important repository of investigatory talent for these kinds of cases. Understanding that the Secret Service's involvement in the case was legitimate in no way means that you approve of the way the US Attorney's coordinating group for computer crimes led by Stephen Heymann handled the prosecution. That's a disclaimer I shouldn't have to write, but since this story is being voted rapidly to the top of the site, it's clear that I do need to write it.

elemeno 14y ago
The Secret Service also has jurisdiction over various types fraud - including telecommunications fraud and computer fraud. Given that the primary charge against Swartz was for Wire Fraud, it would certainly seem like something that could fall under their jurisdiction, or at the very least something that they'd be interested in enough to check if it should fall under them or should be left to another branch of law enforcement.
- tibbon 14y ago
  Do you know anything about the legislative and constitutional history of this? Why them and not the FBI or something? Seems very odd, but maybe just one of those weird government quirks.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    The short of it is, USSS was, as "the Treasury police", responsible for counterfeiting investigations, and so inherited wire fraud. In the '80s, authority over wire fraud became authority over computer crime; as you can see, even in 2012, computer crime charges are often connected to wire fraud charges.

fleitz 14y ago

They didn't take it over 2 days before his death, they took it over 2 YEARS before his death.

gpvos 14y ago
which is two days before his arrest.
- rhizome 14y ago
  I'm guessing Techdirt had a breathless headline typo, since fixed.

jmvoodoo 14y ago

This isn't all that out of the ordinary. Back in 1995 I had the SS visit my family's home due to some of my childish behavior at the time. No fun, and luckily nothing ever came of it, but the SS was involved from the very beginning as far as I know. I never heard from any other law enforcement about the issue.

omarchowdhury 14y ago
What did you do?
- jmvoodoo 14y ago
  I accessed a network without permission from its owner, and my actions interrupted the normal operation of the network. That's about all I really want to talk about. I was very young and stupid at the time, and have since learned better :)

gregcohn 14y ago

I thought the most interesting item in this story was not about the secret service, but rather the MIT counsel's decision to turn over evidence without a warrant or subpoena, in contravention of its policy. (Though it's possible they had a warrant and court order preventing its disclosure.) I am sure the truth will come out.

josephlord 14y ago
There is one thing only revealing information about your legitimate users under warrant or court order. It is another to restrict yourself from providing information in the event that you have been attacked by someone who is not a member of your organisation. Note that this does not mean that judgement should not have changed their behaviour in this case but that a rules based prohibition on voluntary cooperation seems like the wrong argument to me.
- gregcohn 14y ago
  very good point. it seems like it would hinge on whether the act was defensive (MIT asking for help) or in reaction to an FBI request.

mrbill 14y ago

I had to laugh at "without a warrant or subpoena". Didn't need one. It's MIT's private network, and this was unauthorized access and intrusion. MIT can legally do whatever they want with the traffic dumps, packet traces, etc.

nessus42 14y ago

Perhaps for the same reason that the Secret Service raided (and nearly put out of business) Steve Jackson Games in 1990 because the author of their GURPS FRP module called "Cyberpunk" was a known "hacker". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._United_States_Secret_Service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._Un...